hey everyone, devil`s advocate here (and a civil engineer).
the critical temperature in question is not the melting point. at lower temperatures, steel behaves elastically, meaning it regains its initial state. then it starts to behave elastoplastically, which means it almost regains its initial state with no critical damage. then it behaves plastically, which means it deforms and cant get back its initial state and leads to structural failure, gradually. eurocode 3 covers building fires up to 800°C if im not mistaken, meaning steel doesnt lose its structural capacity up to that range. knowing how these codes are written, i bet it wouldnt turn into slush at 801°C.
additionally saying that “the entire strength of the structure was on the outer edge” is plain wrong. nobody even would consider to design a building like that, and i know for a fact that the core of this specific building was exceptionally and unnecesarily built strong.
i have been having this inner conflict with myself for decades. these two building fell after a plane hit them (and another without a plane impact). but i cannot accept that they caused the collapse, my professional integrity does not let me.
“Building 7” if I remember correctly. Did kind of seem like “well everyone else was falling so I joined in.” Lol
If I remember my conspiracy nonsense correct, there was claimed to have been storage for some sort of documents in that building but I can’t remember what it was exactly.
Wasn’t it that the supports that joined the floor trusses to the frame heated to plasticity and eventually failed, leading to an entire floor falling down onto another, the loading of which was well in excess of that’s floor’s design, and causing a to a cascading effect?
800°C if im not mistaken, meaning steel doesnt lose its structural capacity up to that range. knowing how these codes are written, i bet it wouldnt turn into slush at 801°C.
I didn’t think I’d even have to mention that the jet fuel lit massive amounts of plastic, cloth and wood on fire. Come on. And yes steel does lose strength at 800c. Look it up
“the entire strength of the structure was on the outer edge” is plain wrong.
“entire strength” yeah whatever, hyperbole- I know it had a core. Half of the strength. Half of the strength, as opposed to the normal amount supported by the exterior walls in skyscrapers, which is extremely little. That is why it fell like an eggshell. They had huge open areas to make the offices more comfortable, and they made that possible by placing shitloads of the support structure on the exterior wall.
but i cannot accept that they caused the collapse, my professional integrity does not let me.
hey everyone, devil`s advocate here (and a civil engineer).
the critical temperature in question is not the melting point. at lower temperatures, steel behaves elastically, meaning it regains its initial state. then it starts to behave elastoplastically, which means it almost regains its initial state with no critical damage. then it behaves plastically, which means it deforms and cant get back its initial state and leads to structural failure, gradually. eurocode 3 covers building fires up to 800°C if im not mistaken, meaning steel doesnt lose its structural capacity up to that range. knowing how these codes are written, i bet it wouldnt turn into slush at 801°C.
additionally saying that “the entire strength of the structure was on the outer edge” is plain wrong. nobody even would consider to design a building like that, and i know for a fact that the core of this specific building was exceptionally and unnecesarily built strong.
i have been having this inner conflict with myself for decades. these two building fell after a plane hit them (and another without a plane impact). but i cannot accept that they caused the collapse, my professional integrity does not let me.
“Building 7” if I remember correctly. Did kind of seem like “well everyone else was falling so I joined in.” Lol
If I remember my conspiracy nonsense correct, there was claimed to have been storage for some sort of documents in that building but I can’t remember what it was exactly.
Wasn’t it that the supports that joined the floor trusses to the frame heated to plasticity and eventually failed, leading to an entire floor falling down onto another, the loading of which was well in excess of that’s floor’s design, and causing a to a cascading effect?
yes
I didn’t think I’d even have to mention that the jet fuel lit massive amounts of plastic, cloth and wood on fire. Come on. And yes steel does lose strength at 800c. Look it up
“entire strength” yeah whatever, hyperbole- I know it had a core. Half of the strength. Half of the strength, as opposed to the normal amount supported by the exterior walls in skyscrapers, which is extremely little. That is why it fell like an eggshell. They had huge open areas to make the offices more comfortable, and they made that possible by placing shitloads of the support structure on the exterior wall.
Don’t you design culverts?