|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Conspiracy theorists say Structural and Civil Engineers haven't come out to support Jones paper because:
They can't believe the government would do this
They don't know it exists
They fear being killed by the government
They fear losing their jobs
They can't believe the government would do this
This assumes they think the government did this. Why would the scientists jump to the conclusion that the government was responsible? I know why a conspiracy theorist would but not a scientist. There are many other possibilities a smart scientist could think of, like Saddam working with Al Qaeda and hiring people to install the bombs. What about another country like North Korea? It could even be a home grown terrorist. You know, like some psycho angry with the government over a conspiracy to murder innocent Americans.
They don't know it exists
This could be true. The Scholars have been very busy enlisting politicians and running Zogby polls. They have little time to do things like reach out to civil engineers. Why would they do that? The most they would get from that is a critique of his paper anyway. They'll learn about it as they see the "Bombs Blew up the Twin Towers" tee shirts and bumper stickers anyway.
They fear being killed by the government
They fear losing their jobs
There are many ways to get a paper supporting Jones in the public. One way is becoming a "Deep Throat". Just as Mark Felt exposed crimes during Watergate, so can a civil engineer. There are many journalists who would love to win a Pulitzer uncovering the largest mass murder in US history. But what if you don't trust them? What about through a third party or the internet? The point is, the people killed in the towers could have been them or someone in their family. I have a hard time believing they don't have a single Civil Engineer with a spine or the brains to get a paper out anonymously.
Then again, people who fear the government wouldn't come out actively AGAINST Jones paper. You can expect someone afraid for their life/job to say "err... No comment" but not actively speak out against it. That's exactly what happened. Below are civil/structural engineers who have come out against his paper. Some of the most damning from his own university...
Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
April 09, 2006
Dear Editor,
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).
I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.
The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.
Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.
D. Allan Firmage
Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU
http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e
[Dr. Firmage uses unfortunate language in his letter.
"To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing."
I give that quote about one month before it's taken out of context...]
"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php?person=1&page=miller/vita.php
"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department
http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2
"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832�F."
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.
http://www-mae.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/WILLIAMS/williams.html
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1874
"Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D. in Physics
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y
The conspiracy sites are quick to point out these civil engineers haven't taken their valuable time away from their students, families and jobs to critique Professor Jones' 42 page unpublished report line by line. The inference drawn from this is they are just dismissing it out of hand without really looking at it. Or if they are looking at it, they're stumped by the incredibly flawless nature of this 42 page report. It's easier to just say it's wrong than have to address this masterpiece of forensic science. But why doesn't any civil engineer want to win the Nobel prize, write books, get on Oprah and become a national hero by exposing the greatest mass murder in US history? This is a little harder to explain.
http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm |
hey dude, i challenge you.
except rules are you have to paraphrase debunking 911, no cut and paste. don't worry, i'll trust you.
you up for the challenge? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nope that is all that 9-11 conspiracy theorsts are worth.
I am not going to spend much effort to debunk one theory when the answer will be ok what about this deal with this conspiracy now.
I would suggest you take the time to debunk the 9-11 conspiracy debunkers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Nope that is all that 9-11 conspiracy theorsts are worth.
I am not going to spend much effort to debunk one theory when the answer will be ok what about this deal with this conspiracy now.
I would suggest you take the time to debunk the 9-11 conspiracy debunkers. |
i'm trying. everyone has excuses. real good at the cut and paste but not up for a logical discussion with links. you know? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
No cause the only answer will be debunk this conspiracy next.
It takes far more time to answer then to make the charge. Refering the accuser to the correct site saves time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
No cause the only answer will be debunk this conspiracy next.
It takes far more time to answer then to make the charge. Refering the accuser to the correct site saves time. |
how do you know that is the correct site? i read it too and i think a lot of it is very weak. not all, but most, and escpecially the iimportant tidbits.
like. molten steel.
the only thing the give is a mathematicl equation showing that there was theoretically enough energy to melt steel.
however, theory is on paper, and the likelyhood of that happening, especially for WTC7 is very very low.
like i said before: enough energy in a box of matches to cook 8 cup pot of coffee
try doing that at home
there is no working hypothesis to describe molten steel except CDT
It is a mystery that has been openly reported on in the mainstream media. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
regicide is our obsessed resident Warren Commission Report denier. Each month, around the full moon, he posts yet another Kennedy-related thread. |
haha, no twin brothers.
this is real dude, you will find out one way or another in the future...educate yourself past screw loose change and debunking 9/11. it is all *beep*. research it. "Debunking 9/11 Debunking"...google it
peas |
You heard right, folks this guy believes the Warren Commission report.
Him and about 5 other people, mostly from this board.
And who has a screw loose?
The answers are not simple. But this simple minded idiot Yata Boy is just what people in power need.
Sheeples.
He is sheeple that Yata Yata Yata.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1Wmj9GPsQo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
You heard right, folks this guy believes the Warren Commission report.
Him and about 5 other people, mostly from this board. |
I remember a poll that found that 81% of Americans disbelieved the Warren report. 19% of 300 million is almost 6 million people who believe the Report. It is not such a small minority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
regicide is our obsessed resident Warren Commission Report denier. Each month, around the full moon, he posts yet another Kennedy-related thread. |
haha, no twin brothers.
this is real dude, you will find out one way or another in the future...educate yourself past screw loose change and debunking 9/11. it is all *beep*. research it. "Debunking 9/11 Debunking"...google it
peas |
You heard right, folks this guy believes the Warren Commission report.
Him and about 5 other people, mostly from this board.
And who has a screw loose?
The answers are not simple. But this simple minded idiot Yata Boy is just what people in power need.
Sheeples.
He is sheeple that Yata Yata Yata.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1Wmj9GPsQo |
He's a dyed-in-the-wool true believer, who just can't stand to believe that his government betrayed him. At this point if I was an American, I would be asking, when has the American government NOT been dishonest? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="loose_ends"]
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
No cause the only answer will be debunk this conspiracy next.
It takes far more time to answer then to make the charge. Refering the accuser to the correct site saves time. |
| Quote: |
| how do you know that is the correct site? i read it too and i think a lot of it is very weak. not all, but most, and escpecially the iimportant tidbits. |
then take it down
| Quote: |
like. molten steel.
the only thing the give is a mathematicl equation showing that there was theoretically enough energy to melt steel. |
ok
| Quote: |
| however, theory is on paper, and the likelyhood of that happening, especially for WTC7 is very very low |
.
according to who? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:07 am Post subject: Re: Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11 |
|
|
[quote="loose_ends"]
| Quote: |
Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement
Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11
SAN FRANCISCO, CA July 16, 2007 -- San Francisco architect Richard Gage, AIA, founder of the group, 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,' announced today the statement of support from J. Marx Ayres, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council.
�We are proud to have the support of Marx Ayres, a nationally recognized expert in building energy systems and earthquake damage to building nonstructural systems, in our search for the truth about the events of 9/11.�, said Mr. Gage. �He has signed our petition requesting a reinvestigation of those tragic events and he has now gone even further by providing his personal statement of support for a new investigation of 9/11.� |
You should read your own quote. We have an engineer who thinks we need a new investigation. It doesn't say that he agrees with any of the nonsense put out by the "truthers."
I think we need a new investigation. There are questions that need to be answered. We need to make a better determination as to the cause of the loss of structural integrity of the two towers. This would provide a valuable structural engineering case study in failure, if nothing else. We need to study the original design and determine the actual theoretical survival collision capacity of the structures. We then have two twin failures under slightly varying conditions to compare to the model. This is a great learning opportunity.
Of course, we have to go in with our eyes and minds open. But, we cannot accept the nonsense of the "truthers" sense it is obviously false on its face. It was created by people who have no clue.
There is no evidence of molten steel.
The buildings did not fall at freefall speed, and the calculations use the wrong distance of fall from the outset.
There is no evidence of thermite.
The "expolsions" are the sounds of joints, bolts, welds, beams, trusses, collumns, etc. failing. Go to a "Strengths of Materials" Lab at a major Engineering College and LISTEN. After you do, you will understand, and if you haven't (and architects do not take that kind of coursework) then you are unqualified. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:39 pm Post subject: Re: Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11 |
|
|
[quote="ontheway"]
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Quote: |
Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement
Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11
SAN FRANCISCO, CA July 16, 2007 -- San Francisco architect Richard Gage, AIA, founder of the group, 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,' announced today the statement of support from J. Marx Ayres, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council.
�We are proud to have the support of Marx Ayres, a nationally recognized expert in building energy systems and earthquake damage to building nonstructural systems, in our search for the truth about the events of 9/11.�, said Mr. Gage. �He has signed our petition requesting a reinvestigation of those tragic events and he has now gone even further by providing his personal statement of support for a new investigation of 9/11.� |
You should read your own quote. We have an engineer who thinks we need a new investigation. It doesn't say that he agrees with any of the nonsense put out by the "truthers."
I think we need a new investigation. There are questions that need to be answered. We need to make a better determination as to the cause of the loss of structural integrity of the two towers. This would provide a valuable structural engineering case study in failure, if nothing else. We need to study the original design and determine the actual theoretical survival collision capacity of the structures. We then have two twin failures under slightly varying conditions to compare to the model. This is a great learning opportunity.
Of course, we have to go in with our eyes and minds open. But, we cannot accept the nonsense of the "truthers" sense it is obviously false on its face. It was created by people who have no clue.
There is no evidence of molten steel.
The buildings did not fall at freefall speed, and the calculations use the wrong distance of fall from the outset.
There is no evidence of thermite.
The "expolsions" are the sounds of joints, bolts, welds, beams, trusses, collumns, etc. failing. Go to a "Strengths of Materials" Lab at a major Engineering College and LISTEN. After you do, you will understand, and if you haven't (and architects do not take that kind of coursework) then you are unqualified. |
You obviously have not read the link I posted earlier, by Jones. Your second point, that the buildings did not fall at freefall speed, is laughable. They don't have to fall at freefall speed to knock the official explanation down. Read the link, then pick it apart, or come back here with your condesencion. I doubt your scientific abilities are greater than his. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: Re: Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11 |
|
|
[quote="ontheway"]
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Quote: |
Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement
Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11
SAN FRANCISCO, CA July 16, 2007 -- San Francisco architect Richard Gage, AIA, founder of the group, 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,' announced today the statement of support from J. Marx Ayres, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council.
�We are proud to have the support of Marx Ayres, a nationally recognized expert in building energy systems and earthquake damage to building nonstructural systems, in our search for the truth about the events of 9/11.�, said Mr. Gage. �He has signed our petition requesting a reinvestigation of those tragic events and he has now gone even further by providing his personal statement of support for a new investigation of 9/11.� |
You should read your own quote. We have an engineer who thinks we need a new investigation. It doesn't say that he agrees with any of the nonsense put out by the "truthers."
I think we need a new investigation. There are questions that need to be answered. We need to make a better determination as to the cause of the loss of structural integrity of the two towers. This would provide a valuable structural engineering case study in failure, if nothing else. We need to study the original design and determine the actual theoretical survival collision capacity of the structures. We then have two twin failures under slightly varying conditions to compare to the model. This is a great learning opportunity.
Of course, we have to go in with our eyes and minds open. But, we cannot accept the nonsense of the "truthers" sense it is obviously false on its face. It was created by people who have no clue.
There is no evidence of molten steel.
The buildings did not fall at freefall speed, and the calculations use the wrong distance of fall from the outset.
There is no evidence of thermite.
The "expolsions" are the sounds of joints, bolts, welds, beams, trusses, collumns, etc. failing. Go to a "Strengths of Materials" Lab at a major Engineering College and LISTEN. After you do, you will understand, and if you haven't (and architects do not take that kind of coursework) then you are unqualified. |
what makes you so qualified? can you provide links to the proffesionals you are basing your opinions on?
also, he supports and signed the ae911truth petition. his name is listed as a supporter of ae911truth.org
that means he supports ae911truth hypothesis. do you think he would want his name posted on a site that is for 'nutty truthers' if he didn't support the movement? think about that.
you take your own short sided opinions as fact, and i'm gonna put you in your place everytime. unless you back your claims with links to proffesionals that you are depending on. remember, we are not qualified to judge this situation...right?
so where is your structural engineer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| regicide wrote: |
You heard right, folks this guy believes the Warren Commission report.
Him and about 5 other people, mostly from this board. |
I remember a poll that found that 81% of Americans disbelieved the Warren report. 19% of 300 million is almost 6 million people who believe the Report. It is not such a small minority. |
Since when didn't a poll which indicates four out of five people believe something not represent a majority? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject: Re: Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11 |
|
|
[quote="ontheway"]
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Quote: |
Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement
Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11
SAN FRANCISCO, CA July 16, 2007 -- San Francisco architect Richard Gage, AIA, founder of the group, 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,' announced today the statement of support from J. Marx Ayres, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council.
�We are proud to have the support of Marx Ayres, a nationally recognized expert in building energy systems and earthquake damage to building nonstructural systems, in our search for the truth about the events of 9/11.�, said Mr. Gage. �He has signed our petition requesting a reinvestigation of those tragic events and he has now gone even further by providing his personal statement of support for a new investigation of 9/11.� |
You should read your own quote. We have an engineer who thinks we need a new investigation. It doesn't say that he agrees with any of the nonsense put out by the "truthers."
I think we need a new investigation. There are questions that need to be answered. We need to make a better determination as to the cause of the loss of structural integrity of the two towers. This would provide a valuable structural engineering case study in failure, if nothing else. We need to study the original design and determine the actual theoretical survival collision capacity of the structures. We then have two twin failures under slightly varying conditions to compare to the model. This is a great learning opportunity.
Of course, we have to go in with our eyes and minds open. But, we cannot accept the nonsense of the "truthers" sense it is obviously false on its face. It was created by people who have no clue.
There is no evidence of molten steel.
The buildings did not fall at freefall speed, and the calculations use the wrong distance of fall from the outset.
There is no evidence of thermite.
The "expolsions" are the sounds of joints, bolts, welds, beams, trusses, collumns, etc. failing. Go to a "Strengths of Materials" Lab at a major Engineering College and LISTEN. After you do, you will understand, and if you haven't (and architects do not take that kind of coursework) then you are unqualified. |
No evidence? peep this.
from the American Society of Safety Engineers
Quote:
| Quote: |
| The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400 deg F to more than 2,800 deg F. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable ... The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared 'extinguished' on Dec. 19, 2001. |
those temps support steel melting temps.
how did the fires get so hot? hydrocarbon fires do not burn nearly hot enough. pressure may explain it but the a difuse flame in an oxygen poor environment would counter balance if not make it less hot.
so if there was no molten steel, how did the fires get so hot?
and you claim there was no molten steel, yet the recorded temperatures of the fires would have been melting the steel.
ur facts are falling apart.
or can you explain this too? remember those links to the proffesionals you have been citing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
| Quote: |
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800� to 1500�F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750�F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength � and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100�F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800� it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832�F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." |
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#steel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
