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 jaamaan
Still strange that there are these pictures of people standing in the gaps of the WTC where the planes entered, waving.
And their hairs where not set on fire with all this hot melting top class steel around them.
I find this strange to say the least.
things normaly go on fire when they are even close to melting steel right ?
Originally posted by HowardRoark
He was only on the lowest fire floor.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
He was only on the lowest fire floor.
Originally posted by BigTrain
Seems to me that these CT people want to believe that the Twin Towers were invincible. Planes at 500 mph couldnt destroy them, fires couldnt destroy them.
All Jim was trying to do was show you how fire affects steel.
And a few months ago I posted thread on how much a 300 degree F fire can warp a column and how much just a minor 3 inch midspan warping can reduce the columns carrying capacity. If you guys actually did some structural analysis all your doubts would be cleared.
Train
Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
Thats amazing, only 300 degrees can warp a column!!! i mean wow, i cant believe of all the office fires in highrises were rebuilt without reinstalling all these Warped columns!!!
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
Thats amazing, only 300 degrees can warp a column!!! i mean wow, i cant believe of all the office fires in highrises were rebuilt without reinstalling all these Warped columns!!!
I take it that you actually meant to say: “ i cant believe of all the office fires in high-rises were rebuilt without repairing all these warped columns.”
How do you know that they weren’t?
A lot depends on the type of fireproofing used.
Originally posted by whylistentome
Originally posted by Zhenyghi
One of the revolutionary features of the WTC was that the outer walls were load-bearing. This allowed for the large, open areas in certain areas inside.
When the jets crashed into to WTC, it disrupted the structural integrity of the building. Additional, secondary supports were inside the building around the elevator shafts, which were melted, or at least weakened by the fire from the jet-fuel from the planes.
With the loss of both of these means of support, plus all the weight of people, furniture, equipment, paper, etc., is there any surprise that the WTC fell?
Dear God dude. Seriously, think about it please! I hate statements like this.
First, the out walls were load bearing. Yes. So was the massive inner core. Look at the damage from the planes and where the second one hit. The damage was not enough to disrupt the buildings to the point of collapse.
Even if it were, let's just say that was the case, tell me how 20 to 30 stories of building can cause 80 to 90 stories of UNDAMAGED STEEL AND SUPPORT to collapse at ZERO RESISTENCE!!! Not possible my friend. Basic science. They fell at free fall meaning there was no resistence BELOW the top 20 to 30 stories of 110 story buildings. If the top 20 to 30 floors (I keep saying that because the two planes hit a different locations) fell then they would have simply collapsed down to the point of resistence or simply fallen off to the streets below. NEVER would they have brought down the STRONGEST part of the UNDAMAGED portion of the buildings.
I hate this argument and it just shows one of two things. A) You are paid to say this in order to try and keep the disinformation going or B) You have yet to understand the basic laws of physics.
I am not insulting you here friend. I'm simply trying to get you to see the facts outside of the facts. A building with 80 to 90 stories of undamaged structure will not collapse just from weight. They DEFINITELY would not collapse at the rate in which they did.
Originally posted by gordonross
The cause of the distortion of the beam in the bridge photograph was thermal expansion. By constraining the beam ends and thus not allowing the thermal expansion to take place, the beam would very quickly build internal failure level stresses. This would happen if the beam was subject to relatively low temperature rises, and the strength of the beam would remain relatively unchanged.
When examining the WTC with this in mind we can tell that some sagging of the floors may have taken place, since their thermal expansion would be constrained by the core and perimeter columns. The columns, by contrast, would have the ability to expand upwards when subject to heat.
Gordon.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Nowhere will you find anything on how to analyze a dynamic environment like a collapsing building. This isn't something a structural engineer would have expertise on. All the theoretical collapse models that have been presented are speculative and have not been backed up by any actual mathematics or testing or modeling or anything else, especially from structural engineers, because, again, this isn't their relevant field.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
Originally posted by gordonross
The cause of the distortion of the beam in the bridge photograph was thermal expansion.
Except that a bridge is designed to allow for thermal expansion. Ever see those metal plates that go across the width of a bridge? Those are called expansion joints. Guess what their purpose is?