Acceleration of the falling top blocks.

[ergo]

Sagging steel means that it has failed, thus it was hot enough. Most buildings will suffer a collapse from a small number (or even a single) column failure.

Partial or global? Which ones have done so? Facts, please.

 

[000063]

I like how you don't even include "progressive" collapse in there. Nice false binary.

And the answer is; possibly all three, much like people can have different reactions to being shot in the chest.

And Bit pointed out that the WTC had a higher number than usual of column failures it could take, so I don't know what point you're trying to make. For someone requesting "facts", you seem willing to ignore that one.

Also, anything about that moon-sized rubble field?

 

[WTC Dust]

Do you honestly think I'm going to spend time looking up things for you?

No. I ask you to back up your claims with facts and figures. Please now - stop dodging and answer, or retract your earlier claims:


Did any (if yes, how many?) of your experiments involve structural materials such as steel,

and did any of these experiments (and if yes, how many?) measure the change of mechanical properties of such structural materials resulting from temperature change?


How hot would office fires be? Can you give (and source) numbers?

How hot would the temperature at which steel weakens be? Can you give (and source) numbers?

Are these numbers now greater than, less than, or about equal to, the number you provided to my previous question?

Basically you are claiming that NO hydrocarbon fire at all could ever damage and destroy any steel structure at all - do I understand that correctly?

What temperature does the steel in jet engines reach? Sources, please!

Is that the same steel that's used in highrises?

How hot do jet fuel fires burn? Source?

 

[swright777]

Do you honestly think I'm going to spend time looking up things for you?

Probably not. You don't spend time looking things up for you, why would you for do it for someone else?

 

[000063]

Do you honestly think I'm going to spend time looking up things for you?

No, see, you're supposed to have looked this stuff up already, in order to make your claim. You've just admitted that you haven't, and have therefore been making claims without evidence. Or in other words, you're full of it.

 

[WTC Dust]

No, see, you're supposed to have looked this stuff up already, in order to make your claim. You've just admitted that you haven't, and have therefore been making claims without evidence. Or in other words, you're full of it.

Can you tell me, then, what initiated the very first top block falling?

 

[000063]

Attempted subject change. What does that have to do with the questions Oys asked and your refusal to answer?

 

[tsig]

Do you honestly think I'm going to spend time looking up things for you?

Can you tell me, then, what initiated the very first top block falling?

Do you honestly think he's going to spend time looking up things for you?

 

[BasqueArch]

Controlled temperature experiment # 2,442 ...

 

[leftysergeant]

Can you tell me, then, what initiated the very first top block falling?

Loss of structural integrity in the columns below that point. The perimeter columns supported the weight of the "hat trusses," a massive web of steel trusses on top of the towers. When the perimeter columns were pulled inward or bowed because of the heat, the weight of the hat trusses put additional strain on other, already-over-loaded columns until they snapped or bent beyond parameters and failed to support the weight any longer.

Pretty simple, actually.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Do you honestly think I'm going to spend time looking up things for you?

See? If you looked these things up yourself, you would know them. Why are you making arguments without detailed information?
Since you have a Diploma, the most obvious thing one does to pass a test is study, study, study. You ought to know this to be true. The information Oystein asks from you is easy to find. Much easier to find than wild, exotic weaponry that can only exist in someone's imagination.

Go ahead, look up the numbers and reread the thread..You may be "naturally" enlightened.

 

[Oystein]

Do you honestly think I'm going to spend time looking up things for you?

I honestly think that she who makes claimes such as "office fires don't reach the temperature that would weaken steel" support their claimes by citing relevant facts, such as the temperatures that office fires reach and the temperatures at which steek weekens.

So you still owe us answers to these questions:

How hot would office fires be? Can you give (and source) numbers?

How hot would the temperature at which steel weakens be? Can you give (and source) numbers?

Are these numbers now greater than, less than, or about equal to, the number you provided to my previous question?

Basically you are claiming that NO hydrocarbon fire at all could ever damage and destroy any steel structure at all - do I understand that correctly?

What temperature does the steel in jet engines reach? Sources, please!

Is that the same steel that's used in highrises?

How hot do jet fuel fires burn? Source?


There were a couple of questions concerning your personal experience that I can't look up, so please:

Did any (if yes, how many?) of your experiments involve structural materials such as steel,

and did any of these experiments (and if yes, how many?) measure the change of mechanical properties of such structural materials resulting from temperature change?