Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: WAY OLD NEWS DUHHHHHHHHHHHH Family of Brit Killed on 9/11 Presents Gov't With 3,000 Pages of Evidence 'Towers Blown Up from Inside' 

By: Zimbler0 in 6TH POPE | Recommend this post (2)
Mon, 06 Sep 21 8:41 PM | 37 view(s)
Boardmark this board | 6th Edition Pope Board 		Msg. 23384 of 60008
(This msg. is a reply to 23376 by Decomposed)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Decomposed > Is that believable? According to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers.


Ahhhh . . .
But was it necessary to actually melt the steel supports? Or just get it hot enough to bend and warp such that the weight of the floors above would have been enough to cause the collapse?

>>>
http://www.associatedsteel.com/does-heat-affect-steel/

Give or take a country mile; steels will melt around 3000°F. Whereas aluminum will melt around 1200°F. Short of those temperatures, you should not have to worry about your steel leaking off the shelf. Steels will begin to soften, however, at a wide range of temperatures based on their chemical composition and the thermal processing that got them to the current hardness.

Temperatures need not be extremely high to begin to lower the properties of the steel. Some of the very hard wear plates found in industrial applications (near diamond hard) will begin to soften at 280° to 350°F. You can cook a pork butt at 280°F.
>>>

What grade of steel was used in the World Trade Center?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/grade-of-steel-used-in-world-trade-center.htm

Even though the girders that comprised the twin towers wouldn't turn to molten steel in the jet fuel fire, they would certainly have weakened in the heat. In fact, one estimate says that they would have lost half of their strength at 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit (593.3 Celsius) [source: Popular Mechanics]. It's important to also note that other items would have caught on fire in the buildings in addition to the jet fuel, and could have contributed to higher burning temperatures.
>>>

Yes, De, you covered the same thing . . . I got hung on the second paragraph . . .

Zim.




Avatar

Mad Poet Strikes Again.


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: WAY OLD NEWS DUHHHHHHHHHHHH Family of Brit Killed on 9/11 Presents Gov't With 3,000 Pages of Evidence 'Towers Blown Up from Inside'
By: Decomposed in 6TH POPE
Mon, 06 Sep 21 5:39 PM 		Msg. 23376 of 60008

Zimbler0:

Re: “I'm having a hard time believing NOBODY would have noticed guys digging away the insulations”That was covered by the investigation that was done 15 or so years ago. TPTB concluded that the initial blasts blew the insulation off of the primary supports. That insulation was there to protect against FIRE, not against an explosion. Once the insulation was gone, intense heat from the burning of jetliner fuel was easily enough to warp the supports and bring down the buildings.

Is that believable? According to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers.

The finding is bogus!

Well, no, it's not:


In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble.

THAT, I think, is the best explanation we're apt to come up with for what brought WTC 1 and 2 down.

As for WTC Building 7, falling debris started fires on ten floors. Sprinklers were disabled by broken water mains from the earlier collapses. Heat caused floors to collapse, and the opened space led to the eventual failure of the vertical supports. No videos or witnesses heard any explosives, and they would have since explosions of that sort top 130db and are recordable a half mile away.

The one thing I'm not finding is 'How hot did it get in WTC 7?' Based on my earlier statements, it presumably topped 1,200° since that's where steel loses so much of its integrity. But without jet fuel, would it have?

All I'm finding on that subject is 'The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand' ... and ... 'Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building.' I guess that's what did it - but maybe one of you can dig further. I have to head over to the barn now, so I'm not going spend any time on this.


« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next