Iron has two different crystal structures at atmospheric pressure: the body centered cubic (bcc) and the face centered cubic (fcc). In the ground state the bbc α-phase is stable, and at the temperature T=1671 F (A3 point), α-Fe transforms into fcc α-Fe, which is stable up to 2537 F K(A4 point).
The Body-Centered Cubic (BCC) unit cell can be imagined as a cube with an atom on each corner, and an atom in the cube’s center. It is one of the most common structures for metals. BCC has 2 atoms per unit cell
The Face-Centered Cubic (FCC) unit cell can be imagined as a cube with an atom on each corner, and an atom on each face. It is one of the most common structures for metals. FCC has 4 atoms per unit cell
This means, that as the jet fuel burns at 1, 517 F, and heat is contained (such as in a building), as the iron/steel beams are heated, they at first expand - due to thermal heating. But, when the temperature of the iron/steel beams exceeds 1,671 F; the iron SHRINKS BY HALF
This PULLS the building down, melting is unnecessary.
No one said that the iron cannot, or did not melt.
What I said, was that as you heat iron/steal from normal ambient temperatures through 1,671 F, on the way to the melting point (2,800 F), the crystalline configuration of iron changes. Iron/steel will undergo normal and expected expansion from room temperature and up, but when it crosses above 1671 F - it will SHRINK by half, as the atomic crystalline structure changes. No force on earth can stop it. It's done at the atomic level.
As you continue to heat the iron, beyond the face centered cubic phase (A4 point), eventually it will melt into a liquid. This is an area of metallurgy called Materials Science. Something most engineers learn.
Howd they convince those steel beams throughout the entire building to all shrink within the same 10 seconds? And thrice on one day and never before or again after ?
The change in crystalline structure doesn't require ALL of the steel beams to buckle at the same time. If you have a single 8 ft section of beam, that decides to become a 4 ft section of beam; it will pull the floor above it down. When you have an area about the size of a 747 all burning, you have sufficient heat to affect the central pillars. Then you start a pancake collapse.
The location of the impact, was designed for precisely this type of failure. Too high, and you don't have sufficient mass to create the pancake failures, too low and the impact will not begin the chain reaction.
What you are missing is the fact that the jet fuel was merely an accelerant. There were thousands of tons of petrochemicals and wood in those buildings in the form of carpet, vinyl, adhesives, furniture, paper, etc. Plenty of stored chemical energy to soften steel to the point where it can no longer bear the thousands of tons on top of it.
Then explain why the Grenfell Tower did not collapse? 24 story tower, fire breaks out on 4th floor, burns for 60 hours....60 HOURS. Let me guess....no jet fuel. Your soften steel argument is BS kiddo.
was a fully loaded passenger jet intentionally slammed into the Grenfell Tower at 600 MPH causing massive damage to multiple floors before the fire started?
Was the Grenfell Tower built using standard rigid box style riveted girder construction?
...or was it constructed with a "radical design" of a cantilevered open floor concept that bridged the central core to the outer skin facade using horizontal zig zag trusses which held metal pans to hold concrete with pretensioned wires inside?
don't you think it's fair to admit that you can design a building to withstand a fire, and you can design it to withstand an impact... but good luck designing it to survive an impact that destructive and a fire that burned that long at the same time.
You're just not being realistic/honest at all in your comparison and you're either doing it on purpose or it was done to you on purpose.
barely-below-the-surface investigation makes your assertions sound silly.
So an airplane with tanks full of jet fuel will instantaneously combust, or will there be a large impact, the vaporized jet fuel make a large plume; while the remaining fuel pours out into the burning fire. A fully loaded 747 will carry several hundred gallons of fuel
cut the buulshit, hodar.... iron will not shrink in half.... that's the dumbest thing i've heard all day... go make yourself a dikdok video or something.
Iron has two different crystal structures at atmospheric pressure: the body centered cubic (bcc) and the face centered cubic (fcc). In the ground state the bbc α-phase is stable, and at the temperature T=1671 F (A3 point), α-Fe transforms into fcc α-Fe, which is stable up to 2537 F K(A4 point).
The Body-Centered Cubic (BCC) unit cell can be imagined as a cube with an atom on each corner, and an atom in the cube’s center. It is one of the most common structures for metals. BCC has 2 atoms per unit cell
The Face-Centered Cubic (FCC) unit cell can be imagined as a cube with an atom on each corner, and an atom on each face. It is one of the most common structures for metals. FCC has 4 atoms per unit cell
This means, that as the jet fuel burns at 1, 517 F, and heat is contained (such as in a building), as the iron/steel beams are heated, they at first expand - due to thermal heating. But, when the temperature of the iron/steel beams exceeds 1,671 F; the iron SHRINKS BY HALF
This PULLS the building down, melting is unnecessary.
That explain the molten metal months after?
No one said that the iron cannot, or did not melt. What I said, was that as you heat iron/steal from normal ambient temperatures through 1,671 F, on the way to the melting point (2,800 F), the crystalline configuration of iron changes. Iron/steel will undergo normal and expected expansion from room temperature and up, but when it crosses above 1671 F - it will SHRINK by half, as the atomic crystalline structure changes. No force on earth can stop it. It's done at the atomic level.
As you continue to heat the iron, beyond the face centered cubic phase (A4 point), eventually it will melt into a liquid. This is an area of metallurgy called Materials Science. Something most engineers learn.
Howd they convince those steel beams throughout the entire building to all shrink within the same 10 seconds? And thrice on one day and never before or again after ?
The change in crystalline structure doesn't require ALL of the steel beams to buckle at the same time. If you have a single 8 ft section of beam, that decides to become a 4 ft section of beam; it will pull the floor above it down. When you have an area about the size of a 747 all burning, you have sufficient heat to affect the central pillars. Then you start a pancake collapse.
The location of the impact, was designed for precisely this type of failure. Too high, and you don't have sufficient mass to create the pancake failures, too low and the impact will not begin the chain reaction.
Did the 45° cuts help or hurt?
The photos of 45 degree cuts that I've seen were fresh. No rust = those cuts were made in place, after the whole area was sprayed with water.
Therefore, the 45 degree cuts neither helped nor hurt.
What you are missing is the fact that the jet fuel was merely an accelerant. There were thousands of tons of petrochemicals and wood in those buildings in the form of carpet, vinyl, adhesives, furniture, paper, etc. Plenty of stored chemical energy to soften steel to the point where it can no longer bear the thousands of tons on top of it.
Then explain why the Grenfell Tower did not collapse? 24 story tower, fire breaks out on 4th floor, burns for 60 hours....60 HOURS. Let me guess....no jet fuel. Your soften steel argument is BS kiddo.
was a fully loaded passenger jet intentionally slammed into the Grenfell Tower at 600 MPH causing massive damage to multiple floors before the fire started?
Was the Grenfell Tower built using standard rigid box style riveted girder construction?
...or was it constructed with a "radical design" of a cantilevered open floor concept that bridged the central core to the outer skin facade using horizontal zig zag trusses which held metal pans to hold concrete with pretensioned wires inside?
don't you think it's fair to admit that you can design a building to withstand a fire, and you can design it to withstand an impact... but good luck designing it to survive an impact that destructive and a fire that burned that long at the same time.
You're just not being realistic/honest at all in your comparison and you're either doing it on purpose or it was done to you on purpose.
barely-below-the-surface investigation makes your assertions sound silly.
Couldn't tell ya. I'm just applying some common sense here.
So an airplane with tanks full of jet fuel will instantaneously combust, or will there be a large impact, the vaporized jet fuel make a large plume; while the remaining fuel pours out into the burning fire. A fully loaded 747 will carry several hundred gallons of fuel
That explain the building that wasn’t hit?
This says nothing more, or anything less than the atomic crystalline nature of iron/steel.
cut the buulshit, hodar.... iron will not shrink in half.... that's the dumbest thing i've heard all day... go make yourself a dikdok video or something.
I yield to the uneducated - who apparently has no clue how to use the internet, but would rather insult, than take a second to learn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotropes_of_iron
https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/bcc-fcc
https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_4/backbone/r4_2_2.html
https://www.princeton.edu/~maelabs/hpt/materials/mater_39.htm