response to this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2139177&postcount=1208
You are proving my point. heat was unable to build up above the equilibrium fire temperature produced by office contents and jet fuel. I think you misunderstand fire. In an enclosed space, heat temperature from a fire will build up until it escapes. The hotest point of a building fire inside an enclosed room is usually just before the windows break. This is the principle of an oven, if you open the oven door you will be met with a blast of heat, opening the door will reduce the temperature inside the oven, therefore an oven with an open door is not as hot as an oven with a closed door, therefore a burning building with a plane sized hole in it is not as hot as a fire inside an enclosed building.
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. !
An enclosed building is not a vaccuum. This has been the problem with your style of posting here, you take every detail applying equal weight to non equal arguments. This enables you to disagree on every single point and always in your mind to
Ah truthers. .. they know what really happened, they know what people are thinking.. they know everything!
present a discussion in an equally weighted 50:50 framework. This binary thinking enables you to choose what reality is, it will damage your ability to think if you train yourself to think that way.
Right… so from my flippant comment you have analysed my ability to perceive reality. Yer ok.
The mainstream news media propaganda programs people's thinking like this all the time, "israel has said they have intelligence that iran is developing a nuclear weapons, iran denies it is developing a bomb", then offer false dichotomy choices. "Have your say- should we invade North Korea or Iran? results after this short CNN break".(Nevermind the proof that iran is not developing a bomb).
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.
You have fallen for Mackey's sophistry propaganda yet again. Let me explain how you got your bad information.
If you had read Griffin's book (instead of letting Mackey impress a false reality on you), you would have discovered that David Ray Griffin wrote this "Thomas Eager <Professor of Materials Engineering and Materials Systems, MIT> estimated, given the fact that the fire was putting out black smoke, that the fire was burning at a temperature of 648 C and 704 C (1200 F - 1300 F)" you would then have been able to get to the original source and found that Eager's published and peer reviewed words were "It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke". You'll also find that Eager said "The black smoke indicates a fuel-rich fire". It is clear that Eager's and Griffin's point is that the jet fuel was burning ineffeciently and thus well below jet fuel's maximum efficient burning temperature. Magic master magician Mackey conjurs it up as "Dr. Griffin next uses the presence of black smoke as an argument that the fire was oxygen starved". You are the victim of bad information and Mackey is a disgrace to science.
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.
Actually Popular Mechanics in their book state "Jet fuel burns at 1100 C to 1200 C"
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?
but this shouldn't surprise you given they are proven liars as evidenced by Pop Mech's Davin Coburn claiming he had seen photos of a third of wtc7's south face half way into the building scooped out on the Charles Goyette radio show. Of course we now know this is a completely made up falsehood with the release of NISTs wtc7 report, but it shouldn't surprise anyone because we know this magazine that is usually at home reviewing lawn mowers is owned by the Hearst corporation which is the usual place to find yellow journalism war propganda.
http://www.mepetroleum.com/jet_fuel.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
steel weakening due to fire follows a smooth curve. weakening leading to catastrophic collapse is a binary state, one moment the structure is stable, the next moment there is collapse, these are different concepts and you are confusing them.
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.
this is a lie. nowhere have i seen anyone state this. Mackey magic again?
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.
This is bad logic. Demonstrating that something is possible by using an example that in no way resembles the real situation is pure sophistry.
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…..
By the same logic i could deceptively argue that a plane could not enter the twin towers by using the example of a glider colliding into a solid steel wall.
Fire causing steel buildings to collapse is just a little more relevant than your example.
it was a bridge! it was not a welded interconnected steel structure built to skyscraper standards.
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.
the perimeter columns did not support the building, the core supported the building. what collapsed from the madrid tower collapsed gradually over hours, it did not collapse catastrophically.
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?
In the above photo with molten steel puring out of the window, compare the ratio of steel to window space on the perimeter with the madrid perimeter photo at the top. There is probably 6 times more steel on the wtc perimeter than on the madrid perimeter. The Madrid fire was even hotter AND the building was fully involved with flame
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.
dig up a video of the Madrid fire and see for yourself. these factord matter hugely.
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.
You can only find the weakest of comparisons, and fire weakening steel is not a scalable argument.
That’s right the steel in taller buildings is impervious to fire.
the truth is that the anti-truther wesbites have collected every example of steel fire failure in the history of the world, they have about 10 examples all of which are not qualitively comparable to the twin towers or wtc7. all you do is go to that listette of shit examples.
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.
the NIST fire simulation data show the core atmosphere temperature to be 200 C - 300 C at time of collapse. the steel in the core would be lower than this still.
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?
consider this - NIST make the claim that the trusses sagged from the heat, and the sagging pulled in the perimeter columns. if the trusses sagged due to thermal expansion, then the perimeter columns resisted that expansion. the trusses were strong enough to resist the thermal expansion but not the sagging?
There seems to be some contradiction there. Please rephrase.
