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.
This simple experiment demonstrates, conclusively, that jet fuel did not bring down the towers/quote]
You performed the experiment?
Originally posted by sp00n1
Rivets?Load bearing structural supports haven't relied on rivets for a long time. [...]
Bolts are much easier to calculate.
Originally posted by Nygdan
This experiment is pointless.
They didn't say that the steel beams were melted,
they said that the rivets holding the beams together were weakened by the heat, and that caused their failure.
THe only way to experiment on this, besides engineering programms that study material and structural failure, which have been done and show that thats how it happened, to to replicate part of the structure, and put as much force on it as they would've experienced in reality, and then heat them with massive jet fuel fires.
This 'home experiment' basically ignores the hypotheses as to why the structure failed.
Originally posted by sp00n1
Forging a metal below crystallization temperature "cold-works" the crystals, resulting in grain size reduction, thereby inducing stress. This stress hardens the metal, and decreases elasticity, making it more brittle. Heating a metal back above crystallization temperature (which differs substantially for low-carbon alloy steels, usually around 1650º F) allows for recovery, recrystallization, and grain growth, a process known as annealing. Annealing makes a metal more elastic and less brittle, which means it can be deformed much more easily.
Originally posted by bluesquareapple
Unless they can reproduce the hundreds of factors that went into the collapse, I'll only be taking their tests with a grain of salt.
Also, for your experiment, how does heating a beam disprove a whole building collapse?
As for you saying "flame retardant office materials", looking around my office right now, the only thing that's fire retardant is my chair..
The precursor to this event was a plane crashing into a building. It sheared off the fireproofing for the steel, which made it more succeptable to fire. It's a well known fact that kerosene/jet fuel only burns for a few minutes at most, and in the case of the twin towers, it ignited any supplies in the offices that have any chance of burning.
Now, the buildings would be losing structural integrity. Just think of the game Jenga.. Without the full supporting structure, I believe the slightest wind may have also played a crucial role in the collapse. You have to remember wind will cause skyscrapers to sway on any normal day..
We've never seen the likes of these forces being acted upon each other, and hopefully will never have to experience it again.
Unless we can reproduce everything that happened that day, I doubt we will ever fully understand what exactly led to the collapse.
Originally posted by sp00n1
Yes, griff. I have three undergrad degrees; Comp Engr, Elec Engr, and Physics. I have studied lots of matsci and metallurgy. Matsci is an important component of understanding semi-conductors and computer bus conduction and electrical properties.
Originally posted by Griff
But, yet you take their reoprt conclusions seriously?
How about the very walls that your office is built of? They use gypsum board for a reason. That reason is it's ability to be fire retardent. Look it up if you don't believe me. It's rated at 2 hours. Longer than the fires at the towers.
First, prove the fireproofing was sheared off....not just by what the government says.
Second, the supplies you mention that burned. How hot do they burn compared with other hydrocarbon fires (jet fuel)? Clue: They are comparable.
Now, the buildings would be losing structural integrity. Just think of the game Jenga.. Without the full supporting structure, I believe the slightest wind may have also played a crucial role in the collapse. You have to remember wind will cause skyscrapers to sway on any normal day..
Wow, this is the first I've heard that wind brought the towers down. BTW, do you know what the wind was on 9/11?
We've never seen the likes of these forces being acted upon each other, and hopefully will never have to experience it again.
What, structural damage and fire? Potential energy converting to kinetic energy? What forces have we not seen before?
We could build the cap for WTC 1 and a few floors below it. Drop the cap a distance of 12.5 feet and see if it pulverises the whole thing. Oh, to be on spot, we'd have to have this experiment in fire also.
Originally posted by bluesquareapple
Originally posted by Griff
But, yet you take their reoprt conclusions seriously?
I never said that.
Simply having a door open or having any hole bigger than a pin will negate any ability put forth by these walls.. And yes, everyone follows fire regulations 100% as they were designed..
Petroleum/plastic products burn at about 1200ºF, whereas jet fuel burns at 1500ºF. There may have been other factors contributing to warping of the steel, I don't know though.. Clue: Weighs over 150,000 pounds..
You're obviously too busy picking apart my post to notice the post as a whole.
Again, you're too busy picking apart the post to notice what I'm saying. I never said forces we've never seen, I said: We've never seen the likes of these forces being acted upon each other, and hopefully will never have to experience it again. You're too busy trying to make people seem foolish because they don't have the same opinion as you.
Great sarcastic remark you made here.. Amazing way to prove what would happen if the top floors of the WTC would magically jump 12.5 feet into the air..