Untitled

[cybertrad1776]

[soft-transparent-furry-peanut-oi]

1.2K reactions · 193 shares | Another example of 🇬🇧 security status. I think the video is self explanatory. Consequences of wrong policies,

Another example of 🇬🇧 security status. I think the video is self explanatory. Consequences of wrong policies, and the more vulnerable people

[the-handsome-stranger]

[oldinfidel]

[trainer0084]

[carlthesolarguy-blog]

👆🤬We knew!

[vtbrewer]

👆🏻

[hatesaltrat]

[hst3000]

It's never happened before because there's never been a highrise with perimeter steel framing that's been subjected to an uncontrolled burn for an hour and a half which was accelerated with fucking jet fuel.

[hatesaltrat]

Lots and lots of steel framed buildings have burned down and collapsed over the last 75 or more years though. And yes, that’s an important piece of information and shows how slippery people can be in exploiting language. It is true that there’s never been any other steel framed high rise struck by 2 planes and accelerated with kerosene.

[bigredm38-6]

Now the first tower is a bit fuzzy, but there wasn't time for heat soaking the structure for the 2nd tower.

[hatesaltrat]

How long does a fully fueled commercial airliner take to “heat soak” a skyscraper built in the late 60’s? I’m not familiar with this equation. I have been very involved with that type of building but never seen that figure expressed in any of my spec books?

[bigredm38-6]

There was almost no time at all between the 2nd plane hitting and the 2nd tower falling. The 1st tower got hit, and was still mostly intact by the time the 2nd plane hit. I don't remember how long it took for the 1st tower to come down.

[hatesaltrat]

I’m not trying to be a dick here but that’s not what I asked. What is the minimum time for a high rise built in the 70’s, that’s had countless modifications done to the core over 25-30 years, to “heat soak”? This is garbage language used to make it sound like it was something it wasn’t.

The point I’m really driving at here is there’s no metric for what you’re describing. I’ve heard others use the same terminology so I’m not blaming you individually Brother, but to think somehow the buildings were brought down by planted explosives or some missile or something is so outlandish and ludicrous I struggle to even hear it. The immense cost of only keeping those involved quiet would be staggering nevermind paying people to pull it off and all the resources they’d need to make it happen. It’s a sophomoric idea. I’ve offered up very easily found and widely accepted temperatures of steel thresholds and kerosene burn temperatures. The monocote of the 1960-70’s was nothing compared to modern fire proofing materials and was damaged and not repaired from the multiplie Tenant Improvements. Pouring 15,000 + gallons of kerosene down 7-800 foot shaft would create incredibly immense heat similar to a blow torch.

[bigredm38-6]

'Aight, sorry, when tone is lacking I default to combative.

"Heat soak" is a very improper term in this application. I was using it to mean "how long does it take for surrounding heat to actually start affecting the steel". Yes, steel can get hot quickly, but not instantaneous. And "hot" doesn't mean soft, melty, weak, etc.

[hatesaltrat]

I understand the term but there is no real metric for it as it applies to this. 10’s of thousands of gallons of kerosene poured into a building and set a blaze would severely weaken the structural integrity of the structure in very little time. Mix that with the shaking and violent removal of the curtain wall glass from the other tower coming down and…….

Have you ever done the old experiment of standing on a pop can and then tapping the sides?

The second plane hit roughly 1 hour before that tower came down. A kerosene fueled blow torch for an hour doesn’t seem outlandish or preposterous to devastate a structure with that much weight and other fuel inside. WTC1 burned for (roughly) 1.5 hours vs WTC2 burning for 50 minutes. My point is the timeline isn’t much different from one to the other, the 2nd tower collapsed before the 1st one. These events do not seem suspect on their own to me.

I absolutely do not believe there was any additional accelerants or explosives involved beyond the planes, their fuel, and the everyday items that fueled the fires.

The conversation about why and whom is completely different and I don’t have a strong enough opinion to even comment to them.

[usmcmax]

Salt, not to mention the pancake effect of any high rise floor falling to the next. It creates additional force and load compounded enormously to cause the floor below to fail. We run into this all the time in high rise construction when doing shoring and restoring during the structural build. Normal civilians will never get it unless they work in the trade.

[hatesaltrat]

Yes Sir. I had to shore up the Meriwether on the waterfront there in portland so we could inspect the rebar in the footings at ground level. I learned a lot through that process. What you’re describing is how each floor adds an exponential amount of weight and force. I level might weigh in at x,000,000 pounds of static load, then you have to calculate live load, but 3 floors isn’t just 3x those numbers, it’s almost x to the 3rd power. Not quite that much and I won’t pretend to recall all the math now but you get the point. As each floor came down it exerted x(force) on the floor below and as they kept coming down the forces in play just kept growing and growing. And you’re spot on in regards to the average Joe that doesn’t really work in that arena not understanding it, hell, I barely understand and I’ve been a superintendent on big buildings.