And for you to assume that a mere 1" of expansion will cause the straight down collapse of 3 buildings is just plain fucking lunacy
*sigh*
You're just too stupid to even BEGIN to understand. If a steel column expands, it will shear the bolted connections thus rendering the structure weaker as a whole. This didn't happen in one spot you fucking imbecile. Not to mention that the heat WEAKENS, not MELTS, steel components. If you put a load on a steel beam, and apply heat, it starts to lose it's ability to support that load. As the temperature climbs, the weaker it gets. You idiots can't seem to grasp that. o talk to a structural engineer and ask about it.
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.
Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.
If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.
This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen.
But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio.
Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C
It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.
Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range.
Why didn't it collapse in a manner more consistent with the damage caused by the sporadic and highly displaced fires, in other word..some partial collapse?
Because the the load supported by the weakened/damaged components gets transfered to the remaining, still intact components as a whole. When the core columns collapsed in WTC7 the 58 perimeter columns were left with trying to hold up not only themselves, but the reaming floors, trusses, and girders that remained attached to the perimeter columns. The perimeter columns were designed to HELP the center columns with the support of the floors and everything else. Eventually the load became to0 much for the 58 perimeter columns to support and came down as a whole.
The over stressed components could fail, dragging the still rigid part of the building with it, causing a deformation, and initial partial collapse, we saw non of that, just a straight down collapse of 3 buildings, in seconds, remember these were sporadic and displaced fires you claim did this damage, therefore we should have seen the end result be sporadic deformations, and partial displaced collapses,
You have parts of the building that are still rigid, resisting coming down...what part of that can you not comprehend, think about it.
You do realize that heating steel in one spot does not mean the entire length of that beam is going to be the same temp along its entire length don't you?
Come on Mr. Jones. Are you really that stupid? Are you telling me that an office fire in several rooms doesn't heat up the ENTIRE room or area (including the steel columns and truuses, etc.)? Are you comparing a localized welding torch applied to a piece of steel to an office fire as far as how the heat is distributed/contained?
And you are comparing expansion of piping to the massive columns of the WTC?
Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
There was only localized heat and fire at the WTC. But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C .
As far as the twin towers were concerned, you didn't only have fire that made the towers collapse. You started the sequence with damage from the jet. First you severed perimeter columns on one side that helped distribute the load of the upper portion of the tower. Then you have damaged/severed core columns. Taking out these two components made the remaining components have to take up the load slack that the damaged/severed components once helped with. (hence the pipe and three people example). Then the office fires started which began to weaken (not melt) the remaining support components (core columns, floor trusses, etc.) when you start to weaken already over-stressed components, what do you think happens?
The next stage of the collapse is the upper \"block" coming down. That upper block hits the first floor below the failed components. What do you think failed? That block completely destroyed any floor connections on that next floor. Without anything holding the perimeter columns to the core columns, the block kept going to the next floor.
That block was pulverized, basically disappearing, what caused that? Here's a 3 part video that can better debunk the smaller block crushing the larger stable lower block.
