WTC Collapses

No.. I cropped it so the topic of my discussion, the floor joists, were centered in the picture. ..which by the way no one wants to discuss. Psi just babbles about wanting to know the total amount of steel, no matter what is being discussed, and HS thinks I'm a spook.

This is why all the "official story" people stopped coming to this thread. When presented with hard evidence...you get nothing in return but subject changes and nonsense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok..the size of the rod is the same diameter of the one indicated with the green arrow in the picture. In a rod that small in diameter, I don't think there would be much appreciable difference between the temperature in the center, and on the surface. So I'm not quite sure why measuring core temperature would be so important.

Why don't you go over that again with us...my memory isn't what it used to be.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the core columns dimensions are available, i remember reading about them.
it's a shame i can't remember where though.
both the cross section and the thickness of the steel decreased along the height of the building.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the portion that was cropped was not the core columns but the perimeter columns.

 

The quote you took was about macguyver talking about sticking a rod in a fire it was not about steel in the WTC. He was not providing specs for his example.

psik

 

Kevin Ryan's letter to NIST

This post is the 5th and final part of shaman_'s post 795 in this thread.

If I have, it's because you consistently fail to get what I'm trying to say.

Trying to educate someone by repeatedly trying to impress a lesson upon them isn't spamming.

I was, but apparently you didn't notice.

It may have had some minor flaws, but I think the points Kevin brings up in his letter are worthy of note. It may well be that because of Kevin, they got rid of the silly notion that the office fires could have melted the steel, as Dr. Brown was suggesting.

It implied that most of the steel samples didn't go beyond that temperature. This may be because to suggest that office fires could have gotten the steel to higher temperatures stretches credulity. However, they apparently later realized that to -not- do so stretched credulity even more, considering the evidence for molten steel and perhaps even vaporized steel, and so then went up to the idea that the steel got somewhat hotter then that.

It almost sounds like you might actually be agreeing that perhaps they should have done a more thorough investigation before trashing most of the steel. Is that what you're implying?

 

You spend your time over it.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2136834&postcount=1095

psik

 

my quote was taken from the following post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2145738&postcount=1255
you mentioned that the dimensions of the box columns have never been published. this is an error on your part because i remember reading about them.

 

UL's Steel test with essentially no fireproofing still held

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 863 in this thread.

Gladly. It's on page 7:
In fact, UL did test floor assemblies in 1970, that were “similar” to those used in the WTC towers, but this fact has not been repeated by NIST since their progress report of May 2003.[7] The results of those early tests were interesting, considering that they showed the “floor assembly sagged 3 inches... at 120 minutes”, which correlates with the August 2004 floor tests done by UL as part of the NIST investigation. Of course, 120 minutes is much longer than the fire times in the failure zones of either tower.

There are several other facts about UL’s August 2004 floor model tests, performed as part of the NIST WTC investigation, that should be emphasized. These facts show that, even despite designing these tests in an intentionally deceptive way, the floor models still supported their loads in the furnace. Not only did UL and NIST add twice the known WTC load to the floor models, they also used far less fireproofing than was known to exist at the time. The tests performed by UL included two test specimens with “as built” fireproofing of 0.75 inches, one with “as specified” fireproofing” thickness of only 0.5 inches, and one with the “as specified” condition of essentially no fireproofing. None of the test specimens had fireproofing to represent the “as impacted” condition of 3.25 inches, reported in NCSTAR 1-6A, figure A-60.

 

Hey! Nice read..

I partcularly enjoyed this post:

 

The temperatures that could have been reached by the Twin Tower office fires alone and the facts on the effect of essentially no fireproofing revisited

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 863 in this thread.

Not to my knowledge, no. From what I understand, office fires should only have been able to get the temperatures up to about 1000C, your protests, although I know you disagree.

I mentioned it in my last post.

I've seen no evidence that the WTC office fires were hot enough to cause steel, fireproofed or unfireproofed, to buckle, only to sag a bit.

If I were just throwing random links at you I wouldn't be answering this post ages from when you wrote it- it takes -time- to find points that counter some of yours.

 

Underwriter Laboratories/NIST's steel tests much harsher then reality of the actual 9/11 office fires and loads on the steel, and yet the steel still didn't fail

This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 863 in this thread.

I'm basing it on the quote that I've quoted so many times. Once again, with the relevant parts highlighted this time:
In fact, UL did test floor assemblies in 1970, that were “similar” to those used in the WTC towers, but this fact has not been repeated by NIST since their progress report of May 2003.[7] The results of those early tests were interesting, considering that they showed the “floor assembly sagged 3 inches... at 120 minutes”, which correlates with the August 2004 floor tests done by UL as part of the NIST investigation. Of course, 120 minutes is much longer than the fire times in the failure zones of either tower.

There are several other facts about UL’s August 2004 floor model tests, performed as part of the NIST WTC investigation, that should be emphasized. These facts show that, even despite designing these tests in an intentionally deceptive way, the floor models still supported their loads in the furnace. Not only did UL and NIST add twice the known WTC load to the floor models, they also used far less fireproofing than was known to exist at the time. The tests performed by UL included two test specimens with “as built” fireproofing of 0.75 inches, one with “as specified” fireproofing” thickness of only 0.5 inches, and one with the “as specified” condition of essentially no fireproofing. None of the test specimens had fireproofing to represent the “as impacted” condition of 3.25 inches, reported in NCSTAR 1-6A, figure A-60.

As a sidenote, I actually took a look at NCSTAR 1-6A, but while Figure A-60 was mentioned, it said it was in Apendix A, and I couldn't find that.

 

And precisely what is the source of this stuff you keep repeatedly posting??

 

it certainly isn't his own words that's for sure because the man hasn't done any independent research on this subject.
his inability to answer some of my questions proves that assertion.

 

You can go on about 9/11 in forums like this because most people here believe in free speech and open debate. If your points were respected for their scientific merit, they wouldn't be relegated to the pseudoscience section.

 

Definitely an AUTHORITARIAN perspective.

Can you build a skyscraper without determining the distribution of steel? Then where is there a SCIENTIFIC section on any website ths specifies the vertical distribtion of steel on any skyscraper?

SOME FREE SPEECH! LOL

psik

 

Should I track down the post where econ talked about the impact velocity of an object dropped from 1000 feet and got it WRONG?

I provided a link to FALL OF PHYSICS and you want to dig up psychological bullshit.

If you aren't capable of evaluating the math and finding if anything is wrong with it and explaining what is incorrect if that is the case then admit it. Econ41 just balthers and explains nothing but apparently that impresses you.

psik

 

That link contains this:

That is from MacGuyver just like I said. That is what I was responding to.

psik

 

So your memory is defective.

Supply a link to where I said that. I keep saying we don't have the weight for steel and concrete on each level. And the NIST never provided the total for the concrete.

I provided a link to Lon Water's site where he has info on the box columns in the core.

http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/system:list-all-pages

The NIST report says there were 12 types of perimeter wall panels but does not provide the number and weight of each type. We only know the weight of the heaviest was 22 tons because it was in an engineering magazine from 1970.

psik

 

The ventilation would have no effect on the maximum temperature but you are really reaching if you think that the hole would have restricted the temperatures within the building. The temperature around the actual hole may certainly have been lower…
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/woman_wtc.jpg

…. but the remainder of the building, and particularly the other side of the building, would not be affected. The other side of the building to the impact areas was where the bowing was observed and south tower leant towards that direction when falling. So that is most likely were the highest temperatures were.

Your oven example might be analogous if the WTC was one room and one entire wall was removed. !

Ah truthers. .. they know what really happened, they know what people are thinking.. they know everything!

Right… so from my flippant comment you have analysed my ability to perceive reality. Yer ok.

Here were go again… Because I’m not gullible enough to fall for the absurdities of the 9/11 conspiracy I must therefore believe everything on the news.

I did not get that information from Mackey at all. It is something that I have seen many truthers repeat many times. Scott has mentioned before.

So is this, or is it not, David Ray Griffin saying that the fires were oxygen starved?

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

“Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300˚F” (Eagar, 2002).”


Just using the term oxygen starved is incorrect and deceptive.

You are living in a fantasy world where Mackey is responsible for everything. His drg review document is a good piece of debunking. As a 9/11 follower I'm sure you do feel some hostility towards him.

In their original 9/11 article they say 426C to 815C.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

1200C? That sounds extremely high. Are there conditions mentioned that accompany that estimate? Are there reasons given why it is so much higher than one published earlier?

The bowing seen on the WTC is evidence that the weakening did follow a smooth curve, until the collapse initiated. To describe the collapse as a binary state is a deceptive simplification and you should know that. It didn't just all fall at the same time. One floor collapsed and the floor underneath could not handle the extra weight and momentum so it collapsed ect ect.

Even if they were different concepts but that doesn’t mean that one cannot lead to the other.

Because Mackey is the source of everything bad right?

I will rephrase so there is no confusion. The truthers assert that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel.

A steel framed structure collapsing from fire does resemble the situation. To say that it doesn’t is pure fantasy and is basically the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and screaming la la la la I’m a truther la la la la.

Truthers wouldn’t accept anything other than an exact replica of the WTC as a demonstration that fires can cause steel buildings to collapse…..

Fire causing steel buildings to collapse is just a little more relevant than your example.

It was a structure designed to support an immense amount of weight and it collapsed from a gasoline fire.

You are desperately trying to mock the previous examples with every criticism you can think of. It does not change the fact that they demonstrate that fires can cause steel to weaken. What happened on 9/11 is not so surprising.

Yes it was a different construction. The core was concrete not steel. The steel collapsed while the concrete remained. If the core was steel then you may have seen a collapse that was not gradual at all. The key point is that the steel collapsed from the fire.

So because they were bigger they were invulnerable to fire?

The fires in the Cardington tests reached 1000C (or near. Still unresolved discrepancy) and were only in one corner of the building. The fire does not need to be on the entire floor to be hot enough to affect the unprotected steel.

Smaller bilding. Concrete core. The fires were not started with an massive explosion across many floors. The fires were not started with thousands of gallons of jet fuel sprayed across multiple floors. Not as well ventilated… .. and the steel collapsed. Had the building been steel framed then things would have most likely been very different.

So yes these factors matter hugely.

That’s right the steel in taller buildings is impervious to fire.

Ah truther logic. If I can’t give you an example of a building the same size falling the same way then it must have been explosives!! Every thing that happens for the first time is a conspiracy!!

If planes smashing into skyscrapers happened every day then you would have some examples but there were a lot of firsts on the 9/11/01.

The examples are scalable. They represent that a normal fire can weaken steel to the point where it will collapse. This is something that is well known to engineers. Why would the steel been fireproofed otherwise?

Amusingly you bitch and moan about the quality of examples but you think a floating barge with three or four stories is good enough to demonstrate a top down demolition. Truther double standards….

Then again truthers ignore witness testimony when it suits them and then cling to testimony involving ‘sounded like a bomb’ and interpret molten or glowing metal as molten steel.

There are plenty of floors there where the core is in the 600 range or higher just before collapse.

So truthers actually put faith in the simulations when they believe it supports them?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There seems to be some contradiction there. Please rephrase.