9/11

[James R]

I voted against Trump Three Times.

Congratulations. At least you're not part of the cause of that particular problem.

I never said anything about steel being removed from the building. That entire concept is stupid.

Okay. So, clearly there was enough steel in the building to support it. After all, it stood up until it was badly damaged.

I do not care if YOU think your questions are intelligent.

That's okay. I don't really care how much steel was in the WTC, either.

But you apparently do.

So tell me: why does it matter to you?

Or is that a personal secret?

 

[psikeyhackr]

That's okay. I don't really care how much steel was in the WTC, either.

That is The Problem right there!

The NCSTAR1 Report by the NIST specifies in THREE Places 200,000 tons of steel for both towers.

I downloaded the report on 2007 and read every paragraph that contained the words steel or concrete. Information on the distributions were not there. A 1959 IBM 1620 C.A.D.E.T. computer was used to design the steel distribution.

One peculiar thing about that report is that it never specified the total amount of concrete, which was 425,000 cubic yards. No one specifies the weight because two different densities were used.

You can regard yourself as intelligent in your ignorance as you want and regard me as stupid as you want.

I DO NOT CARE!

The collapses of the Twin Towers will remain a Physics Problem 1000 years from now. Some people may just wonder why some basic but obvious questions were not addressed by supposedly "intelligent" people.

ROFL

 

[James R]

That is The Problem right there!

What? Where's the problem?

The collapses of the Twin Towers will remain a Physics Problem 1000 years from now.

What's the problem? You still haven't said.

 

[Pinball1970]

You still haven't said.

Something about steel I think. It's weird that he keeps skipping over the fact that two planes flew into the buildings, travelling at 500mph, weighing 180,000kg, carrying 10,000 gallons of aviation fuel.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Something about steel I think. It's weird that he keeps skipping over the fact that two planes flew into the buildings, travelling at 500mph, weighing 180,000kg, carrying 10,000 gallons of aviation fuel.

ROFLMBAO

 

[James R]

ROFLMBAO

Huh? You mean, you don't accept that two planes flew into the buildings? Or what? What's got you laughing? Care to share the joke?

 

[Pinball1970]

One peculiar thing about that report is that it never specified the total amount of concrete,

Concrete now?

What sort of temperatures were reached in the WTC fires? You agree they had the three elements required? Heat, fuel and Oxygen? Now everyone saw the fires burning for an hour or so.
Do you know anything about fires?
A typical house fire can reach 650C in less than 5 minutes, the temperature when pretty much everything combustible ignites.
Less than 5 minutes....
Estimated temperatures in the WTC were around 1000C after 20 minutes.
Any idea what happens to steel at that temperature? What about at 600C?
The yield strength drops to 50%. At 1000C it is closer to a drop to 10% strength.


Concrete? By 500C it drops it strength by 20% Above 500C it starts to crack and by 800-1000C significant strength reduction and spalling.
That can happen when moisture is escaping explosively via build up of pressure within the concrete, parts are blown off.

What effect do you think that had on the WTC? An hour + of 600-1000C heat on the steel and concrete?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Huh? You mean, you don't accept that two planes flew into the buildings? Or what? What's got you laughing? Care to share the joke?

Search the thread and see who the FIRST poster was to say the planes had 10,000 gallons of fuel.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Concrete? By 500C it drops it strength by 20% Above 500C it starts to crack and by 800-1000C significant strength reduction and spalling.
That can happen when moisture is escaping explosively via build up of pressure within the concrete, parts are blown off.

What effect do you think that had on the WTC? An hour + of 600-1000C heat on the steel and concrete?

It is like you people cannot think of multiple factors simultaneously.

The steel held up the Weight of the Concrete and the steel itself. So the steel on level 5 had to support the weight of More Concrete than the steel on level 5.

So to think of the totality of the building the concrete has to be part of it. And the PLUMBING. I didn't mention the plumbing yet. And the water in the plumbing. Do you suppose that the toilets worked in the restaurant at the top of the building?

Temperature and thermal energy are related but they are NOT the same thing. Off the top of my head I do not recall the weight of a cubic foot of air but it is a lot less than one pound.

A cubic foot of iron is about 495 pounds. So how many cubic feet of air at 600° C are necessary to have the same amount of thermal energy as One Cubic Foot of Steel. Steel is 95+% iron by the way. Having air at 600 C doesn't magically make steel heat to its core to that temperature.

That is why the QUANTITY OF STEEL in the vicinity of the fire matters. There should have been more steel in the area of the South Tower because it was farther down the building. But then the South Tower came down first. Right after fire fighters got there and started reporting by radio.

 

[billvon]

One peculiar thing about that report is that it never specified the total amount of concrete, which was 425,000 cubic yards. . . .And the PLUMBING. . . . And the water in the plumbing . . . the toilets . . .

It also never specified the exact amount of Tic-Tacs in the vending machines in the World Trade Center. Sugar burns! I bet you didn't know that! It's like you conspiracy theorists don't know ANYTHING.

 

[Pinball1970]

It is like you people cannot think of multiple factors simultaneously.

I asked you some questions. Does steel and concrete start to fail at temperatures above 600C yes or no?

 

[psikeyhackr]

One cubic foot of air weighs approximately 0.075 to 0.081 pounds, or about 1.2 to 1.3 ounces under standard temperature and pressure conditions at sea level.

Under controlled test conditions the failure temperatures of steel and concrete can be determined.

How long it takes for steel to reach a temperature to fall even if the air temperature is 1000° C will be affected by the quantity and thickness of the steel. So not even asking about that is kind of dumb.

 

[Pinball1970]

Under controlled test conditions the failure temperatures of steel and concrete can be determined.

How long it takes for steel to reach a temperature to fall even if the air temperature is 1000° C will be affected by the quantity and thickness of the steel. So not even asking about that is kind of dumb.

So you are not sure how heat works? You not think a fire at 1000C will heat up materials in the vicinity?
Ever put a pan on the stove? How long till it heats up? Is metal a good conductor?

 

[billvon]

How long it takes for steel to reach a temperature to fall even if the air temperature is 1000° C will be affected by the quantity and thickness of the steel. So not even asking about that is kind of dumb.

Indeed! It might take almost an hour to reach 600C in a 1000C fire.

The first tower fell after 56 minutes of fire.

 

[psikeyhackr]

So you are not sure how heat works? You not think a fire at 1000C will heat up materials in the vicinity?
Ever put a pan on the stove? How long till it heats up? Is metal a good conductor?

How good a conductor it is will be affected by how thick it is.

Common H-Beam Sizes

• Small Structures: 100mm x 100mm H-beams for residential construction.
• Medium Structures: 200mm x 200mm H-beams for warehouses and commercial facilities.
• Heavy-Duty Projects: 300mm x 300mm H-beams for bridges, high-rise buildings, and industrial plant

You come across as though you cannot even imagine the supports of large structures. How many millimeters were the columns in the 92nd floor of the North Tower?

A 10 inch by 10 inch H beam of 1/2 inch thick steel just 3 ft long should weigh about 175 pounds. How much does a kitchen pan weigh?
.

 

[James R]

psikeyhackr:

You still haven't told us what you think the problem is with the steel in the WTC.

 

[TheVat]

Under controlled test conditions the failure temperatures of steel and concrete can be determined.

How long it takes for steel to reach a temperature to fall even if the air temperature is 1000° C will be affected by the quantity and thickness of the steel. So not even asking about that is kind of dumb.

You're so right! You are truly a genius to have thought of this, when none of those engineers and scientists studying the twin towers collapse ever gave it the slightest notice.

FAQs no. 16-18 might be relevant here.

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

Created: September 14, 2011 | Updated: September 10, 2021*

www.nist.gov

 

[psikeyhackr]

You're so right! You are truly a genius to have thought of this, when none of those engineers and scientists studying the twin towers collapse ever gave it the slightest notice.

FAQs no. 16-18 might be relevant here.

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

Created: September 14, 2011 | Updated: September 10, 2021*

www.nist.gov

Actually I am more interested in the collapse and it's timing than the fire. That is the issue of mass hitting mass and we are never told how much mass has to impact how much other mass at what rate to come down in less than 30 seconds.

This is in your link:

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers.

They talk about bare steel but the temperature has to rise all of the way to the CORE of the steel, which conducts, and they never say how thick it is.

If a beam is 30 ft long and not all of it is in the fire how difficult is it to weaken? How thick is it?

Which presents the peculiar problem of the South Tower being hit lower down and thus probably having thicker steel but that Tower coming down in less time even though the aircraft missed the core and a lot of the fuel exploded outside of the building.

So my point of the steel distribution data down the structures remains.

Your sarcasm is quite amusing however.

 

[psikeyhackr]

psikeyhackr:

You still haven't told us what you think the problem is with the steel in the WTC.

You keep asking questions that make NO SENSE to me.

The buildings stood for 28 years. I Never said that there was a problem with the steel. But for the buildings to stand, and withstand the wind the designers had to distribute the steel properly. The claim was that they were designed to sway 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph wind. According to ChatGPT it never got over 90 during the lifespans of the towers.

My point is that we do not have adequate data to explain the straight down collapse in less than 30 seconds. I prefer to concentrate on the North Tower because the 22 degree tilt of the top of the South Tower raises whole other issues.

 

[James R]

You keep asking questions that make NO SENSE to me.

Your fixation on the steel makes no sense to me.

The buildings stood for 28 years. I Never said that there was a problem with the steel.

So why the fixation about the steel?

But for the buildings to stand, and withstand the wind the designers had to distribute the steel properly.

Yes.

My point is that we do not have adequate data to explain the straight down collapse in less than 30 seconds.

Yes we do. Maybe you're unaware, but the collapse was a very high-profile event. That meant that it got a lot of attention following the events. Official investigations were carried out by experts, who wrote reports on the sequence of events and the causes of those sequences.

Almost all those reports are in the public domain. You have had more than a DECADE to read the ones you're interested in. In them, you will learn about what caused the buildings to collapse.

Why haven't you read the reports, psikeyhackr?