Quote:
|
Originally Posted by summerkc
The steel structure, aluminum sideing, etc would not have to get the the point of melting red hot and glowing. As the temperature of the steel increases, its strength continues to decrease until it collapses, which I would think is well below of the temperature of it starting to glow and warp.
|
Um...I'm confused. You say that the steel will bend long before it warps. Warp means to bend. The structure would have bended in order to colapse. The problem is that aluminum wouyld bend, or warp, long before steel would have. Aluminum has a much lower melting and warping temperature than steel. Aluminum melts at about 1220.666 degrees F.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by summerkc
I also assume that you are a materials or structural engineer and don't really know the thermal dynamics that were occuring in the building at the time.
|
I dabble in a lot, but I am in fact neither. My main studies are in the arts, psychology, and philosophy. I do however have a terrible habit of submerging myself deeply and completly into my hobbies. In this 'hobby' (the facts around 9/11), I have studied structural engineering, (specifically in steel reinforced buildings), plane crash physics, demolition (specifically the use of Thermite, as it pertains to what I think may have happened), and politics.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by summerkc
The steel in only a small area would have to lose its integraty to start the domino effect of bringing all of the floors down, you would not have to see on the outside of the building massive warping and melting of the aluminum.
|
That's not enntirely true. The ultimate key in the matter is the reports of the "pools of molten steel." The issue being that between the molten steel reports and the relative silence, Thermite is the next best candidate for sabotage. It is vitally important to realize that if the metal had been heated by ANY conventional fuel, it would – by the dictates of physics - have to be heated from below - ONLY! Again, jet fuel, burning in open air, will reach roughly 1,100 degrees at it's absolute hottest - insufficient to actually MELT steel. Certainly it can weaken the steel, but not melt it down. The WTC jet fuel did not burn in open air, thus a lower temperature may reasonably be assumed.
Too many sources acknowledge the molten steel. However, the major mystery is that some incredible and enduring temperatures were recorded, for approximately a week after the collapse. So far, there is little to account for such reports. That's one of many reasons I think thermite migght be the more likely source of the heat.
The center-section supporting structure of the buildings broke apart as it collapsed. Therefore, an argument for ‘mechanical energy transmission’ doesn’t hold up. It’s not the same as hitting a nail with a sledge-hammer. A ‘shattering’ sledge-hammer would not carry the force to strike, deform and ‘heat’ a nail. In other words, the force of the collapse couldn't/didn't melt the bases of the core columns.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by summerkc
What stikes me that you jump from the observation that outside aluminum is not melted to the premise that the government set up the whole thing. Combine this with the fact that the WTC was attacked a few years earlier and that it was fully understood that islamic militants planned and carried out the whole attack.
|
That was one hell of a jump! Haha. You are good to point that out. There is a lot more to this whole discussion. I only mentioned the government as a possible suspect in what happened. It is possible, though. I think that it would be wrong to rule out any group at this point. I admit that it would have been difficult for Islamic terrorists to plant thermite throughout both towers. It would have been difficult for anyone. I am just considering all the possibilities.