Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
With anything of this magnitude, there will always be questions, which girder failed first, which floor was it on, how hot were the fires, etc… however, some things are clear, it was not space aliens, it was not Vikings, nor rabid weasels.
|
It's good to know we have common ground. While the weasels have been responsible for such things as Woodstock, the invention of the telephone, and the building of the pyramids, they probably had nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC buildings, the Pentagon, or the other crash.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
I would agree that it was closer to 1500C, but I use 500C as a low bound I’m sure it was hotter then that, and 500C is all the heat I need on the beam to show a good cause of the failure of the building.
|
Yeah, I meant celcius, too.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
It’s hard to agree on a temperature, in any investigation, it needs to be a range of possibilities, at least 500C, but no more than 1500C.
|
Well, if they had investigated the debris from the WTC instead of shipping it all off, we might have an answer. I think something has to be said about that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Locations.jpg
from this illustration of the impacts, you can see that WTC 1 was hit and the plane dumped its fuel over the 60 foot beams, as for WTC 2 it is very possible that the fuel was spilled over the eastern 60 foot beams, at least the southern part of it. this center of heat would have stretched the beams nearest more then those farther away, causing the beams to fall off of there gusset plates, casing large support beams to fail.
|
The strange thing is, logic would dictate that more fuel was able to explode outward, burning off instantly and causeing the explosions we've seen in the videos. The explosion basically went right out the windows. Tower 2 fell faster than tower 1.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
I had heard that the fire suppression failed completely, how ever, if it was partially active, that could make matters worse, by cooling parts of the building it would exasperated the difference in temperature across the deferent beams, causing a larger length difference than I had calculated. As I already showed, a difference of 231.5 C will cause the beam to fall off of the gusset plates.
|
Then I explained that the outward expansion would actually make the beam connections stronger against the outside supports.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
One quick change, in my previous post, I meant to use Celsius, not Fahrenheit
|
Yeah, me too.