Re: The only real explanation to the collapse being the structural steel became hot enough to buckle on one or more floors.
Huh? The most reasonable explanation is controlled demolition. The characteristics and physics of the event are completely and easily explained by applying what we know of controlled demolition.
What I'd really like you to do is to thoroughly study these two items and think through what you are looking at. First, here is an image showing live and uninjured human beings in the opening of the North Tower: 911research.wtc7.net
OK, let's do a thought experiment. I've been in dry saunas where the air temperature was over 200 degrees Fahrenheit, so I know that a human can stand this temperature for at least a few minutes. So lets say that the temperature at the point this woman was standing may have been as much as 200 degrees.
So at the point that the woman was standing, the steel was simply not hot enough to have lost its tensile or compressive strength.
How about the temperature in the 47 core columns? We have some data on how steel framed structures react when a petroleum fire occurs within. corusconstruction.com
Even with severe fuel loading, much more severe than was evident at the WTC towers at the time of their collapse, the temperature in these test structures never exceeded 360 degrees Centigrade, a temperature still below the elastic limit of steel. Keep in mind that steel is an excellent conductor of heat. Thus, as any section of steel in the World Trade Center were heated, it would immediately be dissipating this heat by warming adjacent framing elements. As with the Corus tests, no one has been able to prove that the 47 heavy structural columns in core of the WTC towers could have possibly collapsed with the synchonicity required for buildings to collapse in the fashion that they did. However, using a controlled demolition theory explains this logically and completely.
I'll refer you to this post for more links:
Message 21409812
***
As to the validity of the Scientific American article that you linked to:
sciam.com
The very first sentence on this page is utter poppycock:
"Despite shocks and explosions estimated to be equivalent to that of the 1995 truck bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (about 400 tons of TNT) [Emphasis added], the towers remained upright."
Either this author has written a typo which the editors failed to catch, or else someone is trying to bamboozle the public here. How so? We know that the type of device used by the Oklahoma City truck bombers was an "amfo" type bomb. That is to say, it was composed of ammonia and fuel oil. The degree of explosivity of various compounds is called Brisance. tinyurl.com
The brisance of an amfo device is considerably less than that of TNT to begin with, and a Ryder rental truck's cargo capacity is on the order of 20 tons, at most. So the Scientific American article of off by at least 2,000% and possibly more like two orders of magnitude in its comparison. Ugh! How can this pass for real science?
And that, Pearly Button, was just the first sentence of the disinformation that this article presented. You really ought to be looking for better, more honest sources, IMHO. |
