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.
Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.
Building fires may reach temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, or more than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, said Amit Varma, a Purdue associate professor of civil engineering who is leading the work
When you have a floor supporting weight, the floor starts sagging from the heat," Varma said. "It expands, but it's got nowhere to go so it starts bowing down, which produces pulling forces on the building's frame. It starts pulling on the columns and then it becomes longer and permanently deformed. After the fire, it starts cooling, and then it starts pulling on the columns even harder.
The floor assemblies tests were important because they were supposed to prove the pancake theory. Yet, despite NIST using less fireproofing on the assemblies than was known to be on the steel in the Twin Towers, and despite their loading the floors with double the weight known to have been on the actual floors, it could not get an assembly to collapse.
The tests showed: Minimal floor sagging; No floor collapse; The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th.
What is not reasonable is the degree of sagging NIST used in its computer models compared with the amounts its physical tests showed. Whereas the 35-foot floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle after two hours in a high-temperature furnace, NIST's computer model showed a sagging of 54 inches.
NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires -- 590,000 MJ of energy
Office furnishings in the impact zone would have provided 490,000 MJ of energy. Using masses and specific
heats for materials heated, a maximum temp in the impact zone can be calculated. The result is less than 600
degrees F. Assuming fuel burned with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left the impact zone, no heat escaped by conduction, steel and concrete had unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.
Jet A-1; Jet A
Flash point: > 38 °C (100.4 °F)
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)
Freezing point: < −47 °C (−52.6 °F)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
Density at 15 °C (59 °F): 0.775 kg/L - 0.840 kg/L
Specific energy >42.80 MJ/kg
NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires -- 590,000 MJ of energy
Office furnishings in the impact zone would have provided 490,000 MJ of energy. Using masses and specific
heats for materials heated, a maximum temp in the impact zone can be calculated. The result is less than 600
degrees F. Assuming fuel burned with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left the impact zone, no heat escaped by conduction, steel and concrete had unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Finally you come with something that addresses the subject. You are slowly getting the hang of it. Here are some follow up questions:
Where can I find these calculations?
Why was the temperature in the WTC significant lower than what was found in other building fires, without jet fuel?
Originally posted by turbofan
That's quite comical coming from someone who couldn't click a few links and browse PDF titles to find
the relevent documents. Remember, I had to hold your hand and link the pages?
Where can I find these calculations?
Interesting. The data is found in the NIST report (it's also quoted in the previous reply). You then have
to find the specific heat values for structural steel, and look up the formula on Google.
Actually, here it is. When you solve for Temp Final, the answer will be in degrees C:
Q(Heat added) = c(specific heat) x m(mass) x (temp final - temp initial)
For initial temperature, use the ambient temperature for that day.
Why was the temperature in the WTC significant lower than what was found in other building fires, without jet fuel?
Different bulding. Different fire code. Different fuel loading (as in combustible material) per square foot.edit on 17-11-2010 by turbofan because: clarify formula
Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Yawn! - another pointless thread about demolishion theories that convinced no-one - because trufers insist on clinging to whatever is in the realms of possibility rather than probability.
What is beyond the realm of possibilty though is that a group of people would spend months or yrs planning such a risky, high stakes, secretive, complicated operation - and then plan to wait an hour for the worlds media to assemble, photograph it from every direction - and then set off detonators on every single floor! - well not to mention 100 tons of thermate, nuclear bombs in the basement and disintergrator beams just for good measure, whilst phoning 4,000 of thier Zio buddies the night before and making a pile of money shorting the stock markets to boot - then off to a nearby rooftop to hold a dance party!
Originally posted by -PLB-
When does the truth movement come with a theory? All your points have a reasonable explanation BTW.
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by wmd_2008
What's your point about the bolts? It would contradict your 'truss sag theory' would it not?
Anyway, there's no need to debate whether the perimeter columns were pulled in, or how much heat was
in the impact zone.
The more important and over-ruling fact is molten metal was found.
If either you, or PLB care to debate the science behind the creation, and analysis of these spheres I welcome
you to either of my threads pertaining to this topic. As I mentioned before, you can hypothesize all you want
about temperatures, but your theories cannot explain the spheres (therefore your theory is invalid).
Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Yawn! - another pointless thread about demolishion theories that convinced no-one - because trufers insist on clinging to whatever is in the realms of possibility rather than probability.
Originally posted by Cassius666
Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Yawn! - another pointless thread about demolishion theories that convinced no-one - because trufers insist on clinging to whatever is in the realms of possibility rather than probability.
Excuse me? It is the so called debunkers who wear their tinfoil hat with pride and keep on trying to push their fantastic tale of special events and special circumstances and special science that only happened on that day. Tampering with the building prior to the attack is a far more reasonable explanation than a string of fantastic coincidences and unique events that only happened on 911 2001.
Originally posted by -PLB-You still havn't directed me to a study that supports your claim. I did not say you were already there, I said you are slowly getting the hang of it. There is a long way to go.
The interesting question is what values you put into the equation. So where can I find these calculations? ]Or are you telling me that nobody actually did them and put them on the Internet? You were for a moment slightly improving, don't fall back in the "go look for yourself" mode now.
Originally posted by turbofan
You don't pay attention much do you? I already stated that the specific documents you seek DO NOT exist.
All we have are papers written againt the NIST report. Remember, nobody was allowed into Ground Zero
to perform an investigation. Did you forget that important fact?
NIST didn't even perform an investigation, so you wont see me begging for a study that doesn't exist. NIST
used photos and videos and a bunch of 9/11 'majik' to make up their theories.
The documents I presented fully handle whatever information you need; they clearly highlight faults in the
NIST theory.
Aptitude is not your forte. Read my previous response again a few times and see if you can figure it out.
I even provided the formula because I KNEW you wouldn't look for it...yet you still reply asking for answers
which are right in front of you.
Maybe this is over your head? Ask a friend to help?edit on 17-11-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by -PLB-So on what basis exactly do you claim that the temperatures could not have been hot enough? Based on the opinion that the NIST investigation was insufficient? If so, that is a huge fallacy, and you should stop making that claim.
What really shows is that you are avoiding any real discussion. You refuse to link to anyone who already made these calculations so that we can discuss if the values he used were correct. Why is that exactly? Isn't that, the real science, the most interesting part of it all? The part where you can actually proof your are right?