The difference in strength of A36 steel at 1500 vs - #141826167 added by anonymous at GUYS IM SCARED!

Refresh

Options

asd

Reply+42

(12/16/2015)[-]

Ha this man is a joke if he actually thinks he's made a point that can't be refuted.

A half inch bar of A36 steel is about 9kg, the World trade center had roughly 2,000,000kg of steel in it's construction.

So if we know 1 anvil can destroy 1 9kg bar of steel. It would take 22,222,222 anvils to take down the world trade center.

The maximum takeoff weight of the plane that hit the wtc is 395,000 lbs. The weight of your average forging anvil is anywhere between 75-500 pounds, for a job like this we'll assume the maximum weight, meaning the plane needed to carry 11,111,111,000 lbs or 28,129 times it's takeoff capacity to destroy the trade center.

What are you trying to hide from us?

#86 to #13 - bronywiseman

Reply+6

(12/17/2015)[-]

If the World Trade Center has 2,000,000kg of steel in it's construction, and he melted that 1.9 kg bar at 1800 degrees, then the fire would have to burn at 3600,000,000 degrees.
Open your eyes, people.

#77 to #13 - bouncingbananas

Reply+5

(12/17/2015)[-]

1 anvil and 1 pinkie***

#108 to #77 - centaurstesticle

Reply+1

(12/17/2015)[-]

underated comment

#60 to #13 - nebuelaeus

Reply+25

(12/17/2015)[-]

Jesus christ, the number of people that think this comment is serious really scares me

#56 to #13 - IamPinhead

Reply+20

(12/17/2015)[-]

Engineer here
Your extrapolation is bad and you should feel bad.

#41 to #13 - anon id: 8ee88665

Reply+23

(12/17/2015)[-]

The difference in strength of A36 steel at 1500 vs 1800 degrees F is minimal. The real drop in strength occurs at around 1100 degrees F.

At 1500 degrees (jetfuel burning temp) the structural steel is 10% as strong as it is at room temp.

When the steel at the crash site heated to 1500 degrees it became very weak and the massive weight of the 100+ feet of building above the crash site caused the beams to basically all buckle at the same time which is why you got the nice controlled downward demolition.

And once the heated beams buckled the kinetic energy of the top of the building was directed straight down and caused each successive floor of beams to buckle until the whole building was crushed.

#139 to #41 - anon id: a552d635

Reply0

(12/18/2015)[-]

The thing is jetfuel burns at like 700°C in open conditions and hihher temperature are only achieved under artificial condition with a compresseds oygen.
Now the thing is that the smoke coming from the WTC indicates that this **** was a smoldering fire, in other words the fire did not even get enough oxygen to burn down under normal conditions.
If the fire was as hot as some claim it was, especially the so called blacksmith that made that video (who somehow does not even comprehend that his furnace has absolutely different conditions) would grasp that the important crystal structure of the metal would be highly altereated.
Sure from the outside it might look the same, but if the crystal structure changes the abilities of the material are highly alterated.
The question is, if this was the case, why could it still be sold like this was not the case despite the apparrently highly alterating temperatures.

Even if all that was the case the estimated fall down time of the building would have been closer 90s instead of the roughly 10s it took.
As even if they had collapsed and each one faster one after another the floors that still were ankered would have slowed down the fall.

Just as a comparission point, in Germany large buidlings like bridges and skyscrappers or other big buildings need to have a security rating of >=10.
This means that if a bridge is labled for 8t vehicles it would actually be able to handle at least 80t.
This is done for security reasons and longlivety.
To compare the different parts of planes usualy only have ratings of 1.25 to 2.50 as they need to be light weight.

So if the WTC was even build have way decently it should have lasted much longer.

Everyone denying that planes crashed into the WTC and that it suffered damage and that people died are idiots, aswell as those that deny the taliban did it.
But so are those that deny the government and other parties did not know before hand that it would happen.

There are tons of reason for the government at the time to let it happen and tons of reasons or rather billions for the owner to let it happen and maybe even help in the fast fall of it.

We know from Shrekli that corporate guys give a **** about human life.
Hell it was a US study that found out that the big manager and CEO guys see les value in a human live than convicted psychopaths and mass murderers.

#123 to #41 - dammriver

Reply0

(12/17/2015)[-]

The cool thing about this chart (that people don't realize) is that an ordinary building fire can get hot enough to render steel completely useless.

#52 to #41 - mattdoggy

Reply+3

(12/17/2015)[-]

This anon actually used a graph in his internet argument
I just wanted to point out how deep into this discussion we got

#50 to #41 - Zaxplab

Reply+1

(12/17/2015)[-]

BUT WHAT ABOUT BUILDING SEVEN?? ?

#75 to #50 - anon id: 11e5f54c

Reply0

(12/17/2015)[-]

#59 to #50 - anon id: 8ee88665

Reply+1

(12/17/2015)[-]

You need to login to view this link

Building 7 was on fire for 9 hours. The above link was the 3rd hit when you google world trade center building 7. Watch the live leak video at the bottom of the page and you will see building 7 blazing shortly before collapse.

#97 to #59 - rudeobuteo

Reply-1

(12/17/2015)[-]

This fire in Brazil was several times worse than anything that happened to building 7, and there was never the slightest chance of it collapsing.
You need to login to view this link

#100 to #97 - anon id: 8ee88665

Reply0

(12/17/2015)[-]

"The Joelma Building is a reinforced fire-resistant concrete hull construction. So, the structure itself did not suffer enough damage from the fire to cause a collapse. However, the interior was furnished with flammable items. Partitions, desks and chairs were made of wood. The ceilings were cellulose fiber tiles set in wood strappings. The curtains and carpets were also flammable."

Straight from wikipedia. The towers and building 7 were A36 structural steel framed and the steel weakens with higher temps. The building in Brazil was built with concrete and concrete does not drastically weaken at 1500 degrees F like steel does.

#104 to #100 - rudeobuteo

Reply0

(12/17/2015)[-]

Interesting, did not know that. Here are some other buildings that experienced severe fires and never collpased, anonymous cretin. You need to login to view this link

#109 to #104 - anon id: 8ee88665

Reply0

(12/17/2015)[-]

Took a look at the backstory on a couple of these buildings mentioned. (no time to go through them all). But the reason they didn't collapse is due to the fireproofing material that is applied to structural support beams. This fireproofing shields the steel and prevents it from getting too hot so that it doesn't weaken and collapse.

Now the twin towers and building 7 also had this fireproofing. But on the towers a lot of the foam like material was knocked off the beams by the massive jet crashing into them at 300+ MPH. As for building 7, when the 110 story towers collapsed bits and parts smashed into building 7 thus also damaging the fireproofing on one entire side of the building.

#110 to #109 - rudeobuteo

Reply+1

(12/17/2015)[-]

yeah I'm sure bits and pieces of falling debris then an unremarkable fire caused this. hahaha, right.

#113 to #110 - anon id: 8ee88665

Reply0

(12/17/2015)[-]

By "bits and pieces" I meant more like several ton blocks of giant building...Also if you watch the GIF you posted closely you can see the corner of the building nearest the towers is the first part to fail and begin collapsing. The entire roof leans towards that corner and then the rest of the building quickly follows suit.

#119 to #113 - rudeobuteo

Reply+1

(12/17/2015)[-]

That is delusional, the entire lattice is steel. If one side buckled, then the other side should fold over toward the side that is weakened. Of course we have nothing to gauge this on because literally no other steel structures have ever collapsed in history. Here is an entire website showing you how you're wrong. You need to login to view this link

by the way, the fires in building 7 were SMALL
I'm sure this UNCOMPLETED building had all the fire-proofing in place, and if a small amount had been removed it would have collapsed. right. You will have to peddle your tripe with someone more gullible.

#128 to #119 - anon id: 8ee88665

Reply0

(12/17/2015)[-]

You also have to look at different construction methods used in various buildings. Building 7 didn't have a standard lattice design like a lot of other steel skyscrapers that have caught on fire. You can look it up if you are interested, but essentially the outer wall of the building was a very large part of the support force. Once this was damaged by the massive junks of Tower 2, the building didn't just lose a little bit of its lattice, it lost half of its supporting structure.

#126 to #119 - anon id: 8ee88665

Reply0

(12/17/2015)[-]

Also the Mandarin Oriental Hotel was slated to open in May 2009 and caught fire in February 2009. The steel beams were coated in fire retardant and the building was really really close to being completed.

#125 to #119 - anon id: 8ee88665

Reply-1

(12/17/2015)[-]

No other building in history has had this much stuff dropped on it first either. The towers didn't go down nice and perfectly, a lot of chunks dozens of feet wide went crashing down everywhere. The chunks caused a lot of structural damage and the fire just helped finish it off.

#127 to #125 - rudeobuteo

Reply+1

(12/17/2015)[-]

I couldn't find any good pictures of the damaged the side of the building (facing the twin towers) here is literally the best one. We can all see how many broken windows there are, which are essential in protecting steel infrastructure from fire, and we can also see the raging inferno occurring inside.

Also, would like to riddle me why BBC reported that building 7 collapsed before it actually happened...twice? You need to login to view this link

#130 to #127 - anon id: 8ee88665

Reply0

(12/17/2015)[-]

There aren't any pics of the southside because there was too much fire, smoke, and debris, hence that is where all the damage and fire were and where the collapse initiated.

Because that poor BBC reporter was brand new and had no idea what the names of the various buildings were. She was looking at the building saying it had collapsed...come on. Every time something interesting happens every news source wants to be the first to report so they just started saying anything they hear.

Look at the San Bernardino shooting that happened a couple weeks ago. For several hours all of the news reports where saying "3 white males in body armor" then by the end of the day we find out it is actually 1 man and 1 woman who are also not white. If you dropped me in NYC that day and I heard someone saying such and such building just collapsed and all I see is mass amounts of smoke I would be like "oh yeah they must be right" cause I have no freeking clue what used to be there.

#134 to #130 - rudeobuteo

Reply0

(12/17/2015)[-]

I'm sorry, there is absolutely no justification for the news reporting something that didn't happen, but would happen. WHO THE **** IS PAYING YOU????

#124 to #119 - anon id: 8ee88665

Reply0

(12/17/2015)[-]

The building you posted a picture of didn't buckle. That is the architectural design of the structure...The is just a picture taken at a terrible angle. Google the Manarin Oriental Hotel and look at pictures of it.

#129 to #124 - rudeobuteo

Reply0

(12/17/2015)[-]

yeah, I know it didn't collapse, that's why I posted it. Because it had huge fires that did NOT collapse it. Is there anything more frustrating in the world that arguing with someone who is too stupid to know they're wrong?

#133 to #129 - anon id: 8ee88665

Reply0

(12/17/2015)[-]

But I am done arguing because I have an structural engineering final exam in the morning to worry about because, oh yeah, I am working on my masters in engineering.

#135 to #133 - rudeobuteo

Reply0

(12/17/2015)[-]

you have a final exam in the morning and you were arguing on the internet for an hour?

And the subject you were arguing about just so happens to be your area of expertise?

Fat chance, faggot.

#131 to #129 - anon id: 8ee88665

Reply0

(12/17/2015)[-]

It didn't collapse because it had the fire proofing on all of its steel beams because the building was just 2 months away from opening. There is a reason the fire proofing is there....it is super effective.

#40 to #13 - garryn

Reply+14

(12/17/2015)[-]

sooooo.......all that extra weight on top of the point of impact magically doesn't contribute? or did i take the bait?