Chemistry/Physics Behind the Attacks

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The vast amount of aluminum in the building was from perimeter column facades and the aircraft. The aluminum was very thin and therefore conducted heat very poorly.

By contrast, the steel beams were thicker and would have conducted heat much more efficiently to other parts of the structure. Steel is known especially for this characteristic.

And that's why you're not seeing any glowing steel there Howard, despite the melted aluminum.







Note that the diagonals are 1” diameter rods. The top and bottom chords are simple angle irons. How long do you think that it would have taken that steel to heat up in a fire situation? You would have either the radiant heat of the fire, or +1,000 centigrade combustion gases, or even the direct impingement of the flames.

Where would these components have conducted the heat to?

The concrete deck? Not a lot of the steel was in direct contact with the deck. In addition, how long would it have taken a 4” deck to heat up with a full floor fire under it?




posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Nowhere in that quote does NIST say that they could not test the remaining samples. They simply say that only two samples showed heating of around 250 degrees Celsius. You're putting words in their mouth now.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
The determination of temperature exposure was contingent upon examining the cracking of the paint. If there was no paint on the sample, then they couldn't make the determination.

My question was, why was the paint missing? Did it burn off? In any case, we don't know what themperature those samples were exposed to.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Irrelevant because bare naked steel could've easily withstood the heat within those buildings. And it did.
.


Absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

Steel loses strength rapidly in a structural fire. That is why they apply fireproofing.

This has been an established engineering principle since they first started to build steel framed skyscrapers.

It is true that some types of structural designs are better than others in how long it takes to reach the point of failure, but you have to show that the WTC design was better than a typical box grid frame. Certainly not without fireproofing it isn’t.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Note that the diagonals are 1” diameter rods. The top and bottom chords are simple angle irons. How long do you think that it would have taken that steel to heat up in a fire situation? You would have either the radiant heat of the fire, or +1,000 centigrade combustion gases, or even the direct impingement of the flames.

Where would these components have conducted the heat to?

The concrete deck? Not a lot of the steel was in direct contact with the deck. In addition, how long would it have taken a 4” deck to heat up with a full floor fire under it?


external image

The heat wouldn't be conducted to the concrete; the concrete would shield the steel from the heat. The concrete would've taken longer to heat than you put on; it's pretty damned resistant.

Look at the Windsor Building Fire:



Guess what it was made out of? Almost entirely concrete, with just steel rebar. And almost all of it withstood that fire, which was obviously much more severe than the WTC fires put together.

And as you yourself said; not a lot of steel was in direct contact with the concrete anyway.


Having said that, I seriously doubt the trusses were as weak as NIST and FEMA make them out to be. I think this may be the main reason they're not releasing the original construction drawings. That, and the fact that we would be able to do conclusive estimates of our own. I would also ask for evidence of the "+1,000 centigrade combustion gases," which I also seriously doubt.


But nonetheless, the concrete would've protected the steel.


Edit: Damned pic displayed huge.

[edit on 13-2-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Looking at the NIST report it appears they only had 13 samples of core columns:

wtc.nist.gov...

And most were not from damaged floors I think.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Actually, all high rise's I've heard of that use concrete only have steel rebar and not big thick beams like you would see in the WTC Towers.


This is not true. One of the tallest concrete/rebar building in the world is the Pirelli building in Milan (it was struck by a small plane shortly after 9/11.) It is only 30 stories tall.

High-rise buildings are constructed of steel i-beam frames. Concrete that is added to the walls is reinforced with rebar.

[edit on 13-2-2006 by craig732]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Irrelevant because bare naked steel could've easily withstood the heat within those buildings. And it did.


Um, then please explain why they spray fireproofing insulation on the steel beams in the first place?


[edit on 13-2-2006 by craig732]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
You have voted HowardRoark for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Thank you howard for putting some of the things I was trying to say into technical terms. My fire-science engineering classes were many years ago and my memory is going in my old age!



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11The steel NIST tested shows no steel heated above 250°C; that is to say, 250°C was around the max that NIST detected.



Originally posted by bsbray11NIST only found evidence of 250 degrees (this was their MAX)




Originally posted by bsbray11From the NIST Report (emphasis mine):

External Source

Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC (p. 90).

Do you know what that means? They tested much more than just two samples!



But then when Howard sites NIST as a source, here is what bsbray11 has to say:

Originally posted by bsbray11NIST is also a very unreliable source, just from the large amounts of b.s. in general that they have put forth and their manner of conducting "research."


So bsbray, why is it that NIST is okay for you to use as a source, but when howard uses it a a source it is "unreliable"?

[edit on 13-2-2006 by craig732]



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
"So bsbray, why is it that NIST is okay for you to use as a source, but when howard uses it a a source it is "unreliable"? "

Because Howeird is a Neo Shill who will only defend the official version at all cost. Howeird is most likely a paid Shill ...... the Repugs have been paying propagandists and various sites for years to lie.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by inobmaz
"So bsbray, why is it that NIST is okay for you to use as a source, but when howard uses it a a source it is "unreliable"? "

Because Howeird is a Neo Shill who will only defend the official version at all cost. Howeird is most likely a paid Shill ...... the Repugs have been paying propagandists and various sites for years to lie.


It always amazes me how the name-calling begins when someone can't come up with a clear, concise response to a question.

I have read and re-read your response several times, and even if what you say is true I still don't see how it answers my question.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by inobmaz
"So bsbray, why is it that NIST is okay for you to use as a source, but when howard uses it a a source it is "unreliable"? "

Because Howeird is a Neo Shill who will only defend the official version at all cost. Howeird is most likely a paid Shill ...... the Repugs have been paying propagandists and various sites for years to lie.



Hi Zamboni, still trying to get around your posting ban I see.

BTW, It doesn't look like the firemen gave you the answers you were looking for, did they?



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Nice find Howard. I think everyone who believes anything other than airplanes and fire brought down the WTC should go and speak with the firefighters and cops that were there that day.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The heat wouldn't be conducted to the concrete; the concrete would shield the steel from the heat. The concrete would've taken longer to heat than you put on; it's pretty damned resistant.

- - -

But nonetheless, the concrete would've protected the steel.


How do you figure that? If there is a fire burning on say, the 74rth floor, how would the concrete shield the trusses supporting the 75th floor?

The superheated combustion gasses would be trapped along the top few feet under the slab.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Any superheated combustion gases would have shattered every window long before collapse. The fact remains that WTC7 was demolished along with WTC1 & 2 .......... no to mention the basement explosions that destroyed a 100 ton machine shop & parking garage upon first plane impact.

Howie never treads there does he ...... crazy shills just run in circles.

Oh by the way Howie I had 3 firefighters from that forum message me to say they can't publicly state what they really saw and that the shills on that forum have been paid to tow the line.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Where would these components have conducted the heat to?

The concrete deck? Not a lot of the steel was in direct contact with the deck. In addition, how long would it have taken a 4” deck to heat up with a full floor fire under it?



the concrete deck was poured into steel pans. you know this. a lot of concrete is in contact with this steel.
granted, the diagonal truss rods are relatively thin, as are the seats.

the perimeter columns, spandrels and core columns were plenty heat-sinky, though. floors sagged. yeah. however, the building stess distribution was described as a 'millipede', or 'mosquito net', and local failures do not equal global failures.
floors, clips and weakened floor trusses cannot possibly be responsible for pulling in massive air cooled, thick, interconnected structural steel, AND also be instantly going into free fall(that is the translation used to explain the massive, instantaneous conversion of potential anergy into kinetic energy), carrying the entire top of the tower with them.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
Nice find Howard. I think everyone who believes anything other than airplanes and fire brought down the WTC should go and speak with the firefighters and cops that were there that day.


Yeah, you might want to read what they say in fact.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by bsbray11
Actually, all high rise's I've heard of that use concrete only have steel rebar and not big thick beams like you would see in the WTC Towers.


This is not true. One of the tallest concrete/rebar building in the world is the Pirelli building in Milan (it was struck by a small plane shortly after 9/11.) It is only 30 stories tall.

High-rise buildings are constructed of steel i-beam frames. Concrete that is added to the walls is reinforced with rebar.


Ah, that's right. I think it was true with the Windsor Tower, too. There were like two major support regions on each floor, like a core structure consisting of only two steel beams encased in concrete.

The building was still majorly concrete, though, and it still did not suffer global collapse, or anything even remotely approaching global collapse, despite how freakishly bad the fire was. So the point still stands nonetheless: those buildings were mostly concrete, and look how well it withstood that fire.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
So bsbray, why is it that NIST is okay for you to use as a source, but when howard uses it a a source it is "unreliable"?


It's a debate tactic: use the other person's own argument/sources/etc. to debunk what they're saying.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join