- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Explain what caused the towers to collspse.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 5:05 pm to dr
Posted on 9/12/22 at 5:05 pm to dr
quote:
what pressure?
The towers were 110 stories and a giant airplane hit floors 70-78….Common sense would suggest the pressure being applied to beams losing structural integrity came from the 25+ floors above the impact zone.
You were suggesting earlier that no airplane engines were found, therefore, no planes flew into the buildings… I understand why you’re lost
0
Posted on 9/12/22 at 5:06 pm to dr
quote:
dr
You’re back. Good.
In your opinion, did Boeing 767’s hit WTC 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001?
Your refusal to answer direct questions on your opinion is approaching, and may soon exceed, the level of refusal attained by the poster Liberator.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 5:06 pm to AtticusOSullivan
quote:
Jet fuel and office furniture burning caused massive steel I beams to fail? Help me out.
When the world started building really tall buildings a new architecture was developed with most of the structural support coming from a huge external web of steel kind of like an exoskeleton. The floors were attached to the exterior support with floor joist type beam spans and the floors filled in.
After the planes hit and set the building on fire the floor joist beams softened and eventually failed. When the first one happened on each tower it caused a pancaking chain reaction. When the exoskeletal support failed then the whole thing came down...
Posted on 9/12/22 at 5:11 pm to jp4lsu
You seem smart and stuff, so I’ll pose a hypo to you because I’ve always been curious. I know it’s all general and pure speculation. Any other engineering folks are also welcome to opine.
Do you think the collapse of the North Tower (first hit, higher up) was inevitable from the moment of impact, or could it have remained standing had the South Tower not been subsequently hit and collapsed next door? In other words, what impact did the South Tower’s collapse have on the North Tower’s structural integrity, if any.
Do you think the collapse of the North Tower (first hit, higher up) was inevitable from the moment of impact, or could it have remained standing had the South Tower not been subsequently hit and collapsed next door? In other words, what impact did the South Tower’s collapse have on the North Tower’s structural integrity, if any.
This post was edited on 9/12/22 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 9/12/22 at 5:29 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Does jet fuel melt steel beams?
No, and that’s not what brought down the world trade center towers.
At ambient pressure, jet fuel burns at between 800 to 1500°F, depending on conditions. That’s not hot enough to melt most steels, but that is hot enough to soften steel, and it’s certainly hot enough to expand steel far beyond the tolerances built into any building. But burning jet fuel isn’t what brought down the towers.
20% of the jet fuel was gone in the first few seconds. 40% remained trapped in the building, where it continued to burn for a long time, but that’s not what brought the towers down—not by itself anyway.
What the jet fuel did was ignite all the building materials that the impact had just turned into a giant, multi-story slurry of kindling. Even fire retardant treated upholstery and passing will burn when exposed to a vigorous ignition source, and when it does, it burns just at hot as jet fuel (which is kerosene). So the building fire, from the time of impact to collapse, probably averaged 1,200 degrees with hot spots well over 1500°F, which again, is not enough to melt steel, but is enough to soften it by more than 50%.
That likely still would not have caused a collapse, except first:all the insulation was blasted off the steel by the impact, and second: the superstructure was directly damaged by the impact, and third:the steel remaining was unevenly heated, causing warping.
All this added up to cause a few beams to roll past the limits of their hangers. As soon as one beam fell, the load it was carrying had to be taken up by its neighbors, which then fell, and so on. In a fraction of a second, the support for the overlying weight was gone, and the entire multi-story structure above came falling down, nearly twenty feet onto the floor below. The structure below could not even begin to resist that much force, so it immediately collapsed, and from that point on, an unstoppable wall of falling, churning, chewing mass, plummeted down to the earth.
This is not that hard to understand.
This post was edited on 9/12/22 at 5:32 pm
Posted on 9/12/22 at 5:35 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Heat compromises integrity.
Not only compromises strength/integrity, but heat also expands steel. At +800F, a 30 foot beam expands about 2 inches linearly. So now you’ve introduced twisting/buckling stresses to a dramatically weakened structure.
quote:
Yes. I don't know why people over the age of 10 struggle with this.
Our schools have done a masterful job of creating tens of millions of functional retards, and at the same time convincing them they’re smart and have voices that need to be heard.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 5:44 pm to Indefatigable
Both buildings were doomed as soon as each was hit. I don't know if I've ever seen anything connecting one collapse to the other.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 5:56 pm to jawnybnsc
quote:
Both buildings were doomed as soon as each was hit. I don't know if I've ever seen anything connecting one collapse to the other.
Gotcha. Thanks. Probably a simple enough answer for someone with your experience but it’s something I’ve always wondered.
If you’re bored enough to indulge a second question:
What is your understanding of WTC 7’s collapse?
Posted on 9/12/22 at 5:56 pm to jawnybnsc
we were fooled,for a while at least it was a controlled demolition,no planes wheels and landing gear were supposedly found,planted there just like the passport found a block away ,no plane crashed at shanksville,no plane hit the pentagon,it was a missile fired from the yard
Posted on 9/12/22 at 6:10 pm to Bayoutigre
quote:
we were fooled,for a while at least it was a controlled demolition,no planes wheels and landing gear were supposedly found,planted there just like the passport found a block away ,no plane crashed at shanksville,no plane hit the pentagon,it was a missile fired from the yard
Posted on 9/12/22 at 6:13 pm to dr
quote:
what pressure?
force of impact?
The pressure already being exerted from the combined weight of all the floors above on support beams that are severely weakened due to the extreme heat.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 6:39 pm to AtticusOSullivan
I don't care what anyone believes after 21 years, but if you have an ounce of sense you should question everything this criminal government that has mandated poison injections tells us.
Fwiw, there are damn good questions about 9/11, most of which will never be settled in our lifetimes.
Fwiw, there are damn good questions about 9/11, most of which will never be settled in our lifetimes.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:02 pm to McChowder
quote:
The pressure already being exerted from the combined weight of all the floors above on support beams that are severely weakened due to the extreme heat.
if the beams at 70 th floor got weak the heating would be uneven,thus making the floors above topple over,not pancake into its own footprint, and fall at freefall speed
This post was edited on 9/12/22 at 7:04 pm
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:14 pm to Bayoutigre
quote:
thus making the floors above topple over,not pancake into its own footprin
It was a huge skyscraper, not a fricking jenga tower
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:29 pm to FutureMikeVIII
quote:
It was a huge skyscraper, not a fricking jenga tower
exactly, and it was mostly supported in the middle due to the design. so when it collapsed, it collapsed in the middle
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:34 pm to dr
quote:
the mass, velocity and fact the engine was under trust, but not 1 engine popped out
quote:
show us the math.
quote:I do understand physics. That's why I know you're FOS. I'm giving you the chance... since it's your claim... to show why a turbofan engine would be expected to survive an encounter with a moderately sized steel beam (say a W12x26) entact. "Simple ratios" isn't an answer.
if you understood physics
you could do it,
simple ratios
This post was edited on 9/12/22 at 7:36 pm
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:34 pm to AtticusOSullivan
Your mom did.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:38 pm to AtticusOSullivan
Gravity
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:38 pm to dr
quote:SO you think they should have fallen to the side? Like a tree?
exactly, random bending would have not allowed it to drop straight down
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:39 pm to dr
quote:
also the heat would be transfered thru all the steel,
this would cool the steel directly under the fire,
You people are fascinating. 
Page 14 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News