The Steel Down Of 9/11

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Please end the personal insults, off-topic sarcastic remarks, and name calling...
Discuss the topic, not each other.




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




Sagging is not going to change the tension, the angle of the connection are not going to change. Also just the tension changing would not cause failure.

It would change the angle and amount of tension at the connection to the core steel.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
It would change the angle and amount of tension at the connection to the core steel.


So why didn't the connections fail then?

Changing the angle of the connections, I doubt it did, would not put more force on the columns, the force would be taken up in the sagging and the connections, not the columns.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by coven83
I don't believe you speak for the whole 9-11 research community

I don't, but the 9/11 research community has, themselves, spoken. And quite clearly, I might add. I'm just passing along the facts.



edit on 26-7-2012 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Just because things dont look like what you assume they should be does not mean they are suspicious


This is a drawing of the truss connections



Can you understand how some items may or may not be bent in the direction you think due to the choatic nature of this event!

As for the CONTINUAL mention of office fires not being hot enough quickly enough.

Some data from one location of the Cardington Fire tests for an office fire!!!!

26.5 104 515 795
27.0 108 523 798
27.5 113 529 798
28.0 119 534 798

First column time in mins others temp in degrees C for 3 different locations

Here is some beam data ANOK

42.5 1053 973 936
43.0 1055 973 937
43.5 1055 971 935
44.0 1055 971 936

First column time others temps in degrees C

Now the temp v strength graph for steel.




Now for some STRANGE twist of logic it seems that ANOK and others have forgot that the steel was under LOAD
.

Do you honestly think that say for the North Tower with around 15 floors above the fire the steel was not under load
or for the South Tower with 31 floors
Do you think that if it was heated up to 798 C or even 1050 C nothing would happen


I will say this again for the hard of learning on here NO ONE on either side of the fence can ever know much damage was done by the imapct fuel explosion and fires.

Did it cause damage YES
Can office fires reach high enough temperatures sorry but the answer is YES, ANOK

The rest is history



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Now for some STRANGE twist of logic it seems that ANOK and others have forgot that the steel was under LOAD
.


Nonsense.

I have explained many times the load makes no difference, the weak point doesn't change.

But as I have also stated many times the load didn't change, that is something you are claiming, and I don't agree. IF the load did change then it would have to be a significant change to overcome the structures stability.
You always ignore FoS.

First off I don't even believe the trusses sagged at all, let alone sagged, somehow gained extra load, and managed to pull in columns without the trusses themselves, or the connections, failing first.

IF the trusses got hot enough to sag the first thing that would happen is the steel would expand. The steel would expand in all directions, that includes length. Because the trusses were pinned between rigid columns, that were unmovable, the truss would buckle, it would not pull on the columns. For the truss to actually sag would take even more heat, and by that time the truss would have no rigidity to put any pulling force on anything.

Again you ignore the connections. IF it happened as you claim then please explain how the connections didn't fail first? IF the sagging created more force, that force would first be felt by the truss itself, and then the connections, wouldn't you agree?


Originally posted by wmd_2008
Now the temp v strength graph for steel.



And again you fail to account for heat transfer...


Temperatures of objects

It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.


Temperatures in flames and fires

That is you, the "investigator" making assumptions, based on a lack of knowledge of the subject at hand.

One hour is not long enough for indirect office fires to transfer enough heat to the steel to cause it to fail.

Sorry but you have failed to show how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns.

edit on 7/26/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Again YOU IGNORE actual data thats your problem office fires can get hot enough dowload the data yourself and see the change over time, the FOS would go out the window no pun intended as the steel heated.

I suggest YOU look up bolt loads recommended v ultimate to get an idea of FOS!!!!

The strength of the steel in the area of the fires would weaken, the load above that point would not change you also had the structural damage and on the day the tower struck second and LOWER down fell first BECAUSE of the greater load above the impact and fire


Here is data for a beam flange from the Cardington tests!!!! Time in mins temp in degrees c
Its NOT air temp its readings taken from the beam!!!!!

12.0 804
12.5 832
13.0 748
13.5 823
14.0 828
14.5 821
15.0 852
15.5 811
16.0 770
16.5 768
17.0 742
17.5 752
18.0 772
18.5 791
19.0 809
19.5 840
20.0 784
20.5 780
21.0 784
21.5 793
22.0 809
22.5 810
23.0 819
23.5 808
24.0 820
24.5 858
25.0 849
25.5 836
26.0 881
26.5 875
27.0 891
27.5 868
28.0 878
28.5 888
29.0 889
29.5 890
30.0 872
30.5 886
31.0 905
31.5 901
32.0 892
32.5 904
33.0 903
33.5 903
34.0 901
34.5 931
35.0 935
35.5 952
36.0 977
36.5 988
37.0 1020
37.5 1058
38.0 1046
38.5 1065
39.0 1072
39.5 1078
40.0 1070
40.5 1064
41.0 1053
41.5 1055


Care to comment RATHER than ignore I mean you claim office fires cant get hot enough.

edit on 27-7-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-7-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Many of the photos are clearly the result of weight bending beams. those aren't the center core I-Beams are they but rather the truss H-beams? or Joyce beams connected to the trusses? So someone could post them and say this or that about them. many of them probably did twist up like a pretzel but that doesn't explain a few things. why did it pancake free fall speed (or a fraction off?) most experts believe that it would of collapsed then sank or slowed down then broke off to the side and fell that way. Some argue kinetic energy would of caused the pancake but even then the drag would have slowed it down. It would have started like a rubber band snapping and it picking up weight by displacing weight but then slowed back down. probably wouldn't have made it half way. now one of the towers snapped around a third of the way but the other started nearly from the top area which made little sense because it started to drop a dozen floors above. they both resulted in nearly the exact same fall speed of nearly free fall speed based on the location of their breaking point. And my biggest question is this. The center columns were pulled straight down. but only 6-8 floors exist in the basement. it's a massive swimming pool to hold back the waterline. water would have flooded that area so fast had it broke through. how did 90 of the 110 floors of I-beams sticking up go straight down. There are videos showing the beams and this is where Thermate (A form of Thermite) comes into place. You can literally see one of the beams dissolve .. it's not an illusion of the cloud covering it.. it looks like it's just dissolved in mid air. and they say crushed concrete would not turn to powder on the level that it was found. experts were confused by this. If there is a "Smoking gun" the columns looked like a firecracker fuse being lit and dissolving to dust.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   
I forgot to mention Building 7. I'm guessing it's CGI and fake but I saw for the first time of Building 7 with orange glows like implosions with the windows popping out in each of those explosions or implosions which is proper. then it crimps and falls. does anyone know of this video and if it's real or not? if it's real.. why was it never shown on TV.

edit on 27-7-2012 by stew4media because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by stew4media
 


Its fake and has been metioned on here!!!



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Again YOU IGNORE actual data thats your problem office fires can get hot enough dowload the data yourself and see the change over time, the FOS would go out the window no pun intended as the steel heated.


I thought your reply would focus on the heat, and not on the actual point of this discussion, that being sagging trusses having the ability to pull in the columns.

No one has ever said office fires can't get hot enough to cause deformation to steel. Problem is you don't pay attention to the details what is being said.

You have ignored the science of heat transfer (room temperature does not equate to steel temperature). You have demonstrated that you fail to understand the concept 'FoS', and why I mention it (the argument about steel losing strength when heated, and the ability to hold more load than it already was).

You think that you can take theoretical possibilities, and pretend that the WTC towers met the requirements for those possibilities. You present nothing to show that those requirements were met in the WTC. I personally doubt they were, but that is neither here nor there...

You ignore that again no matter how hot anything got, sagging trusses can not put a pulling force on the columns. You have yet to show how that is possible. Even if I allow you the possibility that trusses did sag, you still have to show that the sagging could pull in the columns. That is the pertinent point, not whether the trusses got hot enough to 'sag'. You seem to want to pretend that the pulling in is not even in question, because you have nothing to back up that claim, nothing.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Originally posted by ANOK
Well if you tried to do it while the steel was still cold you'd have a hard time mate. I don't understand your question really? I have already said it would take heat, more heat than an office fire can supply. What supplied that heat I couldn't tell you. Because I can't tell you doesn't mean you are right. Strange logic you have.
We have facts, and then we have speculation. I try to stick to the facts, you want to have a discussion based on speculation, because you are scared of the facts.
edit on 7/25/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


Care to explain the bold and underline above lets all look at actual office fire test data again
mins and temp in c this is steel temp not air temp!!!!
37.0 1020
37.5 1058
38.0 1046
38.5 1065
39.0 1072
39.5 1078
40.0 1070
40.5 1064
41.0 1053
41.5 1055

At 1000 c steel is at less than 5% of its strength.

YOU or anyone else CANNOT know exactly what happened was structural damage caused YES can office fires get hot enough to cause problems YES.

Deal with it!!!!
edit on 27-7-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Final warning guys.
No more loaded remarks, PERIOD...

That includes making slights against how intelligent you think another poster is, what their level of education on the subject is, etc... You could be 10K times more correct and intelligent then the person you're debating, but no one is ever going to know about it with a big old “911 trolling” tag over all of your hard work.

If someone snipes at you with a loaded remark, then alert that post to the staff here, DO NOT return in kind. This type of “sniping” creates a snowball effect that carries through the whole forum. No more “guessing” at who is a returning member. If you think that someone is a returning banned member, alert the staff and give your reasons, do not “out” them in a thread. No more discussing why any particular member was banned.

Now that's it, fair and final warning.
Carry on...



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




You ignore that again no matter how hot anything got, sagging trusses can not put a pulling force on the columns. You have yet to show how that is possible.

Consider this.
There were bent and damaged trusses in the impact. I don't think this is in dispute.
There were fires due to the fuel and then the contents. Again no dispute.
The steel expanded as per normal expansion rates in the rubble on the floors. No dispute.
But the steel could not shrink back to previous size due to the rubble pile. Disputable??
The fire runs out of fuel and starts to cool. No dispute.
The steel shrinks and adds pulling forces to the exterior due to the rubble piled on top of it. Disputable?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Creep deformation does not do what we see in those pics lol.



Sure it doesnt:

imageshack.us...

imageshack.us...

And yes ANOK, please explain this photo. How can wood survive fire while the steel failed! How? HOW??!!! Must have been alien tech:
edit on 7/27/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)
edit on 7/27/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Also ANOK,

you ignore the fact that steel remained hot and was actually rusting underneath the pile. Hell I posted many times before that large amounts of steel piled together rusting creates its own heat, hot enough to cause the steel to soften and even catch fire. I find it sad that of all people, those claiming to be looking for the truth, wont even bother looking into alternate and far more plausible causes of events seen, rather than trying to fit a square peg into a circle hole. I have posted before that iron ore ships have a fire hazard on board due to the rusting ore, which can and does get hot enough to cause fires. But I have not seen one iota of interest from you or anyone else to even begin looking into this alternate cause of heat in the pile for weeks. Hell, I believe this would be an even more interesting thing to investigate into the mysterious world of metallurgy and science. but no. We need to stick with magical explosives that explode loudly and quietly, while getting so hot to melt and bend steel, but leave no trace behind, act like thermite but explosively but it melts, but it doesnt cause it explodes. I mean it is dizzying all the BS the truthers make up and each time they constantly clash.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
 


Also ANOK,

you ignore the fact that steel remained hot and was actually rusting underneath the pile. Hell I posted many times before that large amounts of steel piled together rusting creates its own heat, hot enough to cause the steel to soften and even catch fire. I find it sad that of all people, those claiming to be looking for the truth, wont even bother looking into alternate and far more plausible causes of events seen, rather than trying to fit a square peg into a circle hole. I have posted before that iron ore ships have a fire hazard on board due to the rusting ore, which can and does get hot enough to cause fires. But I have not seen one iota of interest from you or anyone else to even begin looking into this alternate cause of heat in the pile for weeks. Hell, I believe this would be an even more interesting thing to investigate into the mysterious world of metallurgy and science. but no. We need to stick with magical explosives that explode loudly and quietly, while getting so hot to melt and bend steel, but leave no trace behind, act like thermite but explosively but it melts, but it doesnt cause it explodes. I mean it is dizzying all the BS the truthers make up and each time they constantly clash.


I imagine you're referring to Ferran's theory. I've worked for many years around very large piles of rusted iron, and I've never experienced this phenomenon. Nor have I heard of this ever happening. So what are the required conditions for this phenomenon to occur?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


Yes I am. To me that theory is far more plausible than thermite/high explosives causing long lasting heat and melting steel immediately and keeping it somehow molten for weeks.

What type of work do you do that involves that? I am just curious. I do not think you will encounter that happening in an open air environment. It would require being buried and allowing the heat to build, like in the cargo hold of a ship. I do find it is a complex theory and complex reactions requiring multiple reactions, but the science itself makes sense and it is easy to understand and put it together. it just involves chemical reactions that are occurring pretty much simultaneously due to the environment it was in and creating the conditions that helped warp the steel and burn it and even partially melt it.

I know the detractors will ridicule it and say things like why wont my car burst into flame when it rusts, or so I should just throw some steel together and let it rust to melt it. No, it is not that simple. I would much rather investigate this more and see if this indeed is what caused much of the effects we saw later.

Iron Burns!



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
If anyone's interested, the Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention published a five part series on the WTC steel back in 2006. Get the articles HERE.

About the journal from Springer:

The Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention (JFAP) presents information gathering techniques, technical analysis, and emerging tools that assist failure analysis professionals in determining the cause of failures and eliminating failures in the future. Uniquely, this publication contains current news and technical articles, as well as archival peer-reviewed papers and reviews.

Articles demonstrate the importance of failure analysis to product/performance improvements and industrial problem solving. JFAP benefits both the experienced and less experienced failure analysis practitioner with a focus on shared interest across the industries.

The journal is written for and read by individuals involved in failure analysis, materials scientists, and mechanical, manufacturing, aeronautical, civil, chemical, corrosion, and design engineers.

A journal of ASM International, The Materials Information Society.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Ok thanks. I'm not a chemist, so I really can't give an opinion until I look into it further. Oh, and I was working for a sandblasting and coating company maintaining and repairing heavy mining equipment and structures. Whatever couldn't be repaired was thrown on the pile. A couple of Euclids and half a dragline and you've got a good sized stack of iron.





top topics
 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join