The effects of fire and heat on load bearing concrete/steel

[desmo_2]

1 hour ago, m373x said:

 Not sure if jet fuel can melt steel beams.

I've taken this argument from another thread, because that thread is a memorial thread and has no business being sullied with a ridiculous debate such as this.

This claim from the 9/11 conspiracy theorists has always baffled me.  Under extreme heat conditions, concrete and steel do not have to melt to lose their strength.  Twice in my career I have been to scenes where tractor trailer fuel tankers crashed under an overpass and burned.  In both cases the overpasses suffered such structural weakening that they had to be demolished and re-built.  These overpasses experienced a much, much lower degree of heat and were bearing much, much less weight than the WTC.

Here are three examples of other overpasses experiencing fires beneath them that DID collapse on their own:

Spoiler

 

 

[Lert]

He's sooo tired of this crap.

[m373x]

 Wow, didn't know fire can cause so much damage. Makes sense now. Kinda insane!

[Doomlock]

20 minutes ago, Lert said:

He's sooo tired of this crap.

I had to laugh at the closing words. That was great. 

[Balck_]

As an architect, I too am tired of having to explain this for 16 years.  

 

The floor joists were not much thicker than the rod he's using there.  Once the fire proofing was blasted off by the explosion, it was a matter of when, not if, the buildings would collapse.  

 

The only hope for the people above the impact zone would be that the core (elevators and stairs) could withstand the impact.  However, these were built out of steel with gypsum wallboard walls.  The explosion removed any means for people above the impacts to leave the building.  I sat there for an hour, trying to cope with what was going to happen.  When it did happen, it didn't surprise me but it gutted me.  I still remember that day like it was yesterday.  

[BrushWolf]

The conspiracy freaks always forget that with more draft fire will burn hotter and the towers were effectively quarter mile high smoke stacks.

[Terrible_Turtle]

49 minutes ago, Lert said:

-snip-

He's sooo tired of this crap.

 

"Your argument is invalid. Find a job." -QOTD

[anonym_OlK73e329bMY]

They were demolished, children. Listen to me.

[Chaos_EN2]

47 minutes ago, Elegant_Winter said:

They were demolished, children. Listen to me.

Yes by three wee leprechauns, two unicorns and five aliens.

And Elvis is still alive too!!!!!

[anonym_OlK73e329bMY]

1 minute ago, Chaos_EN2 said:

Yes by three wee leprechauns, two unicorns and five aliens.

And Elvis is still alive too!!!!!

Both towers fell as though they were demolished, then Building 7 fell too despite taking almost no damage (it was demolished as well), then there was somehow no video footage of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, and then there was no debris from the crashed plane in Pennsylvania.

It all points in the same direction. Think a little.

[Sovereigndawg]

Kind of a political post, The steel bent but didn't sheer off, Bridges with heated concrete and then cold water being applied, is not the same as a building. None of this proves a thing either way. This is about the game how?

[Chaos_EN2]

14 minutes ago, Elegant_Winter said:

Both towers fell as though they were demolished, then Building 7 fell too despite taking almost no damage (it was demolished as well), then there was somehow no video footage of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, and then there was no debris from the crashed plane in Pennsylvania.

It all points in the same direction. Think a little.

Yup and Bigfoot and Nessie are planning their wedding next month.

[anonym_OlK73e329bMY]

3 minutes ago, Chaos_EN2 said:

Yup and Bigfoot and Nessie are planning their wedding next month.

You're only showing your inability to think independently.

[Chaos_EN2]

Just now, Elegant_Winter said:

You're only showing you're inability to think independently.

Aye and so are you ya wee laddie.

[anonym_OlK73e329bMY]

Just now, Chaos_EN2 said:

Aye and so are you ya wee laddie.

Feel free to elaborate.

[Cognitive_Dissonance]

21 minutes ago, Elegant_Winter said:

Both towers fell as though they were demolished, then Building 7 fell too despite taking almost no damage (it was demolished as well), then there was somehow no video footage of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, and then there was no debris from the crashed plane in Pennsylvania.

It all points in the same direction. Think a little.

There is footage of the plane crashing into the Pentagon.

When a hollow aluminum/magnesium/tungsten/titanium tube smashes into the ground at over 300 mph, the debris tend to become embedded deep within the impact site, or so much confetti scattered for miles.

Try using your own admonishment.

 

[anonym_OlK73e329bMY]

1 minute ago, SmirkingGerbil said:

There is footage of the plane crashing into the Pentagon.

When a hollow aluminum/magnesium/tungsten/titanium tube smashes into the ground at over 300 mph, the debris tend to become embedded deep within the impact site, or so much confetti scattered for miles.

Try using your own admonishment.

No, there isn't. You don't see a plane at all. You see nothing, then an explosion, and that's it. It was likely a missile, considering the lack of debris.

Look at other plane crashes. There's much more debris. It's not so violent that everything, people included, are instantly incinerated.

[Sovereigndawg]

1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

The conspiracy freaks always forget that with more draft fire will burn hotter and the towers were effectively quarter mile high smoke stacks.

The draft was even greater because the plane hitting the top floors blew all of the windows out at ground level in the lobby and none of the floors in between creating a draft for the fire to burn hotter thus sheering off the support beams. Yup that makes sense. Why did that building fall down Daddy? Because of Terrorists son. The thing that gives the conspiracy theorists validity is that so many people wouldn't put it past most governments.

[Chaos_EN2]

2 minutes ago, Elegant_Winter said:

Feel free to elaborate.

You are so set in your theory and stubbornly trying to convince everyone you are right, you will never listen to anyone else.

So have fun with the wee leprechauns  

[anonym_OlK73e329bMY]

1 minute ago, Chaos_EN2 said:

You are so set in your theory and stubbornly trying to convince everyone you are right, you will never listen to anyone else.

So have fun with the wee leprechauns  

I am convinced I'm right, because my thoughts regarding 9/11 are tied to other thoughts, and then those thoughts are tied to other thoughts. There's an enormous web of thoughts, and all of those thoughts have substantive reasoning and knowledge to support them.

[Kitsunelegend]

13 minutes ago, Elegant_Winter said:

Both towers fell as though they were demolished, then Building 7 fell too despite taking almost no damage (it was demolished as well), then there was somehow no video footage of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, and then there was no debris from the crashed plane in Pennsylvania.

It all points in the same direction. Think a little.

You know why theres no wreckage? The plane was going over 560mp/h when it hit the ground. It was practically disintegrated at that speed, with some pieces being buried 25 feet deep which included the voice recorder of the aircraft.

My father lost friends in the WTC, and he himself was supposed to be there the very next day. So you shut the [edited] up with your "conspiracy theory" [edited]. Read a [edited]book for once.

[DiddleDum]

Here's what I see from the conspirator's point of view.    

 

They cite the melting point of steel, and temperature of the fire.   Their argument is static - and they never account for a 325,000 pound aircraft, impacting a steel infrastructure at ~500 mph.    Not only was there fire, but significant structural weakness.   

 

They claim detonation - if so, those Al Queda pilots were the absolute best pilots on the planet, as both planes hit the EXACT SPOT where the collapses (detonations) started.    

 

No proof of a plane hitting the Pentagon.  There are pictures of parts on the Pentagon lawn

 

 

[Chaos_EN2]

2 minutes ago, Elegant_Winter said:

I am convinced I'm right, because my thoughts regarding 9/11 are tied to other thoughts, and then those thoughts are tied to other thoughts. There's an enormous web of thoughts, and all of those thoughts have substantive reasoning and knowledge to support them.

BINGO!!

Ya proved my point thank you!!

[Cognitive_Dissonance]

2 minutes ago, Elegant_Winter said:

No, there isn't. You don't see a plane at all. You see nothing, then an explosion, and that's it. It was likely a missile, considering the lack of debris.

Look at other plane crashes. There's much more debris. It's not so violent that everything, people included, are instantly incinerated.

Then please, post your counter to the NTSB analysis and, that of other investigative bodies. It should be a simple matter for your higher intellect and keen insight to go line by line through the report and dismiss each point summarily.

This is the thread, just for this kind of reasoned, data backed counter, it was created for folks just like you.

Have at it, we are all waiting for your thoughtful, in-depth, data supported counter to the reports already published and freely available - so you should have plenty of subject matter to refute, handily.

[khaenn35]

If there was indeed video footage specifically at the Pentagon, it would have been a conspiracy, as the cameras would have to had anticipated the attack to be pointed at the exact part of the building where the missile would have hit. There was only CCTV footage.

Logically speaking, the ramming of planes into the WTC would have been enough to spark war with the number of casualties and the scale of the attack. Why hit your own Military Headquarters when you already have the motivation to go to war? Wouldn't that cripple your wargoing abilities?

It's. Called. ****ing. Logic.