fire not hot enough to melt steel at wtc ? here's proof

Originally posted by AHCivilE
This fire alone would not have led to its collapse. The structural damage, however, did allow this fire to to weaken the steel (and heat it causing it to expand and cause greater stresses. to the point were it could no longer support the eccentricity provided by the missing columns. 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. That is not exact because of the fashion they constructed it in but its a good approximation. Anyone who really wants a feel for how large steel buildings should sit down with the AISC codebook. I mostly work and concentrate on reinforced concrete and stay away from tall building and stick to bridges, but I can assure you that 99.99 percent of steel structures would fail under this kind of duress.

Finally, someone who claims to be a civil engineer that shows that they know what they are talking about. It's funny that I read this today, when last night I was thinking about the eccentrical loads placed on the beam-columns from the newly made cantilever beam-column (after impact damage was made). I'd like to discuss with you many questions I have. I'm a structural engineer also but also have never designed a skyscraper building. Let's talk.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Sorry fellas I never said anything about molten steel or steel glowing red.

But it is downright silly to compare an office fire covering acres of space to a burner on either a gas or electric stove.

The comparison has no value whatsoever, as the conditions do not match up at all.

To expect the properties of a burner on a stove to somehow make a point about gigantic office fires is one of the longest stretches imaginable, and to be frank, is laughable.

Ahh yes, the gigantic fires ensued & the building collapsed..

Sounds like the nist report..

Whatever...

Your an idiot if you think thinking people will buy that & your an even bigger idiot for supporting it..

There have been numerous fires in steel buildings that burned a LOT longer than WTC 1 & 2 & they never collapsed. Oh but the planes..they weakened the steel..yea..so you have seen the internal diagrams of the towers? They were built to take multiple impacts. Looking at the diagrams 3 planes could have hit those buildings and they would have still stood. And even if they had collapsed they wouldnt have collapsed into dust.

Nothing pulverises concrete quite like a mini nuke..

Your scenario is laughable.




[edit on 6-4-2007 by Nonchalant]

Hmmm.. ok so a building that was not designed to withstand an impact of a jetliner gets hit. Jet fuel goes everywhere and ingnites, lighting everything (carpet, walls, floor tiles, pretty much everything) on fire. This occured a couple hundred feet up with fairly strong winds. I've been around fire a lot in my life and know from first hand experience that when you add any type of wind current to a fire with plenty of fuel you create a furnace type atmosphere. Once this kind of heat hits a steel beam, it heats the steel beam up. Now if you tried to heat just a cross section of that beam, nothing would really happen. But seeing it's steel and conducts heat fairly well, a large portion of that beam becomes heated, weakened and slightly begins to bend. Now mutiply that by as many beams as were affected. Now add the beams that were destroyed by the impact. Now add the weight of the floors above made of concrete, steel, glass, etc. I think you have a pretty good recipe for a collapse. As far as if any heat inside was enough to melt steel. I think at this point only the people up there watching it burn will know. I have seen some pretty amazing things happen with fire. Stuff burns that you would never think would burn. Things melt when they shouldn't. I'm not saying it happened but I sure wouldn't dismiss the fact that it might.
BTW. maybe someone should look at what was thrown together to create that batch of steel for the tower. That would give you a good starting point. It might have been made of cheap metals that are more likely to bend or been very rigid and prone to shattering. Hell, might have even had some type of alloy in it that when heated to a certian temp would ignite... I don't know but check it out.

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Nothing pulverises concrete quite like a mini nuke..

Your scenario is laughable.

You mean your mini nuke that caused no radiation sickness, no massive increase in radiation, no EMP, and none of several other effects caused by a nuclear blast?

As for the tritiated water, there were many things in the towers that had small amounts of tritium in them that could have caused that effect.

[edit on 4/6/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Sorry fellas I never said anything about molten steel or steel glowing red.

But it is downright silly to compare an office fire covering acres of space to a burner on either a gas or electric stove.

The comparison has no value whatsoever, as the conditions do not match up at all.

To expect the properties of a burner on a stove to somehow make a point about gigantic office fires is one of the longest stretches imaginable, and to be frank, is laughable.

You're right it is laughable. The burner is a resistor to an electric current, and the steel in the structure is a heat sink for the fire.

But your question was;

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?

And in this case I am saying yes it does. . .

The energy being applied to the burner is much greater than the energy of the fire being applied to the steel & here's why;

Take an oxy-acetelene torch & apply it directy to an I beam. It won't take very long for the steel molecules to be compromised & break down. ( This is the electricity/burner. )

Take the same torch & back up a foot or two & see how long it takes to produce the same result, ( if you can. ). ( This is the fire/steel. )

The reason for this is because in the first example the heat is so intense that the only area of the I beam used in the equation is the small portion directly heated by the torch, and the area directly adjacent to it. The rest of the I beam is moot. In the second example the heat is not intense enough to take the rest of the I beam out of the equation, and it takes much longer because the applied energy is dispersed throughout the whole steel beam.

The concentration of the electric current is much more intense than the concentration of heat applied to the steel. The applied electric energy excites the molecules of the burner greater than the applied heat energy excites the molecules of the steel, and therefore the electric burner is hotter.

I do not believe the heat from the fires was hot enough to be considered to represent the first example, but rather the second, to which I do not believe there was enough time to produce the compromise that we saw in one hour.

And as bsbray previously stated; TOTALLY SYMETRICAL! No way. . .

2PacSade-

clarified sentence structure

[edit on 6-4-2007 by 2PacSade]

Originally posted by pointman1921
Hmmm.. ok so a building that was not designed to withstand an impact of a jetliner gets hit. Jet fuel goes everywhere and ingnites, lighting everything (carpet, walls, floor tiles, pretty much everything) on fire. This occured a couple hundred feet up with fairly strong winds. I've been around fire a lot in my life and know from first hand experience that when you add any type of wind current to a fire with plenty of fuel you create a furnace type atmosphere.

We talked about this yesterday, it may make the fire spread, but unless the air was heated prior to being applied to the "furnace/fire", it will do nothing but cool it down.

Once this kind of heat hits a steel beam, it heats the steel beam up. Now if you tried to heat just a cross section of that beam, nothing would really happen. But seeing it's steel and conducts heat fairly well, a large portion of that beam becomes heated, weakened and slightly begins to bend. Now mutiply that by as many beams as were affected. . .

I think exactly the opposite. If you concentrated the heat to a cross section you would get failure quite sooner than applying the heat to a large chunk of steel. Therefore "all the beams affected" would do nothing except keep them cooler longer, and not let one area heat up.

2PacSade-

To any and all supporters of the official story on how the towers collapsed, I have a very simple question.

If it was just structural failure due to the crash of planes and fires, and we know the fires were not hot enough to melt steel but maybe was hot enough to weaken it, then what the heck is causing that molten metal that is pouring out of the corner of the building in the video?

Ok I have a question to all the official story supporters:

You beleive that the steel was weakened but not melted. But the question is what the hell is all the molten "Iron" that was found at the base of the towers that remained hot for weeks after the collaps?

You have to ask yourself, where did all the energy to melt all that stuff come from?

The answere is simple, it was not from fuel fires.

PS..... For those who think the floors below should have stood, take approximately 3/8 to 5/8 of what you think you could lift (approximately the what we design for in structures compared to standard load) and then have someone drop it from 8 feet up and let's see you catch it.

That was a fantastic analogy.

So esdad71, you support the official story. Care to answer my question in my previous post?

Or will you ignore it like you did my other question in your thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not picking on you, just looking for answers.

Originally posted by esdad71
That was a fantastic analogy.

Yes, coming from someone whose expertise is probably only in static loading.

The only paper I'm aware of addressing motion in structures like steel frames is a paper by C. R. Calladine and R. W. English, titled, "Strain-rate and Inertia Effects in the Collapse of Two Types of Energy-Absorbing Structure".

The dynamic collapse of energy-absorbing structures is more difficult to understand than the corresponding quasi-static collapse, on account of two effects which may be described as the "strain-rate factor" and the "inertia factor" respectively. The first of these is a material property whereby the yield stress is raised, while the second can affect the collapse mode, etc. It has recently been discovered that structures whose load-deflection curve falls sharply after an initial "peak" are much more "velocity sensitive" than structures whose load-deflection curve is "flat-topped"; that is, when a given amount of energy is delivered by a moving mass, the final deflection depends more strongly on the impact velocity. In this paper we investigate strain-rate and inertia effects in these two types of structure by means of some simple experiments performed in a "drop hammer" testing machine, together with some simple analysis which enables us to give a satisfactory account of the experimental observations. The work is motivated partly by difficulties which occur in small-scale model testing of energy-absorbing structures, on account of the fact that the "strain-rate" and "inertia" factors not only scale differently in general, but also affect the two destinct types of structure differently.

At least take from this, which is real science coming from 1984, that just dropping a floor and saying it's going to sever as soon as impacted like an inelastic collision and etc. is simplistic and naive in a steel mesh of a structure.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by bsbray11]

too bad the first thing Mr.G did was send the metal to India and China.

The 911 conspiracy is getting old...too many inconsitancy

Originally posted by Zaphod58

You mean your mini nuke that caused no radiation sickness, no massive increase in radiation, no EMP, and none of several other effects caused by a nuclear blast?

As for the tritiated water, there were many things in the towers that had small amounts of tritium in them that could have caused that effect.

Did anyone besides FEMA or any other govt agency take radiation readings from any of the sites?

As for sickness from radiation, there has obviously been a lot of sickness & cancer deaths amongst rescue workers & other people on or near the sites on 9/11. Are any of them radiation related? Can you say their not? Could they have used a low-radiation nuke? Is there such a thing that we know nothing of?

The mini-nuke theory answers a lot of questions & leaves a lot less unanswered. It explains a lot of the evidence (or lack of it) at the site immediately after the event. More so than any other theory offered to date..official or unofficial..



[edit on 7-4-2007 by Nonchalant]

This is what the experts will tell you, if you confront him with all the mumble jumble 911 conspiracy. Take a lesson from the guy for Christ sake... youtube.com...

Originally posted by amfirst
The 911 conspiracy is getting old...too many inconsitancy

Yeah, it's so old that we're still waiting for a final report on WTC 7. . .

That, and the surveillance tapes at the Pentagon.

2PacSade-

Originally posted by Nonchalant
[Did anyone besides FEMA or any other govt agency take radiation readings from any of the sites?

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Nonchalant]

Hers is a report about radiation, but it blames it on uranium carried by the planes. Problem is the 757 and 767 do not carry uranium they use tungsten counterweights.

www.xs4all.nl...

On Sept. 11, I called a medical doctor who lives 7 miles from the Pentagon and warned her that DU could have burned in the hijacked jets that crashed (up to 3000 pounds were used in 747's). She turned on her gamma meter - radiation levels were 8 times higher than normal inside her house. She informed the Nuclear Information ResourceService in Washington DC[Phone: 202-328-0002], and the EPA, FBI, HazMat and other emergency response gencies went to the Pentagon to investigate.
A pile of rubble from the crash was radioactive, but the EPA rep said "oh... it's probably depleted uranium... it's not a health hazard unless you breathe it". Firefighters, Pentagon personel, and communities nearby DID BREATHE IT. There was no followup investigation, and what about the World Trade Center in NY? Radiation almost never gets into the media. It is a taboo subject.

From: "Dr. H. D. Sharma"
[Physicist]
It does not matter whether the planes that hit the World-Trade Towers and the Pentagon have DU or not as long as DU does not catch fire. If DU catches fire -- most likely it will just like in the case of the El-Al plane that caught fire outside Amsterdam (Netherland), it will form aerosols of uranium dioxide. Inhalation of the aerosols can be harmful to human health depending on the quantity inhaled.
The presence of aerosols can be checked with the help of a simple radiation survey meter. Such meters are readily available and the site near the Towers should be checked for gamma-ray emitters as soon as possible. If you do not see any radiation from adioisotopes of thorium-234 and protoactinium-234, you are fairly certain that no DU has become airborne and it is unlikely to be harmful to human health.
Hari Sharma.

You also had extremely elevated tritium levels measured in water samples taken from the basement of WTC 6 after they'd continuously hosed down the rubble for 10 days--which many speculate was as much to dilute the tritium as to quench the fires, which is a SOP for dealing with it.

Normal levels in Manhattan area water was surveyed at .1 and the samples at WTC were 3.53 and 2.58. That's a huge statistical difference.

A great source of tritium is hydrogen nukes, btw.

Official report here.

And do you have any idea how many NORMAL things in your life have small amounts of tritium in them? Or how much radiation? Smoke alarms for one (and I'm pretty sure there were a few of those around that got smashed).

Even a few responsible members of the health physics community have questioned tritium's use in exit signs, and alternatives are being developed. On 9-11, hundreds of tritium exit signs were pulverized when the Twin Towers collapsed. The dust was also toxic with asbestos and other pollutants, as well as radioactive so-called "depleted" uranium (and more tritium) from the airplanes. Thousands of 9-11 emergency workers now suffer from lung problems. A 14-year-old boy had a temper tantrum and smashed ONE tritium-laced exit sign at a child care center. The hazardous waste cleanup cost taxpayers a quarter of a million dollars.

www.animatedsoftware.com...

Tritium is used in a wide variety of consumer products such as illuminated watches, thermostat dials, and exit signs. Both the natural and human sources contribute to a worldwide background level of tritium.

enews.lbl.gov...

I think we can all agree that a few of those were smashed that day. If you bother to look you'll find that tritium is used in literally hundreds of thousands of products that have been produced over the years. 350,000 exit signs were produced using tritium, and there are something on the order of 400,000 products produced that have SOME amount of tritium in them. And that's just tritium. The things around you that expose you to radiation would amaze you if you only knew about them.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And do you have any idea how many NORMAL things in your life have small amounts of tritium in them? Or how much radiation? Smoke alarms for one (and I'm pretty sure there were a few of those around that got smashed).

Well for 1 why would they blame it on uranium in the planes? Didn't they think that people who now a little about planes or can do some simple research could find out that 757s and 767s do not carry uranium.