Originally posted by coven83
I think the best explanation for all of the odd occurrences that happened that day comes from Judy Wood
Originally posted by ANOK
Creep deformation does not do what we see in those pics lol.
What are you taking about? Are you admitting that the 2001 bombs were placed directly on the columns? But so what, the comment was not that important lol.
The important point you should focus on is the signs of extremely high temperatures, not possible from an office fires, shown in the steel. When those steel beams were deformed they were at a malleable temperature (temp at which the steel can be worked, or deformed), which starts around 2,000 °F (1,090 °C). There is simply no way that steel got that hot in an hour from office fires. For a start off the room wouldn't even get that hot in an hour, it would have to be much hotter than 2,000 °F to cause the steel to get to that temp, or even anywhere close...
Originally posted by Six Sigma
Oh? So, please enlighten me. What caused it? Oh..and creep wasn't the ONLY cause of the deformations.
Re-Read my post and try to figure it out.
You know nothing about creep and what temperatures this can start. .
steel.keytometals.com...
Start there.
Oh...so Anok.... I just purchased a few 12 foot steel columns. I need them bent into a horseshoe shape. Can you please tell me how to bend it? Will a bomb do it? Themite? Suitcase Nukes?
Originally posted by charlyv
So, here's the kicker. You need to be a metallurgist to understand, and even quantify on this stuff. So if you are not, then all the pictures and accusations fall on deaf scientific ears. Let real qualified people who study this stuff comment further, and state your credentials.
Beam theory shows that the I-shaped section is a very efficient form for carrying both bending and shear loads in the plane of the web. On the other hand, the cross-section has a reduced capacity in the transverse direction, and is also inefficient in carrying torsion, for which hollow structural sections are often preferred**.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by coven83
I think the best explanation for all of the odd occurrences that happened that day comes from Judy Wood
We're sorry, but Judy Wood's "work" isn't accepted in the 9/11 research community. She is a proven disinformation artist. Please check your facts and try your post again.
Great pictues, OP.
edit on 25-7-2012 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by ANOK
Can you answer that, without telling me to read some link you provide?
Gradually applied load....... shock load.
Your question is answered.
The factor of safety also known as Safety Factor, is used to provide a design margin over the theoretical design capacity to allow for uncertainty in the design process. The uncertainty could be any one of a number of the components of the design process including calculations, material strengths, duty, manufacture quality. The value of the safety factor is related to the lack of confidence in the design process. The simplest interpretation of the Factor of Safety is
FoS = Strength of Component / Load on component
If a component needs to withstand a load of 100 Newtons and a FoS of 4 is selected then it is designed with strength to support 400 Newtons...
Structural steelwork in buildings Factor of Safety - FOS- 4 - 6
