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 Vinadetta
So, if we can't say for certain that the fires were hot enough to melt the steel, but we think that they were hot enough to make the steel loose it's integrity, how can that explain the massive collapse all the way down? The Law of Resistance would have the collapse happen at a much slower rate. Just think for a minute all the steel below that is unaffected by the fire. Can you really imagine the heat being transfered throughout all the rest of the steel in the building making it loose it's integiry as well? Yet, massive steel columns were projected outward from the building. Not even the core is left standing!!
Originally posted by numb99
I do not think anyone is saying the fires where hot enough to melt steel.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by numb99
I do not think anyone is saying the fires where hot enough to melt steel.
Check out the title of this thread.
I think the guy might've been talking about conservation of kinetic energy, where if two masses collide, the net kinetic energy stays the same because the velocity drops accordingly. So if a floor fell and hit the one below it, and stuck to it and pushed it downwards, then each floor should have seen a loss of velocity even if all the mass fell straight down.
In reality, most of the mass ended up going over the sides in both buildings, and what's worse, a lot of that kinetic energy was lost to pulverizing concrete into dust, sending so much debris out laterally, heat due to friction, and things like that. So on top of losing mass as the collapses went along, and falling into stronger and stronger floors as they neared the base, they would also have had to have been losing massive amounts of energy to do all those things that had been scratching their heads from the start. And yet the collapse didn't slow down the whole way down?
Originally posted by VicRH
I think sophistcated explosive devices explain how steel melted and was even vaporised: www.saunalahti.fi...
Originally posted by numb99
Originally posted by bsbray11
Check out the title of this thread.
Yes,,, fire not hot enough to melt steel at wtc
Originally posted by gen.disaray
im ALWAYS hearing that the fire was in no way hot enough to melt the steel and cause the wtc to collapse . well , here's some video proof of that happening
The falling mass was not lossing mass on the way down.
The conservation of kinetic energy says that a loss of vel. will happen at each floor, but it is based on the ratio of moving mass, huge, to stationary mass, small.
I could be wrong, but I don t think the floors got stroger and stroger on the way down. Each floor only held up its own wieght.
Originally posted by AHCivilE
Axial loads are easy enough to support, but when one takes a column designed from concentric load (either tension or compression) and subjects it to extreme eccentricity from an unbalanced load (where two columns are missing next to secure set one would have twice the load and an eccentricity that would lead to a moment approximately equal to ((typical distributed load shared over that section)* 8*(spanlength)^2)/11.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Which is why all four corners of WTC1 dropped at the same time, along with the antenna, which was held by the core, right?
As the fire weakened the steel on multiple floors columns failed. As columns failed their loads were added to the loads of the intact columns until it became too great, resulting in catastrophic failure.
We all know that there were plane crashes and fire, the most likely cause of the collapses.
I suppose you would have us believe that bombs/nukes/thermites dropped the tower?
Considering that almost every stuctural engineer or demolition expert disagrees or has serious problems with your pet theory doesn't bother you in the slightest, why would you expect the lone crackpots who believe in energy beams to sway someones opinion?
There is just as much evidence that I personally caused the towers to collapse with magical leprechauns as there is for bomb/nukes/thermite.
Nonchalant, if you believe that this:
Is in any way comparable to this:
Well it's no wonder if you accept the whole lie that is the 9-11 denial movement.
Originally posted by Nonchalant Clearly from these photos, the heat in the towers is nowhere near the heat generated by the stovetop. that is clearly visible by comparing the color of the heated metal in both pictures.
I can't believe that you actually believe that.
Wow. . .
Are you really trying to get people to believe that an electric burner on an oven burns hotter than a multistory fire burning acres of office space?
Originally posted by LeftBehind
I can't believe that you actually believe that.
Wow. . .
Are you really trying to get people to believe that an electric burner on an oven burns hotter than a multistory fire burning acres of office space?