The contention is not that the fire melted the structural steel. Only that the heat made the steel weaker and more malleable at the higher temperatures. Steel becomes weaker as its temperature increases. The fire is not isothermal, some parts would have reached higher temperatures than others.
The author mentions the amount of structural steel in the buildings as if implying that the planes would need to melt all or a significant proportion of it to collapse. All that was required was that the steel supports were sufficiently weakened in a few small, but critical, areas and then the building would come down.
Posted 2004-09-06, 12:39 AM
in reply to Demosthenes's post starting ". ."
Another thing I looked up and found out is that the adiabatic flame temperature of Kerosene is 1727 degrees celcius, whereas the melting temperature of steel is 1570 degrees celcius. Even if temperature was significantly less than 1727 degrees celcius the metal would buckle.
I've been reading this thread... Just FYI, this is horse shit, people.
Black smoke does not indicate the end of a fire. Black smoke indicates black fucking smoke. Ever seen a tire burn? Guess what you get: A fuck of a lot of black smoke.
Also, how can a plane not explode after it crashes into a fucking building? It's a damn airplane. Cars can blow up... Milk tankers can blow up. I'm pretty fucking sure if an airplane runs into a motherfucking building, the engine catches on fire, the fire spreads through the plane and hits a fuel line, and the fire goes up the fuel line into a tank, the plane will blow the fuck up.
D3V said:
This message is hidden because D3V is on your ignore list.
Black smoke does not indicate the end of a fire. Black smoke indicates black fucking smoke. Ever seen a tire burn? Guess what you get: A fuck of a lot of black smoke.
I can't believe people actually thought black smoke means the fire went out...Jesus Christ, D3V.
Hybrid Mode
