http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html
Read the first couple paragraphs on that non-political, science-education website. You will understand.
2006-09-29 16:02:44 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
For those of you to conservative or lazy, such as boredstif, here is the second paragraph of the page. And remember, it's an educational site. The site has nothing to do with politics.
Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
2006-09-29 16:06:41 · update #1
Are you that uneducated to believe steel will lower its melting point over time? You know nothing of chemistry, huh? It was made from top-notch steel too, i might add.
2006-09-29 16:10:37 · update #2
"We have found that it is impossible the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor beyond 280° C (536° F).
Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.
It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media. "
look at the extensive math they have done to prove this.
http://www.the7thfire.com/jet-fuel-WTC.htm
2006-09-29 16:19:50 · update #3
Guys, I have seen those Republican 9/11 myth sites before. And I have come to realize that those sites make less sense, have less scientific backing, and lack as many sources, as loose change and the other "conspiracy" sites do. So don't bother showing me those sites again.
2006-09-29 16:26:55 · update #4
Thanks cantcu, It's true. No other steel-framed buildings in the history of mankind has ever collapsed from a fire.
Did i mention the WTC was specifically built against airplane crashes? I guess some of you didn't know that.
2006-09-29 16:31:29 · update #5
Why didn't the concrete in the middle stay up? Even if the floors all fell they wouldn't pull the middle down. It wasn't built that way.
2006-09-29 16:59:02 · answer #1 · answered by icetender 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually, since there was no engineers or other experts as part of the 9/11 Commission, they had to consult experts. From my engineering classes, as you reduce the stability of structural steel say by running a large plane into it, you weaken the total structure. From there, with the heat of the jet fuel burning catching anything that will burn on fire, your create intense heat that gets up to where steel starts to soften and deform. With the weight of the upper levels surpassing the weakened steel's ability to hold it, it will collapse upon itself.
What you do not understand is that the average American is to dumb to understand if the 9/11 Commission told us that it was not the steel melting at 2000F but getting to the semi liquid state where it starts to flow like glass.
I seem to remember that there was building experts right after 9/11 that explained why a large jet plane could and did take down buildings that were built to withstand normal fire starts and not having thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning at once with major structural damage to the main support system.
2006-09-29 16:19:31 · answer #2 · answered by andy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A plane full of jet fuel, weakening the metal joices connecting the floors....if the engineer believe it was possible, then the average laymen like me also believes it. Only the fools who think FDR bombed Pearl Harbor, that aliens crashed at Roswell and that the US never landed on the moon believe in the 9/11 conspiracy. All the other rational people just roll their eyes at the people who are easily duped.
If one believes that the US govt is competent enough to pull off the biggest scam in history, when they couldn't even cover up Watergate or Gulf of Tonkin incident, (which by the way, only a handful of people knew about it), then i guess there's no convincing you. Your faith in a competent govt. is astounding.
2006-09-29 20:20:23 · answer #3 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The steel did not need to actually melt. As told by Popular Mechanics scientists (not political either), the steel just needed to soften a little for the towers to fall under their own weight. Steel softens well before it melts and at much lower temperature.
2006-09-29 16:16:08 · answer #4 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Melting, as in molten, is different from melting, as in sagging and weakening. Structural steel weakens to a near liquid state, if it is bearing weight at around 2000 degress F.
Here's some reading for those wo want the truth:
http://www.911myths.com
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
2006-09-29 16:19:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
And it starts losing its strength at 500 F. Also being smacked by a jumbo jet has a tendency to weaken it as well.
2006-09-29 16:08:41 · answer #6 · answered by JFra472449 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The WTC was built in the early 70's. Not the same as the steel used today. WAKE UUUUUUUPP!!!!!!!!! awww forget it...what a bunch of friggin' loons. No wonder i always need a drink...that and chapaquiddick
2006-09-29 16:09:12 · answer #7 · answered by Ted Kennedy aka Swimmer 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Steel will weaken at this temp, but will not melt until 2750F, this is fact. 9/11 was an inside job, why don't ppl wake up to this?
2006-09-29 16:05:38 · answer #8 · answered by Luke F 3 · 3⤊ 5⤋
jet A burns at 3500f, they used the meager 1000f from avgas. not the same thing at all.
2006-09-29 16:10:53 · answer #9 · answered by Doggzilla 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
http://www.debunking911.com/ explains those 911 myths.
2006-09-29 23:17:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋