January 03, 2023
Why 911 Truthers are Wrong
Timothy Birdnow
On Facebook a 911 Truther said Jet fuel cannot melt steel. He noted jet fuel never exceeds 1890 f. while steel requires temperatures in excess of 2200 degrees.
But it may not have been the jet fuel alone that burned and this could have reached sufficient temperatures. Aluminum polymers were used in the building that may have reached over 2000 degrees, bringing it close to the melting point of steel.
At any rate man named Robert Norwood retorted:
Burning jet fuel does not have to "melt" steel to bring down the buildings..
It only has to make it soft enough to not support The tons of concrete and steel above it.
I reply:
I agree with Robert Norwood. See here.
It was not necessary for the fuel to melt the steel. It was enough what happened.
I wouldn't put it past the commie internationalists though. But I don't think in this instance this was the case.
End comment.
Now this article argues the polymer did not catch fire or it would have been apparent from the white light put out. Perhaps. But the structural integrity of the building was violated even if the metal did not melt. It didn't have to.
The Twin Towers needed the top part to remain in tact. Damaging the superstructure meant the lower portion would not ahve proper support to keep it from caving in on itself.
At any rate I do not agree with 911 Truthers. I think the physics of the situation is entirely logical.
On Facebook a 911 Truther said Jet fuel cannot melt steel. He noted jet fuel never exceeds 1890 f. while steel requires temperatures in excess of 2200 degrees.
But it may not have been the jet fuel alone that burned and this could have reached sufficient temperatures. Aluminum polymers were used in the building that may have reached over 2000 degrees, bringing it close to the melting point of steel.
At any rate man named Robert Norwood retorted:
Burning jet fuel does not have to "melt" steel to bring down the buildings..
It only has to make it soft enough to not support The tons of concrete and steel above it.
I reply:
I agree with Robert Norwood. See here.
"It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses
about half of its strength at 650°C.4
The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."
The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."
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.
End excerpt.It was not necessary for the fuel to melt the steel. It was enough what happened.
I wouldn't put it past the commie internationalists though. But I don't think in this instance this was the case.
End comment.
Now this article argues the polymer did not catch fire or it would have been apparent from the white light put out. Perhaps. But the structural integrity of the building was violated even if the metal did not melt. It didn't have to.
The Twin Towers needed the top part to remain in tact. Damaging the superstructure meant the lower portion would not ahve proper support to keep it from caving in on itself.
At any rate I do not agree with 911 Truthers. I think the physics of the situation is entirely logical.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
02:52 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 4 kb.
1
F'r cryin' out loud! Why is this coming up again? Has Rosie O'Donnell just had a baby?
Anybody with any sense knows that fire doesn't, and didn't, "melt steel." It merely weakened it enough that it fell. Any kid who passes sixth-grade science could have told you that!
Anybody with any sense knows that fire doesn't, and didn't, "melt steel." It merely weakened it enough that it fell. Any kid who passes sixth-grade science could have told you that!
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at January 03, 2023 11:01 PM (z7Oco)
2
Efficiently written information. It will be profitable to anybody who utilizes it, counting me. Keep up the good work. For certain I will review out more posts day in and day out.safety deposit boxes for sale
Posted by: safety deposit boxes for sale at January 04, 2023 05:38 AM (1WEOE)
3
I know Dana. I'm just amazed that this one won't die a dull death. It is, I believe, a measure of how little the public trusts our government and media these days.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at January 04, 2023 08:17 AM (BwaTe)
25kb generated in CPU 0.086, elapsed 0.2773 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2648 seconds, 186 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.2648 seconds, 186 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
