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.
Close to 1,000 people are feared dead as chances dwindle of finding many more survivors from an aging Egyptian ferry that caught fire and then sank in the middle of the Red Sea.
Yesterday morning, Polana sank by itself, its hull damaged by high temperatures, Novinar newspaper reported.
The Achille Lauro is listing by at least 40 degrees and you can still see smoke and flames - the passenger decks on the stern side are burning and flames are licking halfway up the vessel," he said.
caught fire and sank; 357 people died
caught fire and sank; 580 people died
caught fire and sank; 100 people died
caught fire and the blaze swept to the entire vessel, forcing the ship to role over in 43 feet of water
caught fire and flipped on its side in the shallow harbor waters
Originally posted by Roper
You are correct coldain.
Fire weakens steel and it won't hold the load.
1. Ships are still not buildings.
2. Ships don't have a firm, structural attachment to the ground, so they're easier to "destroy".
In the end, the Navy settled on a plan to convert the warship into an artificial reef, a project requiring over three years and $20 million to complete.
The Russian-built and designed Sunburn -- known by the Chinese as the Hai Ying or Sea Eagle HY2 -- in particular is designed to be a U.S. carrier killer. It can fly at Mach 2.5, or two and half times the speed of sound -- around 1,700 miles per hour carrying an almost 500-pound warhead. And it can deliver a tactical nuclear weapon.
Originally posted by Long Lance
iow, a popped rivet will sink a ship given enough time. it's not that hard to imagine a hundreds of feet long steel construction which is buning hot on top and immersed in water on the bottom to warp to the point where exactly that occurs.
In less than an hour?
I will say this is an interesting comparrison but yes, totally different than a steel framed building globally collapsing.
Steel does weaken in fire. I'll give you that. It produces partial collapses or in the case of a ship, an area is weakened and punctures due to water pressure. The ship doesn't just start to collapse upon itself then sink. If that happened, I'd take this with a little more than a grain of salt.
The Yarmouth Castle keeled over to port and sank at about 6 a.m., about five hours after the fire was first noticed. It sank in about 1,800 feet of water.
Fires don't sink ships.
Chapter I - General Provisions(flag's responsibility blah blah blah. Home gov't is responsible for upholding this treaty)
Chapter II-1 - Construction - Subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical installations (Build a good ship. make it not leak)
Chapter II-2 - Fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction(Don't let it catch on fire)
As far as I know, no building in the world has sump systems that must be operating, control surfaces that must operate, nor ballast tanks that must be operating properly to keep the building erect.
Most of these ship sank only after they listed badly. Ships list when they are unbalanced. Say the fire burns off 1000 gallons of fuel from fuel cells on the left side of the ship. How do you think a floating structure is going to react with something like two less tons on one side? To add to that unbalance, people are naturally going gather themselves on the side of the ship away from the fire!
The whole misguided OP attempts to prove to the gullible that it is easy to die in a car if you lose engine power because here is a list of fatal plane crashes caused by loss of engine power.
iow, a popped rivet will sink a ship given enough time. it's not that hard to imagine a hundreds of feet long steel construction which is buning hot on top and immersed in water on the bottom to warp to the point where exactly that occurs.
Griff, why didn't you go after coldain, he started this?
Originally posted by coldain
..
Hmm apperantly almost every sea going country in the world decided that fire saftey was so important (Even though like you say it's not the reason ships are destroyed) It needs to be right up therein the same chapter as with multiple water tight compartments.
..
Originally posted by coldain
So why is it hard to imagine, that a 1,727' tall mound of tons is struck by a bomb, (I'm useing bomb for the word plane, as the plane i'm fairly certian struck with the force of at least 1 2k bomb) and set on fir 2/3rd's the way up is left to roast for an hour, the steel warping and bending, with a full third of the wieght of the tower above it. (We all know from being little boys and interested in in ninja's and stuff that in order to make a sword you get metal hot and then add the force of a hammer to it...) that it wont pop a rivot? or in this case a support beam. Or a floor joist, dropping double the weight onto the floors below it? and starting the proccess over again?
(Easy experiment, take a beer can put a cinder block on it, take a torch to the beer can and see if it holds up for an hour)
Originally posted by Roper
Griff, why didn't you go after coldain, he started this?
Has anyone calculated the tonnage of the buildings above where the planes went in and how much support frame was taken out buy the planes on impact?
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
A jet fuel fire would produce great quantities of smoke, which would reduce the radiant heat energy entering structural components. According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be.(Elaboration..., p5)