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.
Let me ask. Have you ever, in the line of duty as a firefighter, heard of partial collapses initiating a global collapse? Ever? Columns and all?
Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Can you explain how the steel had gotten hot enough to fail? NIST claimed the air temps may have been 1800 degreesF, which is the max burn temp of jet fuel. How can the air temp be 1800 degrees if the open air burn temp of jet fuel is around 600F? Does wood and office furniture burn at 1800 in open air, or are they implying that the towers were actually big jet engines?
Do you have a link to where NIST found that the steel had been heated anywhere near the temperature they are claiming(1800)??
Thanks
Originally posted by Griff
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
That temperature of 1800F or 982C is supported from at least 3 different sources.
Aerial surveying of the hotspots in the rubble fires indicated about 1000C.
FEMA analysis of corroded steel indicated long-term heating at around 1000C in a corrosive environment.
NIST assembled a group of typical computer workstations (desk, chair, PC, monitor, manuals & papers) as used in the buildings and burnt them with and without jet fuel as accelerant. The maximum temperature at the fire's peak (at ceiling height above it) was measured at, or slightly above, 1000C.
So yes - typical building contents could produce that temperature in a fire.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by gottago
Not trying to be misleading at all as I was only referring to the likely maximum temperature of such a fire in line with the question that was asked with actual supporting observations from reputable sources. Thermal conductivity characteristics of steel was not mentioned
Originally posted by thedman
One of the first things they tell you is "Never trust a truss" - all it
takes is failure of one component of a truss to fail and that entire
truss is compromised. As the truss fails stress transfers to adjacent
trusses which in term fail - entire roof unzips and collapses. Ever
seen overheated steel structural beam expand push out a wall? Seen
these on fire ground....
Google Video Link |
Originally posted by firehead
My name is Ethan Case, I'm a Mechanical Engineering student, and work at an Engineering firm in Manhattan.
If I remember correctly, steel is around 70 x 10^ something GPa, but thats neither here nor there.
As the floors fell, they acquired the weight of floors they fell on, plus momentum. It wasn't total freefall, but the acceleration of the falling increased exponentially as falling weight and momentum increased, so it was pretty damn close to it.
Originally posted by firehead
It wasn't total freefall, but the acceleration of the falling increased exponentially as falling weight and momentum increased, so it was pretty damn close to it.
Originally posted by gottago
But again, the heat of a fire and the heat transfer to massive steel beams are not at all equivalents. You don't need an engineering degree to know that.
And to cite the thermal hotspots/molten steel at ground zero as some sort of proof that such temperatures were reached by regular office fires is really jumping the shark.
That is turning one of the most obvious and important pieces of evidence of abnormalities in the collapses on its head; in NY, that's called "chutzpah"
Originally posted by ianr5741
Acceleration due to gravity isn't exponential. There is no exponential or logarithmic function in the equation. It's a constant.
Originally posted by firehead
My name is Ethan Case, I'm a Mechanical Engineering student, and work at an Engineering firm in Manhattan.
If I remember correctly, steel is around 70 x 10^ something GPa, but thats neither here nor there.