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.

 

Behavior of steel framed structures under fire conditions.

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm finding about 36 ksi or 248 MPa for just mild steel up to the A569 standard.


This is what is known as A36 steel. There is also A50 steel. I believe both where used in the towers.


Not to mention the fact that, with such thin aluminum against such thick steel, even if the aluminum was as strong as the steel, it would still be ripped to shreds just because of its light size.


And then proceed to destroy the core. /sarcasm.




posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


One interesting story off the top of my head was the person stating the bridge explosion and collapse before both towers collapsed. If I could give you my WATS for the next year, you'd deserve them.



Right - that's a tough one right there and you'll hear other firemen's accounts of that as well. I'm glad you're finding them useful. Though I got a long ways through things, I never finished.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Right - that's a tough one right there and you'll hear other firemen's accounts of that as well. I'm glad you're finding them useful. Though I got a long ways through things, I never finished.


My hats off to you for putting those together. Why do you think they are trying to cover up that there definately was something happening at ground level also? It just strikes me as odd as to why they just didn't say, "yeah, they planted a bomb in the base to aid bringing them down". Well, they actually did but then retracted that. Why? It's strange.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Well, my personal opinion is that 19 fanatical guys hijacked 4 planes and downed 3 buildings and took thousands of lives on 9/11. My personal opinion is - there weren't just 19 fanatical guys involved and that they didn't just hijack 4 planes. I believe they prepared far more than has been admitted by the government. And I believe the government has not wanted to reveal to the U.S. citizens just how blatantly negligent they were and just how deeply these people "got to us". They don't want to admit that not only did 4 planes get hijacked, but the plan was so successful there were explosives planted prior to the attack and more people near the WTC complex probably remote detonating bombs.

They just don't want to let us know how bad these people beat the system that was supposed to be in place to prevent all of it.

[edit on 8-18-2007 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
That's what I thought. And actually have to agree with you 100%. The cover up IMO is a cover your arse scenario. I'm not sure we've spoken about that before but those are my beliefs too. Maybe because most of the evidence is from you and your posts. I don't know.


six

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
No responses, of course!


They study also found that buckling and warping failures don't occur from strength loss due to heat transfer, but from stresses induced from thermal expansion.

In other words, when steel gets hot and expands, this is the primary mechanism for warping and buckling in steel columns heated to 600 C or less. Not strength loss, due to the steel getting soft like spaghetti noodles, as some suggest.


bsbray11,
Jet fuel ( JP4 is what I looked up ) can burn up to temps of 2700 degrees F (1422 Degrees C ). Paper burns at 451 degrees F (232.7 degrees C )

I am not sure how tens of thousands of pounds of jet fuel can burn off in 10 to 15 min when tanker trucks with 8000 gallons of gasoline which weighs 50,000 lbs takes several hours. I think the 757 can carry approx 68,000 lbs of fuel for a long range flight.

Also quoteing or taking facts from a paper you are trying to debunk???

Very good post and research...I am trying to read it all in the small amount of time my two year old will allow...lol. Thank you again gentlemen for your research and commitment.

[edit on 19-8-2007 by six]


six

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
For those of you living in Tornado areas of the country you know that simple 2"X4"'s can be thrown through severall feet of reinforced cement without even spintering. I bet your aluminum plane travelling at speeds twice that which the tornado throws things out can do a lot of damage to steel I-beams!

Blades of grass have been know to be imbedded as much as 2 inches into the sides of house. How is that for damaging!!!!!

[edit on 17-8-2007 by traderonwallst]

I have personally seen a fork through a tree....About a 8" circm. tree. Slightly off topic...lol



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by six

bsbray11,
Jet fuel ( JP4 is what I looked up ) can burn up to temps of 2700 degrees F (1422 Degrees C ). Paper burns at 451 degrees F (232.7 degrees C )

I am not sure how tens of thousands of pounds of jet fuel can burn off in 10 to 15 min when tanker trucks with 8000 gallons of gasoline which weighs 50,000 lbs takes several hours. I think the 757 can carry approx 68,000 lbs of fuelfor a long range flight.



So are you saying you reject the findings of the NIST? Because they state the support structures did not see elevated temperatures for the entire time between impact and collapse and they state the columns did not see over 600 F and they state that most of the jet fuel was consumed in the explosion on impact.

You are stating all those NIST statements are wrong?


six

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by six

bsbray11,
Jet fuel ( JP4 is what I looked up ) can burn up to temps of 2700 degrees F (1422 Degrees C ). Paper burns at 451 degrees F (232.7 degrees C )

I am not sure how tens of thousands of pounds of jet fuel can burn off in 10 to 15 min when tanker trucks with 8000 gallons of gasoline which weighs 50,000 lbs takes several hours. I think the 757 can carry approx 68,000 lbs of fuelfor a long range flight.



So are you saying you reject the findings of the NIST? Because they state the support structures did not see elevated temperatures for the entire time between impact and collapse and they state the columns did not see over 600 F and they state that most of the jet fuel was consumed in the explosion on impact.

You are stating all those NIST statements are wrong?

What I am saying is is that jet fuel burns hotter than what has been said in this and some other threads. bsbray11 said 600 degrees , and I was just trying to point out that jet fuel burns hotter. Also was trying to point out that paper does not burn as hot as jet fuel. As for the NIST report I never stated I agreed with it all. I just think that temps may have gotten alot hotter than thought what with the jet fuel and fire/fuel load present at the time of the tragedy.
The tanker fire is just from experience.


[edit on 19-8-2007 by six]


six

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
NIST is after all a goverment report.....lol



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
bsbray11,
Jet fuel ( JP4 is what I looked up ) can burn up to temps of 2700 degrees F (1422 Degrees C ). Paper burns at 451 degrees F (232.7 degrees C )


Where'd you get this? Because even Popular Mechanics disagrees with you:


Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).


www.popularmechanics.com...

I could find you other sources if you also believe that PM is a bad source, because there are also plenty of legit ones.

In an open atmosphere environment, jet fuel is not going to burn at 1422 C. Not even close. Hydrocarbon fires all max out around ~820 C. That's in ideal conditions. If you have not-so-good conditions, like not enough oxygen, then you get sooty smoke, and that's uncombusted particles and it serves as a heat sink and etc. Those are what the WTC fires looked like, and those are more around 700 C. But around 820 C is about the absolute max in an open environment, where air is flowing and smoke is pouring out and etc. To get any hotter, you're pumping hot air into it and insulating it or something.



I am not sure how tens of thousands of pounds of jet fuel can burn off in 10 to 15 min


I thought we agreed that jet fuel is an accelerant? More energy released in less time... costs more energy per time.



when tanker trucks with 8000 gallons of gasoline which weighs 50,000 lbs takes several hours.


It would probably take years to burn out if the flame was only the size of a lighter's, for example. There are other specific other variables to consider than amount of fuel and the time it takes to burn off. The jet fuel in the planes was spread out over several floors, ran down the core shafts, etc.



Also quoteing or taking facts from a paper you are trying to debunk???


If you ever want a second source for something technical, I can always dig around for one. Or a third, whatever. Might be a problem for some eyewitness testimonies and things like that, but shouldn't be for this stuff.

[edit on 19-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Well, I guess my point, six, is that don't we have to operate within the confines of the data in the NIST report in order to address whether the NIST conclusions were correct or not?

I'm not trying to be pissy - I'm trying to make a point. This is my contention with the NIST report. It presents data and science - and then draws conclusions that violate it's own data. Kind of makes the whole endeavour a big waste of time on what was supposed to be one of the most important investigations in U.S. history.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I'm not trying to be pissy - I'm trying to make a point. This is my contention with the NIST report. It presents data and science - and then draws conclusions that violate it's own data. Kind of makes the whole endeavour a big waste of time on what was supposed to be one of the most important investigations in U.S. history.


Not even to mention that due to their conclusions (which contradict their research) they are changing building codes. That's what is getting to me about NIST. Faulty science that affects building codes.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
i hate to say this, but griff and valhall, you remind of the mother who can't admit her son has a gun and shot someone.

"it had to be someone else's gun. someone else did it. my son would never do that."

the evidence i see screams not lihop, or screwhop and coverhop, but mihop all the way. there are way too many 'coincidences' which greased the wheels of confusion and inability to act, one of the most outstanding being the passing of military authority to cheney for no apparent reason just prior to 9/11.

how did FEMA arrive monday night in preparation if they didn't know it was going to happen?

why did john o'neill get stonewalled in his investigation, and then put out to pasture in the very terrorist's target his investigations may have prevented from being hit?

why was the CIA in constant contact with osama, and how did a suspected terrorist charter the only flight allowed in america on setpember 13th?
bin laden's have more rights than americans on 9/13
seems like the aussie papers are more interested in the topic than american papers


why does the 9/11 commission omit and deny evidence, and why would the president not speak by himself and under oath to the commission?

"mrs. faith, i'm sorry, but your son bought a gun and shot someone."


[edit on 20-8-2007 by billybob]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
there are way too many 'coincidences' which greased the wheels of confusion and inability to act, one of the most outstanding being the passing of military authority to cheney for no apparent reason just prior to 9/11.


I'll admit that I believe there were elements that allowed it to happen.


how did FEMA arrive monday night in preparation if they didn't know it was going to happen?


Drills that just happened to be on the same day as the attack, I admit, are curious.


why did john o'neill get stonewalled in his investigation, and then put out to pasture in the very terrorist's target his investigations may have prevented from being hit?


PNAC and the need for the new Pearl Harbor. I guess that would mean someone had to be on the inside.


why was the CIA in constant contact with osama,


I wasn't aware of this.


and how did a suspected terrorist charter the only flight allowed in america on setpember 13th?
bin laden's have more rights than americans on 9/13
seems like the aussie papers are more interested in the topic than american papers


That is interesting.


why does the 9/11 commission omit and deny evidence,


Incompetence cover up.


and why would the president not speak by himself and under oath to the commission?


Incompetence cover up again. If you were Cheney, would you let Georgie do the talking?


"mrs. faith, i'm sorry, but your son bought a gun and shot someone."


I believe it's more like, "Mrs. Faith, your son bought the gun and lent it to someone and he watched while they shot someone". But, I guess that's just as guilty.


[edit on 20-8-2007 by billybob]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I'll admit that I believe there were elements that allowed it to happen.


Why were the floors blown out one-by-one?

Who's covering who's ass?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why were the floors blown out one-by-one?

Who's covering who's ass?


I wasn't aware that they were. Everyone.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why were the floors blown out one-by-one?


I wasn't aware that they were.


Ah, so you think the core was just blown and everything else happened on its own?

Alright, then why would it be important to blow the core and allow collapse at the impact zone? Why not blow everything all at once? Why is there a SEQUENCE for the charges that give the impression of natural failure?

My point was, the buildings may have come down via explosives, but they weren't brought down to look like it. Do you know what I mean?

Why would a terrorist, trying to hurt the US, go so far out of his way to make the demolitions not immediately obvious to everyone, when the same explosive energy being released all at once would be so much more "in-your-face" and destructive? Why not lay the buildings out across Manhattan?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Good points. That's why I'm torn on the subject.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob


"mrs. faith, i'm sorry, but your son bought a gun and shot someone."


[edit on 20-8-2007 by billybob]


billybob,

It's all a matter of perception - as is the case in most of the debates around this topic. You see me as the above Mrs. Faith. I see you as the D.A. who declares 4 college guys rapists when he doesn't have near enough evidence, let alone a trial.

It's a matter of what we each declare "preponderance of evidence", I guess. Apparently you reached your preponderance some time ago...while I am still jackloads away from my preponderance. That's about it.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join