457
posted ago by Xnyr21 ago by Xnyr21 +459 / -2
Comments (114)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
-1
aric_cavanaugh -1 points ago +1 / -2

The fire doesn't need to continue long enough and hot enough to melt steel, it just needs to burn hot enough and long enough to heat the metal enough that its ultimate failure condition falls below its current loading condition.

The beam does not need to melt at all for this to happen. Heated steel is substantially weaker than steel under normal conditions, and the beams will fail long before they melt under their given conditions. Then you have the crash down events that deliver impulses to all the floors and beams under them well above their load limits and so they fail and it just cascades down the tower.

At no point do the beams need to melt.

1
Bonami 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yet they did melt, what does that tell you?? Nano thermite.

1
aric_cavanaugh 1 point ago +1 / -0

Did they melt prior to the building collapse, or after it was in a pile and burning for weeks in an insulated environment where it acts as a kiln?

1
Bonami 1 point ago +1 / -0

You can see the molten steel flowing down the remaining columns in streams, the boots of the workers melted from the heat, there was some beneath the rubble but there was also a large open pool in the photos taken at the time. The firefighters discussed it in detail in some videos. There are photos of partially molten beams as well.

Would a kiln effect have contributed to the length of time it remained molten, probably. The first question to ask is what would have driven the steel to such a consistency in the first place.

2
aric_cavanaugh 2 points ago +2 / -0

The kiln effect would have driven the steel to such a consistency in the first place.