Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

[johnny24]

melting point of structural steel is at the low end 2500 f . jet fuel temp is well below that .

Steel doesn't need to melt to be weakened.

[Passion4Truth]

No it doesn't, but it needs a great deal more heat than a high rise fire can produce to do so, hence the Brittan tower still standing.

[maryjane48]

johnny so how you explain liquid iron seen pooled there ? i can explain it very easily. can you ?

[johnny24]

johnny so how you explain liquid iron seen pooled there ? i can explain it very easily. can you ?

I really have no time or desire to get involved in conspiracy theories.

[What_the]

The ignition point of kerosene as an accelerant doesn't mean all source's of combustable fuels won't exceed it. A structure fire can easily reach 1000 degrees C.
An enclosed space with winds blowing in a 40 by 150 foot minimun opening will no doubt have a forge effect, particularly with tons of accelerant.

The Britain tower didn't fall because it didn't have key structural load bearing supports compromised,ie blown out from explosion.

And again, 25 tons of aircraft aluminum in this setting will melt, combined with other elements, water specifically, have dramatic effects.

Don't take my word for it. Ask a firefighter about temps and look up reactions of molten aluminum with water in the industry.

[maryjane48]

we all know what aluminum and water does . still doesnt explain molten iron and there was no major wind on 9 11 . it was a calm clear day .


now lets see you explain this what the .

the laws of physics tells us that for every action theres equal opposite reaction. that means when the towers started to fall , in your theory the collapse should have shown a steady rate of deceleration . but thats not what was observed.

what we saw was near freefall speeds until the rubble started to pile up . but by then they were down .

ok go

[Ranger66]

“lets see you debunk that with peer reviewed facts”

I am very happy with your cut and paste math and have a good understanding of physics. What I do not see is any proof.


“During the destructions of the twin Towers, massive steel beams, weighing 4 - 20 tons or more, were ejected horizontally as much as 520 feet”

This is not rocket science you said massive steel beams were ejected 520 feet. Show the proof it happened not the math to show it could happen, because they are not the same.

[peaceseeker]

Pffft, who needs Newton's laws?...sure looks like a natural occurrence to me!

Those ain't toothpicks being hurled upward and outward for 100s of feet...they're 30ft long, multiton pieces of steel...

[Ranger66]

“they're 30ft long, multiton pieces of steel...”

And you know that how?

[peaceseeker]

“they're 30ft long, multiton pieces of steel...”

And you know that how?

By doing research...

The Perimeter Walls - The Structural System of the Twin Towers
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

The towers' perimeter walls comprised dense grids of vertical steel columns and horizontal spandrel plates. These, along with the core structures, supported the towers. In addition to supporting gravity loads, the perimeter walls stiffened the Towers against lateral loads, particularly those due to winds. The fact that these structures were on the exterior of the Towers made them particularly efficient at carrying lateral loads. Richard Roth, speaking on behalf of the architectural firm that designed the Towers, described each of the perimeter walls as essentially "a steel beam 209' deep." 1 Regardless, it is clear that the core structures were designed to support several times the weight of each tower by themselves.

continued...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

[What_the]

Right^^. Having stated that, each floor only has to support the weight/load of that floor. Im not an engineer but having built things I understand the concept of load transference; shunting load across lateral and vertical.

For MJ- peaceseeker verified my theory on wind. With diligent and practical knowledge of load transference, one should know that winds on broad side planes, in this context of sky scrapers, equal tons of pressure. Towers this high actually sway upwards of metres due to wind. Engineering says this unequivocally.
The forge effect I was referring to.

As I noted above, the floors once lost integrity, have no where to go but down. Combine that with fatigue from excessive heat. Melting not needed, almost red hot, somewhere in the 800 to 1000 C, will suffice with the loads endured, No where but down.

[maryjane48]

i have been in a building that sways in wind as vancouver has atleast one. but on 9 11 no major or moderate winds at ground level or near top . look at pics of the dust . its going straight down . and it only spread out after hitting ground .


but thats pointless when the real question i asked you was explain near free fall speeds when your theory would show a deceleration in the fall . it doesnt until the rubble starts hit the ground and build up .


as for the poster saying they understand phyisics . lol . if thats true which i doubt but if its true then explain to what the why the law for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction ., that prevents us from seeing near freefall speed yet that is what is observed .

as for the math that is the actual equations used to determine the horizontal distance of the steel beams . you do realize the debris field was mapped and nist never denies the beams were ejected or the distance right ? you can eiither choose to put your understanding of physics to use and figure it out or not. but that wont change reality .

and do explain how aluminum can slice through structral steel beam like butter . infact get a aluminum bat and see if you can get it to slice through a sheet of tin . or even a cement wall lol . good luck

[Ranger66]

“but that wont change reality .”

The reality is that you have no proof that 20 ton beams flew 500 plus feet.
An I Beam of 320x134x13.5 weighs 62.765 kg per/ m.
So a 30 foot beam would weigh 1265 pounds, that’s reality.

[Ranger66]

The Architect said this

“The fact that these structures were on the exterior of the Towers made them particularly efficient at carrying lateral loads. Richard Roth”

But he did not say this.

“ Regardless, it is clear that the core structures were designed to support several times the weight of each tower by themselves.”

This is the kind of assumption that destroys the credibility 9-11 research.

[Ranger66]

“infact get a aluminum bat and see if you can get it to slice through a sheet of tin”

What part of the Towers were made from aluminum bats?