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

Originally posted by iandavis
Industrial grade tungsten steel will begin to liquify or melt at 2400 degrees FH. Jetliner fuel only burns at 1800 degrees tops. Problem right? Wrong!

First off, no ones knows what temperature the area surrounding the impact points of the twin towers were really burning at. There were other combustionable materials involved besides jet fuel that may have kicked up the temp, we just don’t know. No experiments or similar situations are on record to prove it one way or the other.

What we do know is that this type of steel weakens by 50% at only 1200 degrees. So even if the building frame didn’t melt, it’s not a stretch to believe it could weaken enough to collapse even if the temp was 1800.

One little problem with your post here boss.. The NIST reported STEEL TEMPS NO HIGHER THAN 250C (about 500F) in all but THREE of the WTC steel sample they tested.

So... at only 500F IN SMALL POCKETS how weak is the steel?

Even at 1200F the fire distribution would be random allowing the members/beams/trusses to heat and expand/war unevenly and at different times... this would not lend itself to a symmetrical collapse.

You are trying to mix gas temperatures with actual steel temps and you are way off base.

1200F fire temp DOES NOT = 1200F Steel think about it.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by Pootie]

wtc.nist.gov...

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed.

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels ...

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

reply to post by PisTonZOR


Steel, copper, and aluminum are among the very highest possible conductors of heat. Additionally, hardened concrete conductivity is also high. The higher the volume of conductor, in this case steel, the faster it wicks away the heat, and the more heat it wicks away.

In the WTCs, the steel core columns and the exterior columns contained massive amounts of steel. And the steel available for "sinking" included the steel in the entire length of the columns. It is unthinkable that even an efficient hydrocarbon fire without supplemental oxygen could heat the steel using even the maximum amounts of available fuel even burning highly efficiently over the maximum duration of possible time between the time of the crash and the buildings' destruction.

Given what is known about the efficiency of the fire, its duration, and temperature, it is impossible that these columns could have sustained enough heat to weaken them enough to cause them to fail.

This factor alone renders the official explanation unfeasible.

Please get your facts staight it wasnt the heavy exterior steel columns which overheated and caused the collaspe of the WTC buildings. What really caused the failure of the bearing members was the heating and sagging of the interior steel floor trusses. That building was designed to carry the majority of it load on the exterior steel columns. However, in order to maintain this type of const each floor must serve as a diaphram in order to keep the exterior walls from buckling. When the planes crashed most of the foam fire protection was blown off the light weight steel floor trusses. The resulting fire caused the sag and failure of many of the required floor systems. As these floor systems failed the bearing exterior walls lost there ridgidity and became unstable to the point where the weight of the undamaged floors above was just too heavy for the weakend building diaphram. At the time this was a new type of building system which is very stong as long as as each system did its job. THe heavy exterior steel beams carried the weight and the diaphram in the light weight floor trusses on every floor made the building rigid. Alot of folks seem to think that the steel would need to become molten for it to fail, in this type of building system all it takes is the failure=sag or collapse of enough floors for a buiding of this size until it just cannot hold it own weight anymore. This type of failure can cause a pancake type of destruction where once the exterior walls give way and allow the colapse of the upper floors the weight of the these upper floors basically rip each floor away from the exterior steel columns and cause the building to implode on its self. Once it starts it cannot be stopped. This type of failure is also what occured at building 7.