Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site - Page 9

PokeReader · 06-28-2007, 02:55 AM

Quote:

1. How much strength would the steel have to lose for the WTC to collapse?

2. What temperature would the steel have to reach to occasion this loss of strength?

3. What was the temperature of the fire in the WTC; i.e., did it reach the critically weakening temperature?

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm

Quote:

Question 1:

In the original article, I cited my own experience that a support device must be capable of bearing three times the maximum load that would ever be applied.

It turns out that this rule-of-thumb is applicable only to dynamic loads, not static (structural) loads of commercial buildings. Since then, I have been informed by a commercial structural engineer that the standard ratio for static loads is five, not three. That is, if a bridge is rated to carry 1 ton, it should be capable of bearing 5 tons without collapsing at the time the bridge is built.

Going back to the fire at the WTC, we can see that reducing the steel structure to 60% its rated strength should NOT have weakened it to catastrophic collapse, because at 60% it would still support three times the rated load. The steel structure would have to be reduced to 20% of its rated strength to collapse.

Thus, even if the fire had heated the steel to 550 degrees C (1022 F), that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.

Question 2:

The Corus page on fire vs. steel supports (http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm) shows that the steel would have to be heated to about 720 degrees C (1320 F) to weaken the steel to 20% of its cool strength.

The text on that page discusses another change in the steel above 550 degrees C (1022 F): It looses elasticity and becomes plastic. Elasticity means that when the steel is bent, it returns to its original shape; it springs back. Plasticity means that the steel is permanently deformed and does not spring back to the original shape.

Springing back or not, our only concern with this page is to determine the point on the graph where the steel would be weakened to 20% its original strength, and that point is 720 degrees C (1320 F).

For steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F) is an important threshold, however, and we should not be glib with it. If a steel tower were heated to 550 C, loss of elasticity could mean that the tower would not spring back to the original shape after a gust of wind, and a series of buffets might cause the tower to fail -- if the strain exceeded the reduced strength of the hot steel.

Question 3:

Now let us make a guess on the actual heat of the fire.

Fortunately, a number of studies have been done under very similar conditions. In Europe, multi-storied "car parks" are often built of steel, and the possibility of vehicle fire is a distinct possibility. A parked vehicle, loaded with gasoline, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, upholstery, hydraulic fluid, etc. can cause a fire that seems very hot. A number of other vehicles could be parked close to the burning one, and they too could catch fire, with a general conflagration. Any number of cars could contain almost any household items from shopping, etc.

These materials are similar to the materials we would expect in the burning offices of the WTC: jet fuel (which is a refined kerosene, very similar to the diesel used in some European cars), oil, upholstery, etc.

A summary of the results of these studies is published on the Corus page. Go to http://www.corusconstruction.com/ and click on "Fire". Individual articles are listed across the top of the window. The fourth article, "Fire in Car Parks," discusses the temperatures of "any fires that are likely to occur" in a car park this web page is now at http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_137.htm.

Presumably, one car could catch fire and inflame other cars parked closely nearby. As explained below, "The maximum temperatures reached [in actual test fires] in open sided car parks in four countries" was 360 degrees C (680 F), and structural steel has "sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur."

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel.

--------------------------------

I'm really looking for all the scientific data I can to prove this thing one way or another .. but for now I think the US govt played a passive role in 9/11 happening.

Do you folks even read any of the other posts? This is not acurite information. The steel numbers are off, partially because you are using information from Corus, a extremely modern European steel producer whose quality is not the same as mid-1960's era steel. The numbers cited in my post, and from the SCIENTIFIC paper publiblished, are on the actual steel from the WTC building. Steel is not an excellent heat conductor. That is why it is so difficult to have it reach a liquid state, unlike copper. Long steel pieces that have segments are facing toward a fire or are in a fire, and have other segments that are facing away from the fire are well know to face buckling failures due to inability to share load evenly over the structural member, i.e. the collapse of the furniture store in Charleston. Why don't you read the paper, it completely answers these questions.

**kerowo** · 06-28-2007, 08:23 AM

You are under the impression that they care about facts.

AquaSwing · 06-28-2007, 11:13 AM

Post deleted by Rduke55

Don't post stuff like this again.

RoundGuy · 06-28-2007, 11:30 AM

Quote:

I love these threads.

BTW, what does everyone think of this theory?

ZOMG!!! The JEWS did it! I knew it. First they kill Jesus, then fake the holocaust, and now this....

Antisemitic link deleted by Rduke55

CORed · 06-28-2007, 05:14 PM

The whole issue of whether the buildings were "designed to withstand and airplane impact" is kind of silly anyway. The people who designed and built the towers may well have intended them to withstand an airplane impact, but engineering is not as exact a science as some people seem to believe. Engineering is actually a mixture of science, experience , a fair amount of guesswork, and usually trying to err on the side of making it stronger than it needs to be, but not by so much that you bankrupt the company. When trying to design a structure to withstand an extreme event, be it a hurricane, force 8 earthquake, or plane crash, there really isn't all that much data to go on, it's not practical to test it, and there may be things happening that you forgot to put in your model. As just one example, your theoretical calculations and wind tunnel tests on models may show you that a building is more than strong enough to survive a 120 mph wind. But, in an actual hurricane, tornado, or other high wind event, there is usually a lot of debris flying around, and this debris is what actually causes the damage, or at least breaks windows or knocks holes in the walls and lets the wind inside.

Once in awhile, the engineers just plain screw up. I'm sure the designers of the Tacoma Narrows bridge built in the '30's though it could withstand a 50 mph wind, but they were wrong, and the bridge shook itself to pieces and collapsed on a windy day just a few months after it opened.

The collapse of the towers was an unexpected event, at least to the firefighters trapped inside. That doesn't mean it was a conspiracy.

Nielsio · 06-28-2007, 06:19 PM

Just a little food for thought:

People who openly question the official story
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

100+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials

140+ Engineers and Architects

130+ Professors

100+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members

70+ Entertainment and Media Professionals

Reef · 06-28-2007, 06:35 PM

Quote:

why bring the buildings down during the event? What does that accomplish?

$2.2 billion insurance payout ?

Even more support behind the false flag terrorism since more lives lost?

Absolutely. And since Larry Silverstein had paid $3.2 billion for the WTC complex only a few months earlier, he would have only lost $1 billion in the deal. The opportunity to lose $1 billion is clearly motivation enough for someone to participate in a needlessly complicated plot to kill 3000 Americans!

It all makes sense now. My tinfoil hat is finally starting to fit.

Well obv he doesn't pay the full amount.. $124M down payment. These sources says it was a $7B insurance policy which would make more sense

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...amp;btnG=Search

Bill Haywood · 06-28-2007, 07:00 PM

My. What an impressive mass of critics. But despite all the info they provide, Nielsio is unable to stay on track with an argument.

Quote:

Just a little food for thought:

People who openly question the official story
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

100+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials

140+ Engineers and Architects

130+ Professors

100+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members

70+ Entertainment and Media Professionals

**kerowo** · 06-28-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Just a little food for thought:

People who openly question the official story
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

100+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials

140+ Engineers and Architects

130+ Professors

100+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members

70+ Entertainment and Media Professionals

So what is that, like less than 1%? Less than .1%? I am glad you are singling out actors and talking heads because lord knows I always turn to an actor for my technical information.

You are a kook.

Hopey · 06-28-2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Just a little food for thought:

People who openly question the official story
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

100+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials

140+ Engineers and Architects

130+ Professors

100+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members

70+ Entertainment and Media Professionals

So what is that, like less than 1%? Less than .1%? I am glad you are singling out actors and talking heads because lord knows I always turn to an actor for my technical information.

You are a kook.

Not to mention the fact that stating "I have questions about the official story" is MUCH different than agreeing with all of Nielsio's loony conspiracy theories.

I mean, *I* have questions about the "official" story. That doesn't mean that I believe there was a conspiracy.

PokeReader · 06-29-2007, 04:45 AM

Actually some of the insurers are still in lawsuits over payouts. With the cost of the the lawsuits and the loss of income for around ten years, the owners of all the total loss buildings will have huge financial losses, even with a best case scenario with the lawsuits, which may take 25 years to completely resolve. Meanwhile, most of the companies that used to occupy those buildings have moved entirely out of the city, and are very unlikely to come back. It will be years after opening before this building is fully occupied, and it will take years after that before it is profitable.

If you want to argue your conspriracy, fine. Just stop arguing it makes logically sense. It doesn't. I work for Democrats, and God's knows am no Bush fan. I was working that day as it was Election Day in NYC in Manhattan, and we lost people in the towers. However, this was not the U.S. government planning this. They didn't need to plan it to get it to happen. They just needed to be their normal incompetent selves.

Hopey · 06-29-2007, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Actually some of the insurers are still in lawsuits over payouts. With the cost of the the lawsuits and the loss of income for around ten years, the owners of all the total loss buildings will have huge financial losses, even with a best case scenario with the lawsuits, which may take 25 years to completely resolve. Meanwhile, most of the companies that used to occupy those buildings have moved entirely out of the city, and are very unlikely to come back. It will be years after opening before this building is fully occupied, and it will take years after that before it is profitable.

If you want to argue your conspriracy, fine. Just stop arguing it makes logically sense. It doesn't. I work for Democrats, and God's knows am no Bush fan. I was working that day as it was Election Day in NYC in Manhattan, and we lost people in the towers. However, this was not the U.S. government planning this. They didn't need to plan it to get it to happen. They just needed to be their normal incompetent selves.

Well stated. Unfortunately, it's this kind of common sense thinking that is completely ignored by conspiracy nuts like Nielsio.

BozMan82 · 06-29-2007, 07:52 PM

For Nielsio:

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&on ly

BCPVP · 06-29-2007, 11:34 PM

I've linked this article a few times when 9/11 conspiracies come up in Politics. Short and very readable from some demolition experts.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf

AquaSwing · 06-30-2007, 12:21 AM

Quote:

I've linked this article a few times when 9/11 conspiracies come up in Politics. Short and very readable from some demolition experts.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf

Quote:

while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the buildings with boxes of explosives

Finally some hard evidence on how the building was wired - suicide demolition experts!

LOL Middle-Eastern suicide bomberaments.

Thank you for waiting until response 133 to post this. If this had been the first response, the thread would have been over and I would have missed all the entertainment. What's next - the missile that hit the Pentagon?