correct you are. jet fuel burns at around 800 degrees celcius i believe... which is 1492 degrees fahrenheit i think (correct me if im wrong... that's a mental calculation). but my point is that is still far short of what is required to turn aluminum into a gas (2600 degrees fahrenheit). the only way to make aluminum dissappear would be to turn it into a gas. and like i said b4... the stress of ONE floor crashing down on another would not be nearly enough... for the energy would get distributed throughout the lower 80 floors.strange1 said:
Pentagon Attacks
- Thread starter ISpentHowMuch
- Start date
TLC had a great analysis in a program called World Trade Centre - The Anatomy of a Collapse. They interviewed the architect of the towers who admitted the design flaw that ultimately led to their demise. Namely, not seeing that some religious nutjobs would crash a fuel-laden 757 into them.
I hate agreeing with Ranger68, but you guys are killing me as well...
I hate agreeing with Ranger68, but you guys are killing me as well...
maleable simply means metal will bend before breaking. this is because of the way the electrons flow thru the metal. in a metallic substance, electrons flow thru all atoms, instead of just confined to each molecule of the substance. this is what makes metal maleable, AND makes metal a good conductor of electricity.strange1 said:
But 800 C is enough to change structural steel's properties enough to cause faliure, especially as the steel beams were designed to be as lightweight as possible. WTC had far lower factors of safety than traditionaly desugned buildings.
Please re-read my statement about the pancake theory. It has nothing (or little) to do with the crashing. It's the ability of the other floors to compensate for the missing piece that is the problem. The stresses do get distributed over all the floors but are far more concentrated on the floor below and to a slightly lesser extent above). As the floor fails, the walls beside the missing floor begin will begin to oscillate because of the various forces acting on it, causing a dramatic increase in dynamic loading to the adjacent floors structural members. The dynamic loading causes significant extremes of force (ever seen video of the wobbly bridge?) which exceeds the strength of the floor below. Once that floor fails, the floor below has to compensate for two missing structural members and fails faster. This continues untill catastrophic failure.
Please re-read my statement about the pancake theory. It has nothing (or little) to do with the crashing. It's the ability of the other floors to compensate for the missing piece that is the problem. The stresses do get distributed over all the floors but are far more concentrated on the floor below and to a slightly lesser extent above). As the floor fails, the walls beside the missing floor begin will begin to oscillate because of the various forces acting on it, causing a dramatic increase in dynamic loading to the adjacent floors structural members. The dynamic loading causes significant extremes of force (ever seen video of the wobbly bridge?) which exceeds the strength of the floor below. Once that floor fails, the floor below has to compensate for two missing structural members and fails faster. This continues untill catastrophic failure.
from hyper dictionary.
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Definition:
\Mal"le*a*ble\, a. [F. mall['e]able, fr. LL. malleare
to hammer. See {Malleate}.]
Capable of being extended or shaped by beating with a hammer,
or by the pressure of rollers; -- applied to metals.
The property you are looking at is
Brittle \Brit"tle\, a. [OE. britel, brutel, AS. bryttian to
dispense, fr. bre['o]tan to break; akin to Icel. brytja, Sw.
bryta, Dan. bryde. Cf. Brickle.]
Easily broken; apt to break; fragile; not tough or tenacious
Malleabe and brittle are often but not always antonyms
The electrons are the reason for conduction but it's not that simple for malleability. Metals are malleable because there is no natural affinity for the atoms to remain in place with respect to each other (referred to as plastic flow). Brittle substance are usually so because there is an ionic structure that prevents the individual atoms from being rearranged without causing a failure.
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Definition:
\Mal"le*a*ble\, a. [F. mall['e]able, fr. LL. malleare
to hammer. See {Malleate}.]
Capable of being extended or shaped by beating with a hammer,
or by the pressure of rollers; -- applied to metals.
The property you are looking at is
Brittle \Brit"tle\, a. [OE. britel, brutel, AS. bryttian to
dispense, fr. bre['o]tan to break; akin to Icel. brytja, Sw.
bryta, Dan. bryde. Cf. Brickle.]
Easily broken; apt to break; fragile; not tough or tenacious
Malleabe and brittle are often but not always antonyms
The electrons are the reason for conduction but it's not that simple for malleability. Metals are malleable because there is no natural affinity for the atoms to remain in place with respect to each other (referred to as plastic flow). Brittle substance are usually so because there is an ionic structure that prevents the individual atoms from being rearranged without causing a failure.
i understand u... but for the little amount of time that the fires were that hot wasnt enough to change the steel's properties. once the jet fuel's done burning out it goes to about 300 degrees celcius... and like i said.... structural steel takes 300 degrees celcius like i'd take a 7 yr old punching me in the arm. it just dont do nothin to it. STEEL is designed to be lightweight. steel is an iron alloy. it is formed by taking out all the heavy impurities, like carbon at certain levels. steel is lighter and stronger than iron. period.
http://66.200.92.141/christop/chem12-13/sld033.htm
^ maybe that will clear things up about the malleability of metal and why it is malleable. like i said, the electrons allow the molecules in metal to slide past each other.
^ maybe that will clear things up about the malleability of metal and why it is malleable. like i said, the electrons allow the molecules in metal to slide past each other.
These conspiracy theory people make me laugh.
On one hand, they say that an airplane could never have made enough damage to collapse the WTC. On the other, they say that there wasn't enough damage at the Pentagon to prove that it was a plane that hit it.
Make up your damn minds.
WTC: The planes took out structural members. Not all of them, mind you, but a bunch of them. The building were never designed to hold themselves up without a certain amount of their structural support members. The fires that raged for over 50 minutes (for the first collapsing tower) weakened the remaining structural support at the impact floor. They collapsed. The top 20-odd floors moved downward, picking up speed, increasing the weight on the lower floors. To say that this was "absorbed by the lower 80 floors" is ludicrous. The entire weight of the top 20 floors first fell upon the next-highest floor, which was also weakened by fire. Then the whole mess kept going down and by the time they hit the parts of the building that were not affected by the fire, the weight was too great and the inertia too much for it to stop collapsing.
Pentagon: The plane's aluminum bits were still in the wreckage of the Pentagon. They didn't "burn up". They were destroyed by running into the equivalent of, what, 20-30 feet of solid concrete wall.
Sheesh!
On one hand, they say that an airplane could never have made enough damage to collapse the WTC. On the other, they say that there wasn't enough damage at the Pentagon to prove that it was a plane that hit it.
Make up your damn minds.
WTC: The planes took out structural members. Not all of them, mind you, but a bunch of them. The building were never designed to hold themselves up without a certain amount of their structural support members. The fires that raged for over 50 minutes (for the first collapsing tower) weakened the remaining structural support at the impact floor. They collapsed. The top 20-odd floors moved downward, picking up speed, increasing the weight on the lower floors. To say that this was "absorbed by the lower 80 floors" is ludicrous. The entire weight of the top 20 floors first fell upon the next-highest floor, which was also weakened by fire. Then the whole mess kept going down and by the time they hit the parts of the building that were not affected by the fire, the weight was too great and the inertia too much for it to stop collapsing.
Pentagon: The plane's aluminum bits were still in the wreckage of the Pentagon. They didn't "burn up". They were destroyed by running into the equivalent of, what, 20-30 feet of solid concrete wall.
Sheesh!
The fact that a large chunk of a couple off floors was destroyed by the actual crash means that the steel didn't have to be significantly altered. The actual theory produce by experts is that as the walls bowed outwards as the beams sagged. The shorter length of the floor beams cause increased shearing on the bolts attaching the floors to the walls.
Please don't condecend. From my posts, you must be able to tell that I'm well versed in science and structures. I would therefore be well aware of the composition and differing properties of various types of steel. Steel is actually formed by ADDING other substances. For example, structural steel is about 95% iron with carbon, manganese, chromium and a few others. If you removed everything, it would just be iron.
Please don't condecend. From my posts, you must be able to tell that I'm well versed in science and structures. I would therefore be well aware of the composition and differing properties of various types of steel. Steel is actually formed by ADDING other substances. For example, structural steel is about 95% iron with carbon, manganese, chromium and a few others. If you removed everything, it would just be iron.
Aluminum from the plane would have melted at about 630 C and would have turned into globules of varying size. These globules would have melted into the concrete and have been ground up by the rescue vehicle so there wouldn't be big chunks of it lying around.
no. what im saying is for 80 tons of aluminum doesnt dissapear. there was no pictures of any wreckage anywhere at the pentagon. i think 80 tons of aluminum, human remains, and wat not would be recovered somewhere.Goober Mcfly said:
now like i said... to make steal from iron, they put iron in a furnace, and PUMP oxygen at the bottom, to make the fire hotter... and that burns out all the carbon and impurities. THEN carbon can be added at various levels to make strength. i know my stuff too guy.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php
Unless, of course, you think that the University of Sydney, Australia is under US Gov't control too, in which case I'll just call you a raving nutter and try instead to go convince the Inuit to purchase freezers...
Unless, of course, you think that the University of Sydney, Australia is under US Gov't control too, in which case I'll just call you a raving nutter and try instead to go convince the Inuit to purchase freezers...
papa, just because you asked
http://www.efunda.com/materials/all...num.cfm?ID=AA_356.0&prop=all&Page_Title=356.0
http://www.efunda.com/materials/all...num.cfm?ID=AA_356.0&prop=all&Page_Title=356.0
By the way, I just had a frozen dinner that was in a plastic bowl with plastic film that didn't melt in the oven at 375. Must be the american military-industrial complex hiding the truth (that plastics don't melt) to cover up for the bin ladens and the bushs oil conglomorates.
I'll offer $100,000 to anyone that can provide a that you're not all figments of my imagination.
No one will be able to collect the prize. The proofs would all require assumptions based on the tooo many variables that could affect the calculations. (ie. heat concentrations, amount of insulation left after the impact, the extent of the damage, etc)
Even with a complete reconstruction of the WTC from the original damaged materials would only answer the most basic questions. The review team will be justified in claiming atheory is invalid if there are any assumptions at all.
No one will be able to collect the prize. The proofs would all require assumptions based on the tooo many variables that could affect the calculations. (ie. heat concentrations, amount of insulation left after the impact, the extent of the damage, etc)
Even with a complete reconstruction of the WTC from the original damaged materials would only answer the most basic questions. The review team will be justified in claiming atheory is invalid if there are any assumptions at all.
