Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Okay so you're saying it's possible for the fire to have burned at 1100 degrees F, or 533 C, and thus would have caused the steel to lose it's rigidity to the point where it was no longer able to stand. This caused a chain reaction which brought floor on top of floor and levelled the building. The problem, at least in my mind, is that when you heat a stel sturcture the heat moves out, and thus dissapates, acros the entire structure. Imagine pouring applesauce onto a plate. The applesauce doesn't just stack up, it spreads across the flat surface.
|
I think what you're missing here is that as that heat spreads out, it's hot enough to ignite things around it, which will then burn adding to the intensity of both the fire and the heat. The center of this rapidly spreading fire is going to burn more intensely than the outside portions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
What surprises me is the fact that a fire in the North Tower, spread through 200,000 (est) tons of steel enough in 104 minutes to cause a structural collapse. In addition to this, a great deal of the fuel from each plane was instantly burned upon impact (thus the explosions in the pictures and video).
|
are you saying that ALL of this jet fuel flashburned and then dissipated because there was nothing left?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Leaving the North Tower alone for a bit, South Tower went down in only 47 minutes! Just so you know, the South Tower did not recieve a duirect impact, as the North Tower did. The plane that hit the South Tower hit it at an angle, and most of the fuel burst outside of the building. How did the building with the least fuel fall twice as fast?
|
again, wind conditions. now, i'm not versed on the details of what the weather and wind direction was that day, but I can tell you that if the wind was in the right direction, it could account for the time differences.