Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

oscar0308 · 10-14-2004, 09:22 AM

there's considerable talk of the melting point of steel and how the fire could not have reached a heat high enuogh to melt it. this might be true, but you are completely ignoring the fact that steel can structurely fail long before melting. to fail it doesnt have to melt, just lose its structural integrety. any substance doesnt maintain its structural integrity until its melting point and then PRESTO-CHANGO fail. the collapse of the building being so neat is also completely understandable with a knowledge of structures. the method of construction for the twin towers was unusual and based on a tube within a tube. typically skyscrapers are constructed using a box-like/erector-set method of columns and slabs. the second method allows for sections to become weaker unevenly allowing for uneven failure leading to falling structures. the tubular structure failed evenly on the floor of impact which as M_G noted lead the failure of the floor below it leading to failures gaining momentum.

i will admit the whole ghost plane thing just boggles me. is the idea that it supposed to be a fake plane? some super incredible special effects? the fact that there wasnt a fireball apparent immediately after impact to me doesnt seem the slightest bit weird. i did look at one of the sites linked or found a link within the linked site that showed crashes where fires erupted immediately, but to compare the instances seems rather unscientific. they show a much smaller plane hitting the ground and who knows what in the second clip. its so blurry i cant see much useable visual info. either way, the comparisons are not accurate. 911 has a very large plane traveling at a high rate of speed penetrating a pourous surface. the one clear clip on that site has the much smaller plane trying to crash land. the major differences being the 1) the speed, a landing plane is going as slow as it can and not drop out of the sky, 2) the impact surface, a plane hitting the ground has no place to disperse it energy created by its movement which means it must be redirected back into the plane. the surface the 911 plane hits is essentially pourous as glass is not a stuctructural element. the plane was shredded as opposed to crushed. also the fuel which is necessary for the fire has plenty of oxygen as an accelerant in the case of the ground crash. in the closed space if an office building, the available oxygen must be less. in addition to this, the manner in which the planes hit also vary. i can not say that these difference as why they look different, but i can say that you comparison with so many different variables become moot.

10-14-2004, 09:22 AM	#70 (permalink)
oscar0308 Crazy Location: New England	there's considerable talk of the melting point of steel and how the fire could not have reached a heat high enuogh to melt it. this might be true, but you are completely ignoring the fact that steel can structurely fail long before melting. to fail it doesnt have to melt, just lose its structural integrety. any substance doesnt maintain its structural integrity until its melting point and then PRESTO-CHANGO fail. the collapse of the building being so neat is also completely understandable with a knowledge of structures. the method of construction for the twin towers was unusual and based on a tube within a tube. typically skyscrapers are constructed using a box-like/erector-set method of columns and slabs. the second method allows for sections to become weaker unevenly allowing for uneven failure leading to falling structures. the tubular structure failed evenly on the floor of impact which as M_G noted lead the failure of the floor below it leading to failures gaining momentum. i will admit the whole ghost plane thing just boggles me. is the idea that it supposed to be a fake plane? some super incredible special effects? the fact that there wasnt a fireball apparent immediately after impact to me doesnt seem the slightest bit weird. i did look at one of the sites linked or found a link within the linked site that showed crashes where fires erupted immediately, but to compare the instances seems rather unscientific. they show a much smaller plane hitting the ground and who knows what in the second clip. its so blurry i cant see much useable visual info. either way, the comparisons are not accurate. 911 has a very large plane traveling at a high rate of speed penetrating a pourous surface. the one clear clip on that site has the much smaller plane trying to crash land. the major differences being the 1) the speed, a landing plane is going as slow as it can and not drop out of the sky, 2) the impact surface, a plane hitting the ground has no place to disperse it energy created by its movement which means it must be redirected back into the plane. the surface the 911 plane hits is essentially pourous as glass is not a stuctructural element. the plane was shredded as opposed to crushed. also the fuel which is necessary for the fire has plenty of oxygen as an accelerant in the case of the ground crash. in the closed space if an office building, the available oxygen must be less. in addition to this, the manner in which the planes hit also vary. i can not say that these difference as why they look different, but i can say that you comparison with so many different variables become moot.