are we expected to believe that the steel in the twin towers on September 11th 2001 melted so quickly that Tower 2 only survived for 38 minutes and Tower 1 survived for 1 hour and 20 minutes.
2007-02-18 02:36:51 · 12 answers · asked by 911 Truth 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Engineering
Easy - it just doesn't get hot enough.
2007-02-18 02:47:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The collapse of the twin towers would not have been due to the steel "melting". I am sceptical about whether any steel did melt, however that would be a function of the temperature reached, which again would be a function of the combustion conditions.
When you are trying to melt something, it is important to reduce heat being lost into the surroundings, by radiation, convection and conduction. Your stove will effectively radiate heat, and heat is also carried upwards due to convection. That's why it's a stove. The large area of steel in the construction of your stove will also be doing a good job of conducting heat away from it's source. All this contributes to the fact that it's not possible for your stove to melt itself. However the conditions within a furnace to melt steel are all optimised to prevent heat loss and keep it concentrated inside the furnace.
Back to the twin towers, as mentioned above, melting of steel did not contribute to the collapse, however at the raised temperature of the fire, the steel will become softer, losing it's strength. While this is happening, all the concrete (used in cladding and floors, etc) would be breaking up due to the heat of the fire, and chunks would be raining down inside as well as outside the building.
The combination of soft steel at elevated temperatures, and shifting of the load distribution (concrete not staying where it was designed to be), would make the steel structure unstable, and no doubt the hot steel columns and beams would start to bend and buckle. Collapse would then occur.
Any melting of steel would not really be a factor, as the collapse would take place, for the reasons given above, even if none of the steel melted.
2007-02-18 21:37:07 · answer #2 · answered by Valmiki 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You dont normally cook with Aircraft engine fuel. I'm sure if you set your kitchen on fire with Kerosene and let it burn for 38 mins your cooker would weaken. The steel in the tower didnt melt it merely weakened enough for it to be unable to support the upper floors.
2007-02-19 14:28:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the steel on your gas stove has a higher melting point than the gas can reach, the steel in the twin towers was not designed for heat but flexibility if you dropped your gas ring it would break as it is cast and ridged
2007-02-18 02:49:47 · answer #4 · answered by ray j 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the temperature reached on your gas stove is no where near the temperature need in order to melt metal and is a fraction of the temperature reached when a plane loaded with fuel crashed into the 2 towers
2007-02-18 02:45:56 · answer #5 · answered by yorky 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no logical comparison. The stove is designed to withstand the burner temperature even if loaded with your heaviest cook pot. The buildings were not designed to withstand the building loads with a certain number of structural members weakened or destroyed and the rest softened and distorted by heat. Blacksmiths heat iron or steel to shape it because heat changes the strength of the metal.
2007-02-18 03:15:55 · answer #6 · answered by Kes 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
steel in the stove does not melt as there is not enough temperature / pressure combination to melt it.
the event to refer to, there were secondary explosions as evident from various footages available on the internet, bottom line is the whole thing might be a drama
2007-02-18 02:43:11 · answer #7 · answered by blitzkrieg_hatf6 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if the flame became into on then particular you're positive, because of the fact the gasoline would be burned up by ability of the flame. if the flame became into no longer on, then open all your domicile windows and doorways and don't mild flames or activate electric powered products
2016-11-23 16:34:26 · answer #8 · answered by remeika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It definitely isn't the same. In your topic, you are, hypothetically, comparing an apple with an orange. Steel would sure as hell melt if you used airplane fuel. It just isn't the same.
2007-02-18 02:52:48 · answer #9 · answered by San Jose 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if you left your gas stove on for 6 days you better run lol
2007-02-18 02:45:49 · answer #10 · answered by ? 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Temperature not high enough
2007-02-18 03:32:55 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋