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 Stumpy1
did a plane crash into that building as well? Don't you think that the force of impact of the plane coupled with intense wind force and gravity could have made a the WTC buildings collapse?
The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As stated before structural damge is structural damage if its casued by plane impact or fire does make a difference. Other steel buildings have had worse fires and structural damge then the WTC building and did not collaspe.
Originally posted by mrRviewer
there is a little mall by me that burnt up. it had steal beams on walls and ceiling.
the walls stayed straight but all the roof and ceiling beams are bent "extremely warped". if it had too many stories it would have collapsed. i doubt it got as hot as a cement steal building that was hit by a speeding plane filled with its burning fuel. there other unusual events of that day that dont add up but i dont think the power of steal is all powerful considering the hight and power of the impacts.
Originally posted by thedman
It had a core of high strenght
concrete up to 16th floor, above that steel was used for structural
support. Steel part of building collapsed, concrete left standing. Which
shows you one thing - concrete fire resistant, steel not.
Concrete has relatively high compressive strength, but significantly lower tensile strength (about 10% of the compressive strength). As a result, without compensating, concrete would almost always fail from tensile stresses – even when loaded in compression. The practical implication of this is that concrete elements subjected to tensile stresses must be reinforced with materials that are strong in tension. Concrete is most often constructed with the addition of steel or fiber reinforcement. The reinforcement can be by bars (rebar), mesh, or fibres, which provide the required tensile strength to concrete producing reinforced concrete.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
What effect would you expect from a wind in excess of 200MPa loading and where would you expect a failure (if any) to occur?
Originally posted by Pilgrum
Yes - which is why I feel it's not at all reasonable to compare what happened to wind loading capacity. An intense force was applied over a relatively small portion of a single face of the buildings unlike wind which is distributed.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
Considering that 200MPa is a pressure (applied force/area), doesn't the damage to the outer walls indicate application of a pressure far in excess of the wind rating was applied quickly enough to take advantage of the building's inertia?
Originally posted by Pilgrum
From what I've seen of the aftermath (post-collapse) I feel nearly all the steel came down stone cold, not hot. Only a very small portion was affected by fire before it came down but I hope we can agree that it did, fact, come down.
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by Pilgrum
From what I've seen of the aftermath (post-collapse) I feel nearly all the steel came down stone cold, not hot. Only a very small portion was affected by fire before it came down but I hope we can agree that it did, fact, come down.
But, then you have to think about what I was saying about the concrete in the Windsor.
If the concrete in the Windsor was strong enough to hinder a global collapse caused by the upper floors collapsing, what happened to the stronger uneffected steel in the WTC to cause a global collapse?
And why hasn't any official story come out as to why this happened? Just "it was inevitable".
Originally posted by Pilgrum
The fact that the 'other steel buildings' didn't collapse just says to me that they suffered less structural damage in relation to the design strength than the WTC towers did.
Originally posted by thedman
Seem to think that all the steel has to be heated to failure point - all you
need is to heat one small piece to its critical temperature at which it
begins to undergo deformation and then fails. When this piece fails
loads transfer to adjacent sections which in turn fail initiating collapse.