911 conspiacy theorists. Can fire melt steel?

Question

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=5255492

Pardon the typo. I was stuck in traffic due to the MELTED bridge!

As to the amount of time it took. The accident occured at around 4 am and the road was WAY done before commute time.

The steel DID melt and it did so without bombs or the government involved. Gasoline my friends burns at a high temperature.

Steel used in buildings and road structures are the same as far as I know and no, they won't find molten steel 4 weeks later. The structure that melted isn't nearly the scope now is it?

To bush is, the fire was fueled by gasoline and exceeded the temperature needed to melt steel. Show me your credentials and MAYBE I may take a look at your theory. I really doubt it though. Now you can report me for chatting cause isn't that what you like to do?

Tin foil hat brigade, OMG! Here they are: http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-uE7Yfq01dKhdYVovWXHm5ohbjVO34xbpB9BD0QSKhhk-?cq=1&p=202

Answer 1

For Skeptic:
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Don't know the differences in steel strength between the WTC towers and the bridge, but I'll tell you they don't always use the strongest steel in buildings. It is a question of value engineering. Engineers do as code requires, and make the determination based on economics of building. If a steel member requires say 48 KSI, with certain span, but if the price is less expensive to use 35 KSI and reduce the span by adding vertical elements then that is an option that the architects, engineers and developers consider.

Like I said, don't much about bridge engineering, but in buildings, it isn't always the strongest steel, based on engineering and economics.

And BTW, said time and time again, but ok one more time. STEEL DOESN'T NOT HAVE TO MELT FOR FAILURE. IT LOSES STRENGTH WITH HEAT. THAT IS WHY IT MUST BE PROTECTED BY FIRE RETARDANT. BUT IF THE FIRE RETARDANT IS REMOVED BY EXPLOSION, THEN FIRE CAN CAUSE FAILURE.

Sorry for the shouting, but I'm not the only one who says that, but people keep saying steel can't melt, but it doesn't have to for failure. If the steel joist had been in concrete, the WTC towers may have stood, at least longer. But hindsight is 20/20.

Answer 2

They can't melt that fast

At that temperature, the fire caused by the jet's fuel didn't hot enough to melt the concrete steel. As you see in the video the flame took only 20 minutes. The heat is not fast enough to penetrate all fragment of the concrete steel from top to the foundation, steel is not a good heat conductor like the iron.

The explosion only took 5 stories, even all flame in all stories will take 4 hours to melt the core - in this case the core is the worst quality alloy which I don't think is used by WTC.

The speed of the falling of WTC building was way too fast. It only took about 9.5 seconds.

As an illustration, we throw an object - no matter the weight from the top of WTC, let's count how long it takes from the top to the ground . We took the height of as h = 526.3 m, the gravity 9.8 m/s^2 then apply them to the Newton's equations, h = 1/2*g*t^2 then t = sqrt(2*h/g) = sqrt(526.3/9.8) = 7.32 seconds.

The difference is just 2.2 seconds. The resistance of the concrete and solid materials should give at least 200% of the fall duration. WTC's 9.5 secs to fall is even faster a ball sliding on its wall from top the ground.

I don't know what happened there. But my Basic Physics lecturer at first grade in my college -who concentrates in Materials- said that it is very odd that the flame burning 5 stories (at most 2% of 110 stories WTC) took only 20 minutes to melt the core of 30% after explosion top stories' core.

A friend of mine, got summa cumlaude Bsc in civil engineering - concentrated in structure, said that the pan cake fall has never occured before due to fire causes. If the heat is hot enough to melt the core then the building should bend forward at a broad angle because the strain caused by the heat is not uniformly distributed along the building's core - remember steel is not a good heat conductor.

I'm not speculatiing, but 9/11 is an odd tragedy

Answer 3

There was a similar incident in Detroit in 2000 when a gasoline tanker truck exploded on the elevated overpass exit ramp from I-75 to I-94. Also the explosion of a gasoline tanker truck will leave a big crater in the highway.
http://www.greatdreams.com/homeland-security.htm
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051124/NEWS12/51124008

A gasoline tanker crashed and burst into flames near the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge creating such intense heat that a stretch of highway melted and collapsed.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/29/highway.collapse.ap/index.html

It may not seem that burning gasoline is so hot but burning gasoline has a temperature above 1500° E (945° C). Therefore, it can heat objects in the fire area above its ignition temperature.
http://www.columbusfire.net/fire/gasoline.shtml

Steel is not an element. It is a compound. The melting point of steel depends on the mixture of the elements it contains.

Iron (Fe) is an element that is the main component of steel. The "melting point" of iron is
1535.0 °C (1808.15 K, 2795.0 °F)
http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html

Steel is an alloy comprised mostly of iron, with a carbon content between 0.02 % and 1.7 % by weight, depending on grade. Carbon is the most cost-effective alloying material for iron, but various other alloying elements are used such as manganese and tungsten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel

At what temperature does a floor truss begin to sag if it is not coated in fire-resistant insulation? How hot can a fire burn if it is well (very well) ventilated? 1000 degrees F? 2000 degrees F? According to NASA jet fuel CAN burn as hot as 3000 degrees F. See this video to understand how the WTC tower 1 and 2 collapsed...the drywall was the "inside agent"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sa0u3XAYkIs

The high temperatures of the burning jet fuel, steel, plastics and other components made the whole area intensely hot and structures nearby were irrepairably damaged (building 7).
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XImQ6a-VrnA&mode=related&search=

Larry Silversteing, building owner and FDNY pulled building 7.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs

Rosie O'Donnell will be leaving "The View" in June. Rosie O'Donnell used emotion to obfuscate fact and her celebrity status to rally people to impeach President Bush. On "The View " Rosie O'Donnell adamantly declared that, "it was the first time in history that fire melted steel' (in building 7 of WTC).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba6j2k6wzdQ&mode=related&search=.

She begins her tirade with, "Historically have governments ever faked incidents or incited incidents to get them into war."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fPtEQk0k3YI

Answer 4

So does fuel also generate timed explosions that were heard by firemen? Why do we see melting steel that looks like thermite burning?

Does the jet fuel also destroy the entire 80 stories of steel support structure as well? (This is required to account for the free-fall speed of the collapse of three buildings. That's right, three buildings collapsed at near free-fall speeds in NYC in the WTC complex.)

The government's conspiracy theory is totally inconsistent with the facts. The only theory that has coherence at the moment is the demolition theory presented by Professor Steven Jones of BYU (Physics).

I've seen no credible challenges to the 13 points he presented in an academic paper on this topic. I'd very much like to see a credible explanation for the free-fall collapse of all three buildings.

Answer 5

The throughway became into no longer a steel framed shape. It became into frequently gravel and urban outfitted around cables of steel that are lots thinner than steel beams. all of us is fools to evaluate it to a 40 seven tale skyscraper that wasn't hit via a plane (WTC 7), which via the way the NIST record nonetheless can not clarify it is unexpected give way. you are able to't even start to evaluate the two. via the way while you're so confident that 9/11 became into as advised via our government, why are idiots attempting to evaluate some badly contructed freeways (that collape consistently), to skyscrapers that don't give way consistently. I advise fairly, you deniers are fairly clutching at straws. it is effective, whilst the criminals are introduced to justice, you will comprehend that all of us is fairly combating for usa so human beings such as you are able to sit down around all day and watch American Idol and consume cheeseburgers. Cheers! *edit* Oh, via the way a horseshoe this is pounded into shape should be thoroughly calmly heated. So via that concept, a construction could could desire to be calmly heated to fall interior the manor it did. and regardless of if it the steel ought to be burned so calmly, it does not have fallen the way it did

Answer 6

If they find pools of molten steel at the site in another 4 weeks, as was the case after 9/11, then your comparison will prove valid. Can you show the steel used in road construction is the same as the steel used in building construction?

I don't know either, I'm just sayin.. ;P

Answer 7

You and I know it can.
To be a liberal conspiracy theorist nut you have to live in your own little world where things ONLY make sense to you and others like you. NORMAL does not apply to them in any facet of their existence.

Answer 8

Steel is forged in fire so yes fire can melt steel.

Answer 9

Of course it can! lol! You're nuts to believe otherwise!

Answer 10

that steel probably never melted and didn't need to for structural failure, the same goes for the twin towers