History is made: Fire melts steel...

Rosie O'Donnell unleashed another string of idiotic statements on The View, the other day. Among them was this gem, regarding the collapse of World Trade No. 7,

I do believe that is the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. ...World Trader [sic] 1 and 2 got hit by planes, 7 - miraculously - the first time in history - steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.

Since Rosie is so fond of Googling (e.g., "Gulf of Tonkin. Google it.") she should try Googling the words steel beams melted over wood beams. If she did, she'd find a link which produces the following photo and chart (credit - Softwood Export Council):

The caption for the photo is: "Steel beams have melted and collapsed over charred timber beam, which, despite heavy damage, remains in place." Note that the wood beam, while badly charred, retains enough structural integrity to support the deformed steel beams.

From the Softwood Export Council website,

"When exposed to fire wood retains its strength for a longer period of time than metal. Unprotected metals quickly lose their strength and collapse suddenly, often with little warning. In contrast, wood loses strength slowly and only as material is lost through surface charring.

Average building fire temperatures range from approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC, retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."

From the Wikipedia entry for structural steel:

As the critical temperature for steel is around 540°C..., and design basis fires reach this temperature within a few minutes, structural steel requires external insulation in order to prevent the steel from absorbing enough energy to reach this temperature. First, steel expands, when heated, and once enough energy has been absorbed, it softens and loses its structural integrity. (emphasis added).

Also, Rosie is obviously ignorant of Sherman's neckties,

Named after William Tecumseh Sherman, a Union Army general, Sherman's neckties were railway rails destroyed by heating them until they were malleable and twisting them into loops resembling neckties, often around trees. (emphasis added)

And I guess Rosie has never heard of the fine art of blacksmithing, which requires heating the iron or steel in order to shape it.

And... well, you get the picture.

Comments

[Truth Seeker]

First of all, if you're going to compare those puny beams to the ones that help up skyscrapers the joke is on you.

Second of all, yes fire can weaken steel. But the WTC buildings fell without resistance which means all the beams would have had to give at the exact same moment. Seems pretty difficult for a random fire to evenly disperse temperatures on all the beams in the building in order for them to fail simultaneously.

But you don't even have to get that scientific. There are plenty of smoking guns like the people caught waving from the holes created by the planes.

Yeah maybe steel can start to weaken at 230 degrees celsius, but the last time I checked humans can't survive those temperatures.

In terms of Fahrenheit that is 446 degrees!

The point where it only retains 10% of it's strength is at 750 degrees celsius which would equate to 1,382 degrees Fahrenheit!

If the fires really were evenly dispersed enough to weaken those beams simultaneously those people waving would have been burned alive.

[Truth Seeker]

First of all, if you're going to compare those puny beams to the ones that help up skyscrapers the joke is on you.

Second of all, yes fire can weaken steel. But the WTC buildings fell without resistance which means all the beams would have had to give at the exact same moment. Seems pretty difficult for a random fire to evenly disperse temperatures on all the beams in the building in order for them to fail simultaneously.

But you don't even have to get that scientific. There are plenty of smoking guns like the people caught waving from the holes created by the planes.

Yeah maybe steel can start to weaken at 230 degrees celsius, but the last time I checked humans can't survive those temperatures.

In terms of Fahrenheit that is 446 degrees!

The point where it only retains 10% of it's strength is at 750 degrees celsius which would equate to 1,382 degrees Fahrenheit!

If the fires really were evenly dispersed enough to weaken those beams simultaneously those people waving would have been burned alive.

[El oh El At the guy above]

"First of all, if you're going to compare those puny beams to the ones that help up skyscrapers the joke is on you."

First of all, if you're going to imply that the properties of steel change when you add more of it, the joke is on you. It's people like this who are uneducated, that go around parroting misinformation to the public.

"Second of all, yes fire can weaken steel. But the WTC buildings fell without resistance which means all the beams would have had to give at the exact same moment."

Where on earth did you get this information? "Fell without resistance?" What kind of GED toting theorist told you this? Of course there was resistance, but there wasn't enough to keep it up.

There was a big hole in the tower, that's what caused it to collapse. The steel that remained, was significantly weakened by the heat. As demonstrated above, steel does not have to liquify in order to weaken.

You are trying to pass off this notion that there were 100% of the steel girders available, while talking about a hole that people were waving out of. This is just mind boggling to me. remove 50% or more of a building's support structure, weaken the rest, and you have a recipe for collapse.

Contrary to what you and people like you parrot, the theory is not that the entire building crumbled simultaneously. It's that the part above the hole, collapsed into the part below the hole. The rest was pure momentum. No need to melt all the steel beams in the thing. Just destroy enough of the ones in the middle and the whole thing will collapse on itself, and due to the kinds of forces involved at that point nothing will remain.

It is very sad that you guys are arguing against a straw man that a jet explosion "consumed" the towers, when that wasn't what was said at all. It cut through them like a hot knife, and the towers did the rest.

[toomuchtime]

It is nearly impossible to accurately search fire impact on structures on the web without coming accross all the information that 'truth' seekers plaster on the web. For once, I would like these people to actually read or do research in fire design before posting these ridiculous claims on how structures behave in fire. Rosie o donnell is the farthest person from knowing the true behaviour of structures in fire. Heres a grand idea, sign up for a reseacrh degree and test your theories. Beyond this Fire engineering as a whole is a young research field where people cannot 'accurately' predict the full structural behaviour of a building in fire (yet). The events of 911, windsor tower, the china builing recently and many other structures are constantly eductating people. The problem comes in when people talk conspiracy and dont use facts. they plaster one building collapsing and another not, when these are very different buildings. Or in Rosie's case steel doesnt need to melt to collapse a building. Im sorry for the rant but im just tired of reading people pass conspiracies off as facts with no grounds or actual eveidence to what they are saying.