WTC Collapses

The above post show with out a doubt, that the mind is made up and He don't need no stinking facts to confuse him

Core temperature? Light steel construction.

Box beams, lite steel bent in to a open sided square.

No support between the Core and the outer walls for the floor joists, they were attached at only the inner core, and the outer wall.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I did. I said you needed to have the initial and final velocities. Those were the first things you presented in your calculations. Go read my post. Your post contained bits like this:

So sue me for assuming you calculated speed first, since you put it down first. Then after having all the velocities, you still used that clumsy method at the end to find the times. It looked unnecessarily complicated, and indeed the way you solved the problem actually is unnecessarily complicated. So I made a simple suggestion, and you pounced on it as if I'm just some street bum fantasizing about an alternate life as a grad student.

Obviously it makes a difference. What you don't account for is what was going on with the internal structure before the exterior went down, what sort of detailed collisions were going on between objects at the bottom of the falling mass as opposed to objects at the top, which is what I presume you're timing. In addition, as I understand it, the top 13 floors or something in that range came down all at once, or at least the exterior did. Your model of 4 point masses falling down and sticking together as they collide doesn't even come close to the real deal. So you should ask people who have done actual detailed simulations. If one person doesn't write back, ask other people. Just ask where they got their data as you want to check it out, and don't bug them about anything else.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.
I didn't get an official physics class until 12 grade. Straight A's by the way. I didn't like the instructor though, he was more interested in chess than physics. 10th grade was biology. But I was building and launching rockets in 7th. I also won a National Merit Scholarship and let my MENSA membership expire back in 80's.

We don't have accurate information on the mass of the real deal. My point is that since merely changing the sequences of the masses significantly changes the collapse times even without the energy losses required to break supports then it makes no sense for us to BELIEVE the planes could do it since THE EXPERTS WON'T EVEN TELL US THE DISTRIBUTION OF STEEL AND CONCRETE in the towers and they could not have been built without knowing that ahead of time.

So it is kind of ridiculous to be complaining about something not being the REAL DEAL if you are not demanding that data.

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.
I am not talking about the core of the building I am talking about the CORE OF THE STEEL. If a box column has its four sides made of 2 inch thick steel then the steel 1 inch below the surface must rise to 1100 deg F to lose 50% of its strength. Just sticking it into an 1100 deg fire doesn't do it. It takes TIME for the core of the steel to rise to that point and all of the while it is conducting heat to cooler areas so this is no easy task. But the Popular Mechanics article says nothing about the core temperature of the steel or conduction.

psik

 

From my understanding..from the "official story" this is what caused the towers to fail:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The extremely light weight floor joists, who's job it was to prevent the lightweight outer box of columns from bowing in or out. When enough of these joists sagged and became disconnected from the outer wall, it allowed the outer columns to bow, buckle, and fail...starting the collapse.

The structure of these joists is so delicate, that "core temperature" vs. surface temperature is irrelevant. How much difference in temperature would there be in a 1" steel rod (green arrow) from the core to the surface? In my opinion, that rod indicated by the green arrow was probably the first thing that failed. Blown on fireproofing would have a hard time sticking to a surface like that, and once it got hot enough, it would allow the top rail (blue arrow) and bottom rail (pink arrow) to sag. Pulling on the connections (yellow arrows) until they failed. IMHO

 

Office fires could never have heated the WTC steel to 1000 C

This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 863 in this thread.

No, I base it on the following from Kevin Ryan's paper, The short reign of Ryan Mackey, page 8:
...Mackey inadvertently stumbles upon an important fact that ultimately destroys all hope for the official story when he says -

"the temperature is an approximate maximum furnace temperature and has no direct relationship with the temperature reached by the steel."

With this statement, Mackey acknowledges that gas temperatures cannot be equated with steel temperatures. So, when NIST, throughout their report, refers to gas temperatures of around 1000 C, that they have no actual evidence for, they are simultaneously admitting to us that the actual steel temperatures were far lower than that. The steel temperatures that NIST can support through testing are far too low to have significantly affected the strength of the steel, at only about 250 C. These results were from the testing of WTC steel samples, taken from what NIST's May 2003 progress report called an "enormous amount" of steel and specifically from the fire zones in the towers.

Why I would 'admit' something that is patently false is beyond me...

I have conceded points, although apparently you haven't noticed. However, I won't concede a point when I find no evidence that it is flawed.

 

The only way NIST could get the WTC buildings to collapse via office fires was to 'simulate' it on tweaked computer models; real steel models of the WTC buildings, which follows the laws of real physics, simply wouldn't comply.

This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 863 in this thread.

I'm not pretending anything. Something mentioned 4 times over the course of multiple threads spanning thousands of posts doesn't always leave a mark. I remember mentions of various fire tests, but I'm not sure which particular tests you're referring to. Instead of going on about what you think I'm pretending, I think your time would have been better served by simply posting a relevant excerpt; that's what I do when you ask me for information.

No, I'm not.

The Cardington tests did not simulate the conditions in the WTC buildings. This is something you have failed to note. There -were- tests done that -did- simulate what happened in the WTC buildings. The results of these tests were not favourable to NIST's 'office fires' theory, however- none of those steel beams collapsed. The only way NIST could get the twin towers to even -appear- 'poised to collapse' was to tweak a computer model; reality simply wouldn't cooperate. In other words, they did some snazzy special effects on a computer, where cartoon physics can most certainly apply.

There is no solid evidence that much of the fireproofing was removed in the WTC buildings prior to collapse. Explosives could certainly have removed it during collapse, however.

Alright, I'll assume you're right on that one for now. However, the Cardington tests were not modelled after the WTC buildings- 1000C fires does not equal 1000C steel. Not to mention the fact that Kevin Ryan has stated that there is no evidence that even the WTC fires reached those temperatures.

 

Scott..I mean this in the best possible way..stop responding to replys from 500 post ago, and join in on the current discussion!! Its been really good lately.

 

Here is my response from Purdue:
____________________________________________

From: "Chris Hoffmann" <cmh@cs.purdue.edu>

To:
Cc: <ayhan@purdue.edu>, <sozen@purdue.edu>
Subject: RE: Concrete Video?
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:37:51 -0500

Thanks for your interest.
Please contact Professor Sozen regarding the building particulars.
Best wishes, Chris Hoffmann

______________________
Christoph M. Hoffmann, Computer Science
Director, Rosen Center for Advanced Computing
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
ph: 765-494-6185, fax: 765-494-0739
www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh
______________________


Sozen never responded.

psik

 

I respond to the current forum somewhat. But I -love- responding to shaman_'s old posts sometimes. I love it because I believe my previous responses aid in backing up my points even more- essentially focusing more and more on where shaman_'s viewpoints are weak.

 

.
I KNOW about the official story. I have the NCSTAR1 report burned to DVD. I have read the furnaces tests on the floor sections that did not fail in the required time. And I know they have not tested a floor section without fireproofing.

So why haven't they done that if that would PROVE the official story?

If you can BELIEVE the official story that is your business.

psik

 

WTC 5 and the effect of thermate on the melting point of steel

This post is in response to the 6th part of shaman_'s post 863 in this thread.

You are attempting to prove your assertions, I'm attempting to prove mine; why you think I am "stalling", I have no idea. I have seen no solid evidence that office fires in the WTC buildings could have reached 1000C, certainly not for any sustained period of time.

Perhaps falling debris did it? WTC 5 is also not the twin towers and it did -not- suffer a complete collapse either. I'm not too up on what caused steel to buckle in that building. I didn't find much in 9/11 Research's article 5 World Trade Center. I think this point bears repeating though:
FEMA's report has a number of photographs of Building 5 wreckage, and concludes that fires caused the collapse of portions of this building, without making a convincing case.

While you may be confused by what I'm saying, I think I've got my facts straight here.

I'm not trying to 'provoke' you. I'm just telling you what I believe.

 

I have not read the NCSTAR1 report. My knowledge of the official story comes from a PBS doc about why the towers collapsed...and my own knowledge from gathering info for this thread. Since you have reviewed it, and I have not, is there anything I said in post #1345 that conflicts with their findings?

 

Dude...there's a 12 step program for that. Come on!! you can respond to those old post later. There's good active discussion in this thread right now, and you should take advantage of that.

 

.
Where did that "lightweight outer box of columns" come from? The heaviest of the perimeter wall panels weight 22 tons. But there were 12 types and the higher up the building the lighter. But I don't know how much the lightest weighed. The NIST has not told us the number and weight of each type. Although the perimeter columns were not as strong as the core columns there were more of them. There were 47 core columns and 50+ perimeter columns on each side of the building.

So since they have not tested a floor panel without fireproofing and demonstrated it would bow sufficiently within the time limit they have no case especially since the fact that they tested four proves they know how to do it. They just need to fabricate another floor panel and not put fireproofing on it. Why should that be a big deal?

Now of course if they test it and it does not fail then where would that leave them? Might that be why they don't want to test it?

psik

 

The WTC office fires probably never got the WTC steel hotter then 250C

This post is in response to the 7th and final part of shaman_'s post 863 in this thread.

No, no, no. You previously stated that only 9 of the 229 pieces of the twin tower samples were column fragments from the impact zone. What I wanted to know is if you knew how many of those 9 were analyzed and what methods of analysis were used. Seeing as how you seem to think that that there were 229 core fragment samples instead of a total of 229 samples of the twin towers, I have a strong feeling you have no idea.

And yet, you -did- mention that it was an "inconclusive test", which leads me to hope that you do, in fact, know what was tested for.

Perhaps you did; I had to go back a few posts in order to find your 229 number, as well as the 9 column fragments from the impact site, but I don't think I'll forget them now.

No, it wasn't. As a matter of fact, I didn't even ask that, although it's not a bad question.

I haven't seen the evidence, but I'll grant you this possibility. You now have 2 tasks:
1- show evidence that the WTC fires actually -got- to 1000C.
2- show evidence that this somehow translated into the -steel- getting there.

Good luck

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If it did, it apparently failed to include it in their interim report. I wonder why? Now that we're on the subject, I also find it interesting that NIST's interim report (or any report thereafter) also made no mention of the New York Times claim that Jonathan Barnett and Astaneh claimed there was evidence of vaporized/evaporated steel. I must admit I'm -really- curious as to why Jonathan Barnett initially felt this to be true but later changed his mind...

And yet, no mention of it in the interim report- why do you suppose that is?

In a controlled environment, sure. Open air burning temperature? 287.5 °C (549.5 °F). Apparently just about everyone agrees that even that would have burned out within about 10 minutes and no one of any relevance is now claiming that the jet fuel did much other then start the fires off.

I never said that they did. I -am- saying, however, that they initially only reported that most of the -steel- hadn't gotten beyond that temperature and I may just know why- because there is apparently no evidence that the WTC office fires could have heated the steel any hotter.

 

I believe Tony has said that they have. Kevin Ryan has stated that they tested one with essentially no fireproofing as well. It didn't fail in the one where essentially no fireproofing was used. Tony says that they never released the results of the one with no fireproofing at all, saying that it wasn't a 'real' test or something, but I have a strong feeling that if it -had- collapsed, they would have said so.

 

I used the term "light weight" in comparison to "heavy weight" construction of the core. The rest of your post is jibberish to me.

 

And the answer is...

This post is in response to Headspin's post 867 in this thread.

Come on Headspin, quit holding out on us

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- I searched that 164 page document, but didn't come up with the answer.

 

Man...y'all are all just fucking nuts.

I'm going back to discussing butt hair in BenTheMan's "full brazilian thread".