yes but what is there in an office that burns that hot? Paper sure but how long?
On 8/22/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y > > FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel > (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, > their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of > their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less > heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says > retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The > Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've > seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is > that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer > expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." > > "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior > engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel > Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." > NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing > insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the > path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the > heat. > > But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a > professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, > and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM > consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the > WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible > material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and > paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. > > "The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned > for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 > minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was > responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down > > > On 8/22/06, Dana wrote: > > ok well... what this movie says is that the building was in fact > > designed to withstand being hit by a plane, and that jet fuel does not > > burn hot enough to achieve those results. See the movie for more > > detail. I am not going to argue its merits either pro or con. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:213927 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
