How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

Originally posted by jfj123
[What post? Please be specific.

But the firemen who made it to the 78th floor of the South tower only reported small isolated fires. No big jet fuel fires.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


You missed this in my post.

Commissioner O'Hagan said that the absence of fire-stopper material in gaps around the telephone cables had allowed the blaze to spread to other floors within the cable shaft.

Asbestos was sprayed onto the steel. In high rise steel buildings, there are always going to be gaps of open space behind and between all that decorative facade placed in the interior of the buildings. Perhaps, I am not understanding your concept of gaps to which your refer?

They have to leave open space for maintenance, including any electrical or telephone wire, and cannot seal it up with anything that isn't removable. If they sealed with anything not removable, they could not maintain or repair when necessary

Heat from intense hot thermal energy fire can heat and melt the rubber or plastic coating on wiring, even if they seal it off with a box type design. The enclosed sealing will cause heat energy temperature to build up faster, than being in the open atmospheric air. If sealed, they would have to break out the entire seal to check any damage to the wiring.

They may have placed some type of asbestos retardant sheeting around the wires, but it would have to be removable for maintenance and repair. It would be something similar to the asbestos shingles still in older homes, when asbestos could be legally used. Asbestos shingles are a very hard material, but it badly flakes, cracks, breaks and deteriorates when not coated with paint, while explosed to any atmospheric elements inside or outside a building.

The WTC building did not have the core and exterior primarary load bearing walls sitting between floors as in most buildings. The core and exteriror load supports were attached to the horizontal beams, on which the reinforced concrete flooring was setting. Concrete is automatically a fire retardant. That would leave gaps on those areas of vertical attachment between the floors inside and out. That would be normal, considering the construction was so different than most buildings, where each support beam is sitting on a foundation (normally between floors after leaving the foundation floor).

What I find amazing is that without sealing any of the interior and exterior gapping, a much hotter intense fire did no structural damage in 1975. Why would anyone believe with those areas fire retardant sealed from a cooler kerosene fire could do any structural damage at all?

To get to the trusses, a fire first had to bring the drop ceilings down,and then climb 12' to reach the truss areas between each floor. I did not see any gapping mentioned around the exterior walls. It was all on the core side instead when I researched the fire. The exterior walls had massive size horizontal spandrel plates, that gave those close spaced tube supports much less room for any gapping between floors.

The core beams were massive box columns with a quite a bit of open space between each column. The core supports were each one continuous unit from the sub-level bedrock to the roof. They were attached to the inside horzontal beam floor supports.

Originally posted by MikeVet

Great info about jet fuel fires and the temps that they burn at. Thanks for the contribution.

Maybe you should do some research on typical structural fire temps and the impact that plastics can have on the temps before you make posts like these.

Just a suggestion.....

Plastic - petroleum based - spends more time and thermal energy melting and emitting dense carbon fossil fuel laden smoke, than adding to the heat energy of any fire.

www.teachingtools.com...

To Ultima - thank you for the additional and highly pertinent information. Excellent work.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
[What post? Please be specific.

But the firemen who made it to the 78th floor of the South tower only reported small isolated fires. No big jet fuel fires.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

My thought on that would be that the main fires started by the jet fuel had burned down to only a standard building fire. This of course is my opinion.

Now please answer my question regarding one of your previous posts

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by MikeVet
Maybe you should do some research on typical structural fire temps and the impact that plastics can have on the temps before you make posts like these.

Just a suggestion.....

Oh but i have, have you ?

As stated above, you said you have information about typical structural fire temps. Could you please post the info along with your source?
Thanks.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by MikeVet

Great info about jet fuel fires and the temps that they burn at. Thanks for the contribution.

Maybe you should do some research on typical structural fire temps and the impact that plastics can have on the temps before you make posts like these.

Just a suggestion.....

Plastic - petroleum based - spends more time and thermal energy melting and emitting dense carbon fossil fuel laden smoke, than adding to the heat energy of any fire.

www.teachingtools.com...

I have no idea what you're trying to add to the duscussion with this link. Perhaps you could provide something a little more useful, otherwise it just makes you look uninformed.

FYI - 2 differences between the '75 fire and 9/11 is that - (1)- no jets flew into them beforehand that removed fire protection and started fires on several floors simultaneously. (2) Firefighters were able to reach the fires and fight them, thus taking steps that would protect the building.

reply to post by jfj123


Did you get that from citing the NIST report? If so, it is highly misleading using only the word temperature.

Temperature measured where?

How much fuel?

How large of a fire?

How long did it burn to each range starting at 800 F and going to 1500 F?

Did they keep having to feed it accelerant liquid or gas (propane, natural, etc) fuel source to bring an undefined temperature up to whatever level of degree F?

Where was the temperature measured (inside or outside the flames or both)?

How many points of the fire were measured?

Was the fire contained or burning in the atmosphere?

Was the fire fed a purer oxygen source or burned merely in atmospheric air with no other oxygen mixed?

That is quite a range of undefined temperatures, which say nothing about the thermal energy, which is true heat temperature in flames. Flames are the part that can start to compromise steel, not the area outside the flame, which is cooler than the flame and varies in temperature, depending on the heat energy (color) at each level of flame. Flames have levels of thermal energy heat in each flame. Some cool and some hot.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Generally speaking, the coolest part of a diffusion (incomplete combustion) flame will be red, transitioning to orange, yellow, and white the temperature increases as evidenced by changes in the blackbody radiation spectrum. For a given flame's region, the closer to white on this scale, the hotter that section of the flame is. A blue-colored flame only emerges when the amount of soot decreases and the blue emissions from excited molecular radicals become dominant."

What should be noted, at the link above, is the photo of the Bunsen burner blue flame. The blue flame transitions in color, when blue meets the atmospheric impurities cutting oxygen supply in the blue flame. The Bunsen burner mixes the fuel supply with oxygen. Hence, the blue level of flame then transitioning in color, when blue flame meets the air we breathe so full of impurities, many of them detrimental to our health, particlarly in this day and age of Industrial Revolution technology.

I hope no one minds a little levity. If it is offensive to anyone, it is not intended that way.

Raise hands all who took high school chemistry.

Leave raised hands for all those who stayed awake during high school chemistry class.

Originally posted by MikeVet

I was substantiating that plastic is indeed petroleum based.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But the firemen who made it to the 78th floor of the South tower only reported small isolated fires. No big jet fuel fires.

just a question as i cant seem to find it anywhere...what did the firemen report the conditions on the 79th, 80th and 81st floors were?

i mean, i GET that on the 78th floor it wasnt so bad...what about the higher floors? any reports? if not, why not?

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by MikeVet

I was substantiating that plastic is indeed petroleum based.

Yes, I'm sure that everyone here with an IQ above 50 knows that plastics are petroleum based. This is exactly what I was referring to when I said you're not adding anything to the discussion. But the fact that you found it necessary to post such a link suggests that this came as a surprise to you. That says a lot....

But if you want to redeem yourself, include a link that backs up your statement about the burning properties of plastic. Otherwise, it sounds like you're sorely misinformed.

Thanks.

reply to post by MikeVet

You are certainly entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong that opinion may be.

I have given valid information for what I have presented and have substantiated that information as well.

Do you not think that substantiating one's statements is far more important than merely spouting off opinion?

Ahem

Please stay ON topic and refrain from personal sniping.

While the plastics issue is an important one, the last time I looked the topic was

How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?


If we want to get into thermal mass and buring points of plastics and resuting temperatures, by all means please start a new thread.

Thanks
FredT, moderator

Does aluminum cut steel? That is a highly general question. It depends.

1. Material specs and construction of each object - weight, gauge, density, length and width or circumference, etc. of each object

2 The exact speed and distance at which an object steadily travels toward another object.

3. Was the traveling object horizontal, vertical, or on any angle?

4. Did it come straight in or have to veer in the direction of where it would impact?

5. Was there any resistance to the object coming in on impact? If so, what was it?

That above is very pertinent to know, in order to proper evaluate whether or not any aluminum cuts through any steel. They are among considerations of what any reputable lab would use in testing, in order to almost exactly replicate any event being investigated.

How does aluminum cut steel is a far trickier question, and only applies if any aluminum cuts through any steel when tested. It may, and then again it may not. I depends on the variables involved.

Originally posted by Damocles
just a question as i cant seem to find it anywhere...what did the firemen report the conditions on the 79th, 80th and 81st floors were?

i mean, i GET that on the 78th floor it wasnt so bad...what about the higher floors? any reports? if not, why not?

Well for 1 i was stating that the firmen did not see any big jet fuel fores on the lower floors.

The report i saw stated there were only 2 small isolated fires on the 78th floor.

Since the wings hit about the 78th floor and most of the fuel is in the wings, if anywhere the jet fuel fires would have been around the 78th floor.

Drawing of where the planes hit.
i114.photobucket.com...

[edit on 27-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by OrionStars

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F.

Seems pretty black and white.

Steel melts at 2750°F.

Again seems black and white. If the number is wrong, please post correct info.

Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."

Please contact the American Institute of Steel Construction for additional info.

The info I posted include general statements about temp. and steel. The reason I posted this info. is that it shows the POSSIBILITY that the fire COULD have been within the range to WEAKEN the remaining steel supports. Other environmental factors may have increased or decreased the temp. of the fires.

Originally posted by jfj123
The info I posted include general statements about temp. and steel. The reason I posted this info. is that it shows the POSSIBILITY that the fire COULD have been within the range to WEAKEN the remaining steel supports. Other environmental factors may have increased or decreased the temp. of the fires.

POSSIBILITY,, COULD HAVE. Sounds more like a opinion then actual facts and evidence.



[edit on 27-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
The info I posted include general statements about temp. and steel. The reason I posted this info. is that it shows the POSSIBILITY that the fire COULD have been within the range to WEAKEN the remaining steel supports. Other environmental factors may have increased or decreased the temp. of the fires.

POSSIBILITY,, COULD HAVE. Sounds more like a opinion then actual facts and evidence.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

If it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me.
All I have done is tell you that it's POSSIBLE that the steel could have been weakened by fire and posted info as to why it is.

When are you doing to post your info???? I've asked you 4 times now to post it. It shouldn't be a big deal because you actually said you already had the info. Do you have it or not? Are you going to post it or not?

Originally posted by jfj123
When are you doing to post your info???? I've asked you 4 times now to post it. It shouldn't be a big deal because you actually said you already had the info. Do you have it or not? Are you going to post it or not?

I have already posted information on the fires not burning long enough or getting hot enough to weaken the steel.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
When are you doing to post your info???? I've asked you 4 times now to post it. It shouldn't be a big deal because you actually said you already had the info. Do you have it or not? Are you going to post it or not?

I have already posted information on the fires not burning long enough or getting hot enough to weaken the steel.

Here is what you posted

Originally posted by MikeVet
Maybe you should do some research on typical structural fire temps and the impact that plastics can have on the temps before you make posts like these.
Just a suggestion.....

Oh but i have, have you ?

Mike suggested you do research on a typical structural fire temps, etc.. as seen above.

I then posted this

As stated above, you said you have information about typical structural fire temps. Could you please post the info along with your source?

Thanks.

So now I'm asking you for the 5th time. Are you going to post the information you claim to have in your above statement? YES or NO?

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars

 

I may be "black and white" for you. But it is hardly "black and white" for any scientiest, particularly a forensic scientist.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by OrionStars]

Originally posted by jfj123
So now I'm asking you for the 5th time. Are you going to post the information you claim to have in your above statement? YES or NO?

I have posted it before but will keep posting it.

911research.wtc7.net...

Fires in the North Tower covered extensive regions, at least near the perimeter walls, of about three floors. Fires in the South Tower also extended over about three floors, but were more localized to one side of the building.

The fires were not hot enough to produce significant window breakage in either Tower. Window breakage is a common occurrence in large office fires, particularly when temperatures exceed 600° C.

The flames mostly remained within the buildings. Significant emergence of flames from the buildings, another common feature of large office fires, was only observed in a limited region of the North Tower.

The fires did not spread significantly beyond the impact region. With the exception of a region of fire about 10 floors above the crash zone in the North Tower, the fires remained around the impact zones.

The fires did not cause parts of the building to glow. At temperatures above 700° C, steel glows red hot, a feature that is visible in daylight.

www.tms.org...

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]