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.
Originally posted by pteridine
The flame temperature in a closed space is higher because of the radiative properties of the walls. Like a furnace.
Maybe things were internally failing for a while and what was seen was the final collapse. Just because it didn't look like your hollywood version of what should happen doesn't mean that it was planned.
The steel reacts the same way, which is why the building came down. It expands when you heat it. Heat one piece of steel bolted into a framework and it will expand and distort the framework. If the framework is strong, the steel will bend or break the joints.
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ANOK
I DID NOT SAY IT MELTED I SAID IT BUCKLED THE STEEL!
Typical conspiracy loon - twisting everything
Even if steel did not melt the fire caused it to buckle from the stress
What about the other examples I provided - in each case heat from fires caused steel to warp
Originally posted by pteridine
As much as you like the open air burn temperatures you find in Wikipedia, they are of absolutely no importance here.
Yes, a closed space is like a furnace.
Broken windows and air ducts provide the draft and the fuel is what is in there to burn.
No, it is not most efficient.
The air temperatures will reach 1000 C in an office fire. This does not need interpretation or estimation because it has been measured.
Even with air temperatures around 1000 C, it took a long time for the steel structure to heat up to even 400 C because it had much more thermal mass than the air, but as it heaed up, it still expanded. It didn't all heat at the same rate and didn't expand at the same rate, which was the cause of failure.
Originally posted by pteridine
The damage to WTC7 was not caused by a diesel fuel fire, alone, if at all. It was caused by a fire fueled by office furnishings, equipment, combustible construction materials, and paper.
Originally posted by pteridine
You said: "A fire would cause a gradual failing of structural components as they sag, you would not get a sudden and complete collapse of the whole building as if the structural components just gave up."
You believe this because it seems that it should happen that way. Maybe you are incorrect in assuming that your experience allows you to predict such a failure.
When I looked at video stills of the second plane from the underside a long"double bulge" extending the length of the fuselage could have been added as more fuel tank for greater distance or explosive capability. It was probably a drone plane and was probably guided from a nearby vantage point such as bldg 7.Then when Bldg 7 was no longer needed it was pulled. Who was in Bldg 7 that day is logically involved.