It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jeremiah_John
There is no way that the core of the WTC collapsed without sections being severed by shearing charges. Absolutely no way in Hell is it possible in the most remote sense that 47 continuous box collumns 1000 feet high cross-braced throughout the entire core are going to break into consistent 30-foot sections due to a short-lived kerosene (which is what JP4) fire on about 10 stories.
The towers were blown to pieces by pre-loaded explosives. It's the only possible solution.
Originally posted by Sauron
Originally posted by HowardRoark
The vulnerability of steel in a fire has long been recognized as one of the greatest threats in a structure fire.
Jeff King from MIT / Engineer Research Scientist, said Steel keeps a lot of its structural integrity even when heated until you begin to approach the melting point you don’t really see a catastrophic loss in strength. The way the towers fell implies a complete loss of strength, impossible
Link
PlaguePuppy is the nom-de-net of Jeffrey King, a 50-something former engineer (MIT class of '74, about 10 years in electronics and electro-mechanical engineering), gainfully employed as a family physician for the past 25 years, but spending most of his limited free time for the past three years in trying to document and make available to the public and other researchers the photo and video evidence of the World Trade Center collapses.
Extreme earthquakes and fires cause steel structures to yield beyond their design capacity, exposing structural weakness and revealing collapse mechanisms.
Most designers commonly perceive that steel members perform badly in a fire event, and need to be fire protected in order to achieve the required fire resistance. This is opposite to handling of concrete members whose fire resistance is usually taken for granted. It is noteworthy that steel members, made of carbon and stainless steels, can be designed, depending on the applied load level, so that they do not need applied protection to achieve the required fire resistance. The exception is the light gauge steel sections which posses little fire resistance because they would heat up quickly if directly exposed to fire due to their high section factors. Nevertheless, the fire resistance of steel members can be enhanced by applying insulating materials to exposed steel to fulfil more stringent requirements in the prescriptive standards.
The typical prescriptive approach specifies the thickness of fire protection to steel elements to ensure the steel does not exceed a specified temperature for a given fire resistance period. In UK, the maximum temperatures of 550°C for columns and 620°C for beams supporting concrete floors are assumed. These temperatures are based on the assumption that a fully-stressed member at ambient conditions (designed to BS5950-1 or BS449) will lose its design safety margin when it reaches 550°C. The maximum temperature for beams supporting concrete floors is increased to 620°C since the top flange is at a lower temperature compared to the web and bottom flange. This is because the top flange is in contact with the concrete floor which acts as a heat sink.
Generally the 550/620°C maximum temperatures are considered conservative since the members are typically not fully stressed at ambient temperature. For instance, beams which are governed by serviceability limit state will not be fully stressed at ambient temperature and will have additional reserve of strength at the fire limit state.
The primary objective of this research is to develop a greater understanding of the phenomenon of lateral-torsional buckling of steel I-beams at elevated temperature.
A model for the fire resistance of lateral-torsional buckling of steel I- beams, based on numerical analyses, will be developed. For this proposal, the work will develop a non-linear computer program based on finite strip methods that will analyse this phenomenon.
At present, it is difficult to predict the response of steel structures in fires.
This paper argues that the structural fire resistant design criteria of tall building structures should be considered differently from those embedded in the current design philosophy where only stability of the structure in fire is considered.
This presentation investigates the large deflection behaviour of a steel beam under fire conditions taking into consideration the effect of the catenary action provided by the surrounding structures.
A restrained column, forming part of a complete structure, can have many types of structural interaction with the adjacent structure. As a result, the loading and boundary conditions of the restrained column in fire will be different from those at ambient temperature.
Originally posted by Sauron
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Originally posted by turbonium
The thing is, regardless of this, WTC 7 WAS NOT hit by anything, and lost NO fireproofing, and had MINIMAL fires. Yet it too collapsed in free fall time. Totally different strucure, totally identical collapse time!! Geez, what are the odds? Must be VERY high!! I guess we can thus conclude that they had best stop contructing steel framed buildings, as they completely collapse with the smallest of fires!! Oh well, back to the good old reliable mud and grass huts!!
Oh, Yes, WTC 7 was hit by something. It was hit by the debris from the collapse of the North tower. I have posted a number of eyewitness accounts from firemen on the scene that clearly state that the south face of the building was SEVERELY damaged by the debris. Just like the Duesche bank building was, only more so.
In addition, the fire protection for this building had two components.
1) Active measures, i.e. the sprinkler system. Unfortunately the sprinkler system was knocked out due to loss of water pressure. the other active measure is the act of fire fighting by trained fire fighters. As we know, the firemen were pulled from the building and from a 600 foot radius around the building early on, because of the obvious structural damage.
2) Passive Measures, i.e. Sprayed on fireproofing. Sprayed on fireproofing is typically rated in hours of protection. In other words a 2-hour rated fireproofing system will give you two hours of protection before it fails. A 4-hour system will give you 4 hours of protection. New York Building codes requires a 2-hour rating. The building burned for 7 hours before it collapsed.
Both systems have to work together. Without the sprinkler system, the fireproofing is only good for the minimum allowed rating. Unlike the Windsor Tower in Madrid, WTC 7 did not have concrete core columns to support it.
The vulnerability of steel in a fire has long been recognized as one of the greatest threats in a structure fire.
The vulnerability of steel in a fire has long been recognized as one of the greatest threats in a structure fire.
Originally posted by Lanotom
Decide for yourself by weighing the evidence of professionals who've given you the facts pertaining to 9-11 and not links to typical steel. You much consider the design and the amount of steel.
Originally posted by Sauron
Yea you might be on to something here Howard
img153.echo.cx...
[edit on 26/6/2005 by Sauron]
Originally posted by Jeremiah_John
You'd have to be a moron to believe that jet fuel traveling at 580 miles per hour is going to do a complete stop and pour down an elevator shaft for 800 feet then decide to explode in the cellar.
It's obvious where the jet fuel went - up in flames before it had time to pour into anything.
I guess Larry Silverstein is the luckiest man in the world. The only buildings to blow up that day were his. Buildings closer to 1 and 2 that took more damage are still standing.
Raging fire took down 7 in a perfectly controlled footprint. What raging fire? Oh, you mean the office fires from the government paperwork burning? Sorry, but that's not going to take the building down and there's no evidence of some 7,000 gallons of diesel burning, either. That would be a little bit obvious, like, massive pillar of black oily diesel smoke pouring out of the building.
Originally posted by Lanotom
MY god I am on the floor I cannot stop laughing.
Thats a gov site. You want me to believe.