Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
The temperature at which steel melts is a constant, as is the temperature at which steel begins to soften; as is the construction of the buildings taking into account these factors to allow distribution of the building load in the event of steel "softening" in the event of a catastrophic fire.
|
No, the temperature steel melts at is not a constant. It depends on the alloys used to make the steel. However, this is a pointless discussion because the fire was in the 600 degree range, which is about half of what steel generally melts at. The steel didn't need to melt - it needed to be weakened.
The building was constructed so that if some of the supports failed, it would shift the load bearing to other columns. This means that is "one column" failed, it would still stand. But dozens of columns were destroyed by the impact, and many many more weakened by the fire. That was just the start.
What most likely caused the building to collapse was the angle clips that held the floors in place - the joints that attached the floor to both the outer shell to the inner core. Once enough of these failed, one floor fell onto another floor.
It's also possible that the outer box columns began to bow outward, leaving entire floors without support. In other words, the outer walls heated and expanded and moved outward, and the concrete floor - which did not expand - was pulled on until the joints holding it up failed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
Yes, they should tip. Pancaking was ruled out of the equation very early - NIST was challenged on their science and changed their "theory".
And heat dispersion being what it is, several impacted and burning floors could not have heated and softened every truss, every beam, every support column and joint simultaneously so that spontaneously they surrendered to gravity.
|
Can you show me a video of a building tipping over?
One floor failed to have enough support, and it fell down. DOWN. It did not tip over, it fell down. That hit the floor below it, which also fell DOWN. And so on. It wouldn't have tipped over because everything was falling DOWN.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
The pressurization argument is a fallacy because any hermetic condition in the building was compromized by the impact.
Besides if you look at the videos you see the building corners blasting out - not windows, not squibs, but structural supports blowing out in clouds of destructive energy - I doubt the fax machines or overheated water coolers did this.
|
That's incorrect. While there was a huge hole on the top of the towers where the plane impacted, every floor below it not affected was still in fact pressurized. All that air had to go someplace.
And this my problem with all the 9/11 conspiracy theories. There is a logical explanation for everything that happened.
But the big question is "why?". So we could attack Afghanistan? Afghanistan is a land locked country with no oil. Oh yeah, the pipeline? TEN YEARS later and that pipeline STILL ISN'T BUILT. I saw a new idea the other day saying that they did it because of asbestos. That was funny.