my own understanding is that an explosion is the super heating of a liquid, aerosol, gas or particulate (such as flour) and that the heat generated can be many times hotter than the ignition point of the substance. But how, under what circumstance? I knoe firefighters know this stuff and structural engineers, possibly. Any of you on line? Can you please explain it?
2007-09-28 21:44:46 · 13 answers · asked by Lillian T 3 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Aircraft
Absolutely. But you must also understand there there are more forces in effect than that of just heat. It also has gravity, heat, torque, stress, mass above and below the structure, and fracture among many many other forces. The fact that steel can be heated and heated to a force to even slightly weaken it with these other forces acting upon it will in fact all contribute to the collapse. Simple physics really.
2007-09-28 21:49:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
If you understand the principal of the operation of an oxy-acetylene torch, perhaps you can grasp what happened.
Acetylene burning by itself will barely start a fire, let alone melt steel. Add oxygen under pressure and voila, it will not only melt, but, burn steel. If you heat a vertical beam to just past red hot, it will begin to crumple under it's own weight.
Big fires make their own wind. That is why the western forest fires get out of control so soon. The fire burns air creating a vacuum and air rushes in to to replace the air that was burnt.
Jet fuel in a confined space does the same. The inrushing air replacing the air that was burned acted like a cutting torch, heating the steel beams to such a point that they could no longer support the weight above.
2007-09-30 03:24:01 · answer #2 · answered by eferrell01 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very simple... and for the last time...
A big airplane with lots of fuel made a big hole... that big hole took out a wall that was intended to support the building... the rest of the steel was enough to keep it standing... the fuel, burning very hot, WEAKENED (but did not melt) more of the steel... the combined effects of the missing supports and weak steel holding more than it was inteded to already caused the collapse...
Now, for those of you that dont know, jet fuel is plain old kerosene with a few additives... kerosene is used in lamps for a reason... lots of heat equals lots of light...
2007-09-29 15:09:25 · answer #3 · answered by ALOPILOT 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Jet fuel burns plenty hot. Maybe not enough by itself to melt the steel supports, but don't forget there are other fuels inside a building, and those supports were already damage from the impact, so they just need to weaken a little bit, not completely.
2007-09-29 10:23:03 · answer #4 · answered by rohak1212 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Its not the heat to melt or destroy the steel you just have to have enough heat to soften the steel and the weight of the building above will do the rest. This has been known since Victorian times when they used the new fangled iron beams in buildings and found that the buildings collapsed during a fire but buildings with the old fashioned wooden beams stayed up with the beams schorched by the fire but not destroyed.
What it was, was the heating effect of the fire weakening the beam
2007-09-29 02:34:11 · answer #5 · answered by Dangermanmi6 6 · 7⤊ 1⤋
you do NOT have to melt steel to cause a failure. You only have to heat it enough to change the crystal structure of the metal. Jet Fuel does burn hot enough to weaken steel. and once 1 floor came down it was a domino effect.
2007-09-29 13:37:27 · answer #6 · answered by Wolf of the Black Moon 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Explosion do not melt steel, the extreme pressure wave pushes it aside, melting steel requires time for it to heat up. Why none of the people that believe the WTC towers were demolished interviewed the President of CDI is because he is the expert in the field. When Seattle demolished the Kingdome, CDI was the company hired to do the job.
2007-09-28 22:31:26 · answer #7 · answered by phillipk_1959 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Marvin is bushes younger brother and molten metal was found at ground zero. "Jake: Nice try but your attempts to breathe some credibility into your "theories" isn't going to make it. And neither is you "professor" from BYU." Uh I think it just did and who said anything about a theory? Here is another fact you might of missed, dont worry you can watch it on PBS. John O'Neil, Deputy Director to the FBI was the leading authority on terrorist groups. After his investigations were shut down at the pentagon he quit his job. He was offered a job as head of security at the WTC, his first day on the job the building came down. I dont think you want to hear my theory on that issue and even if I told you it would be met with another nice try. Does that work with most people just saying nice try? One sec, let me try it real fast and see if it works. Nice try!!
2016-05-21 03:17:01 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't see why the force of hitting the building with a jet plane is not enough to knock it down. Explosions caused by fuel would just cause additional damage. Have we really ever had anything to compare it to?
2007-09-28 21:50:22 · answer #9 · answered by San Diego Art Nut 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Without a doubt, a pool fire of jet fuel is sufficient to critically weaken structural steel.
2007-09-29 02:37:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋