QUOTE
the frater rocks the world.
Except that the question I'd asked him was to provide me with the single, best *Fact* that supported his position.
Instead, I got rhetoric, polemic, and politics.
This speaks volumes.
Except that the question I'd asked him was to provide me with the single, best *Fact* that supported his position.
Instead, I got rhetoric, polemic, and politics.
This speaks volumes.
QUOTE (newton+May 29 2007, 03:39 AM)
how did it get over there?
why was it not sitting on top of the debris pile?
Weat Street was right next to WTC1. This was an area of heavy concentration of debris from WTC1
http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/wtc_map.htm
The upper block of WTC1 tipped to the South during the collapse, however. So, I am unsure how the antenna got there. Maybe the block tilted somewhat to the West also. Or the antenna was at some point moved there during the recovery effort and the source of this story was inaccrurate.
why was it not sitting on top of the debris pile?
Weat Street was right next to WTC1. This was an area of heavy concentration of debris from WTC1
http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/wtc_map.htm
The upper block of WTC1 tipped to the South during the collapse, however. So, I am unsure how the antenna got there. Maybe the block tilted somewhat to the West also. Or the antenna was at some point moved there during the recovery effort and the source of this story was inaccrurate.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+May 28 2007, 06:31 PM)
Shagster:
I also tried my program on WTC 7. I used a mass of 40 floors falling on 7 floors. I assumed the mass of the 40 story block was 40/110 of the mass of one twin tower. Since I used 510,000 tonnes for WTC 1 & 2, this gave 185,455 tonnes for the falling mass which is much heavier than the upper falling mass of either WTC 1 or 2..... For E1 I used 1.8 GJ to allow for strong floors. I have not tried varying E1 yet although this is simple enough to do.
These parameters gave a collapse time of 6.56 seconds. Interestingly, the last part of the collapse slows considerably, rather than accelerates as for WTC 1 & 2 because, for WTC 7, the "hammer" is getting smaller and smaller!
Hello NEW-FONZE,
I just want to make sure I understand correctly what you did. You did assume a crush-up process for all 40 floors, right? And there isn't really an issue of momentum transfer here, since when a floor hits the ground it give up 100% of its momentum to the Earth and that's it. So, what gets subtracted from the momentum of the falling tower just corresponds to the amount of energy E1 expended to crush its support from each floor below. That amount gets subtracted from the kinetic energy of the falling mass, right? (And in the later case, this energy really ought only to include whatever is needed to obliterate the load bearing capacity of that storey, and not the energy required to crush the concrete, I presume)
I also tried my program on WTC 7. I used a mass of 40 floors falling on 7 floors. I assumed the mass of the 40 story block was 40/110 of the mass of one twin tower. Since I used 510,000 tonnes for WTC 1 & 2, this gave 185,455 tonnes for the falling mass which is much heavier than the upper falling mass of either WTC 1 or 2..... For E1 I used 1.8 GJ to allow for strong floors. I have not tried varying E1 yet although this is simple enough to do.
These parameters gave a collapse time of 6.56 seconds. Interestingly, the last part of the collapse slows considerably, rather than accelerates as for WTC 1 & 2 because, for WTC 7, the "hammer" is getting smaller and smaller!
Hello NEW-FONZE,
I just want to make sure I understand correctly what you did. You did assume a crush-up process for all 40 floors, right? And there isn't really an issue of momentum transfer here, since when a floor hits the ground it give up 100% of its momentum to the Earth and that's it. So, what gets subtracted from the momentum of the falling tower just corresponds to the amount of energy E1 expended to crush its support from each floor below. That amount gets subtracted from the kinetic energy of the falling mass, right? (And in the later case, this energy really ought only to include whatever is needed to obliterate the load bearing capacity of that storey, and not the energy required to crush the concrete, I presume)
Have y'all seen this, by "Newton's Bit" wrt Gordon Ross?
Failure of the "Truth Movement"s Engineer
K, that's just a snippet of it... it's an interesting read and it seems to cover some of the same stuff Dr. Benson has been saying for quite a while now.
Failure of the "Truth Movement"s Engineer
QUOTE
He attempts to argue that the strain energy in the column should have been sufficient to completely arrest the collapse. I will only address this one critical point in his paper, buckling, which he does not appear to have even a basic understanding of.
---
---
---
Gordon Ross does not have a clear understanding of structural engineering, and this is evident in his paper. His idea of the concept of buckling is incorrect. This in turn has led him to write a paper that completely over-exaggerates the structural capacity of the WTC towers and completely mislead a group of people who depended on him, as a professional engineer, to know what he was talking about. This is not his fault, or the fault of the education system which trained him. He is not a structural engineer; these concepts are not readily available to him. Even I have made mistakes on this concept before. We all make mistakes. This is one that could probably be corrected. This, however, is not about mistakes.
---
---
---
Gordon Ross does not have a clear understanding of structural engineering, and this is evident in his paper. His idea of the concept of buckling is incorrect. This in turn has led him to write a paper that completely over-exaggerates the structural capacity of the WTC towers and completely mislead a group of people who depended on him, as a professional engineer, to know what he was talking about. This is not his fault, or the fault of the education system which trained him. He is not a structural engineer; these concepts are not readily available to him. Even I have made mistakes on this concept before. We all make mistakes. This is one that could probably be corrected. This, however, is not about mistakes.
K, that's just a snippet of it... it's an interesting read and it seems to cover some of the same stuff Dr. Benson has been saying for quite a while now.
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+May 29 2007, 04:24 AM)
Hello NEW-FONZE, [...]
That is NEU-FONZE. Sorry for the misspelling.
That is NEU-FONZE. Sorry for the misspelling.
QUOTE (wcelliott+May 29 2007, 04:01 AM)
Except that the question I'd asked him was to provide me with the single, best *Fact* that supported his position.
Instead, I got rhetoric, polemic, and politics.
This speaks volumes.
Firstly I have No position. I believe in nothing.
As for facts that support my "position" .......
QUOTE
I DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING
This remark was made, in these very words, by John Gribbin, physics editor of New Scientist magazine, in a BBC-TV debate with Malcolm Muggeridge, and it provoked incredulity o the part of most viewers. It seems to be a hangover of the medieval Catholic era that causes most people, even the educated, to think that everybody must "believe" something or other, that if one is not a theist, one must be a dogmatic atheist, and if one does not think Capitalism is perfect, one must believe fervently in Socialism, and if one does not have blind faith in X, one must alternatively have blind faith in not-X or the reverse of X.
My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence. The more certitude one assumes, the less there is left to think about, and a person sure of everything would never have any need to think about anything and might be considered clinically dead under current medical standards, where absence of brain activity is taken to mean that life has ended.
My attitude is identical to that of Dr. Gribbin and the majority of physicists today, and is known in physics as "the Copenhagen Interpretation," because it was formulated in Copenhagen by Dr. Niels Bohr and his co-workers c. 1926-28. The Copenhagen Interpretation is sometimes called "model agnosticism" and holds that any grid we use to organize our experience of the world is a model of the world and should not be confused with the world itself. Alfred Korzybski, the semanticist, tried to popularize this outside physics with the slogan, "The map is not the territory." Alan Watts, a talented exegete of Oriental philosophy, restated it more vividly as "The menu is not the meal."
Belief in the traditional sense, or certitude, or dogma, amounts to the grandiose delusion, "My current model" -- or grid, or map, or reality-tunnel -- "contains the whole universe and will never need to be revised." In terms of the history of science and knowledge in general, this appears absurd and arrogant to me, and I am perpetually astonished that so many people still manage to live with such a medieval attitude.
ROBERT ANTON WILSON (RIP):INTRODUCTION TO COSMIC TRIGGERThis remark was made, in these very words, by John Gribbin, physics editor of New Scientist magazine, in a BBC-TV debate with Malcolm Muggeridge, and it provoked incredulity o the part of most viewers. It seems to be a hangover of the medieval Catholic era that causes most people, even the educated, to think that everybody must "believe" something or other, that if one is not a theist, one must be a dogmatic atheist, and if one does not think Capitalism is perfect, one must believe fervently in Socialism, and if one does not have blind faith in X, one must alternatively have blind faith in not-X or the reverse of X.
My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence. The more certitude one assumes, the less there is left to think about, and a person sure of everything would never have any need to think about anything and might be considered clinically dead under current medical standards, where absence of brain activity is taken to mean that life has ended.
My attitude is identical to that of Dr. Gribbin and the majority of physicists today, and is known in physics as "the Copenhagen Interpretation," because it was formulated in Copenhagen by Dr. Niels Bohr and his co-workers c. 1926-28. The Copenhagen Interpretation is sometimes called "model agnosticism" and holds that any grid we use to organize our experience of the world is a model of the world and should not be confused with the world itself. Alfred Korzybski, the semanticist, tried to popularize this outside physics with the slogan, "The map is not the territory." Alan Watts, a talented exegete of Oriental philosophy, restated it more vividly as "The menu is not the meal."
Belief in the traditional sense, or certitude, or dogma, amounts to the grandiose delusion, "My current model" -- or grid, or map, or reality-tunnel -- "contains the whole universe and will never need to be revised." In terms of the history of science and knowledge in general, this appears absurd and arrogant to me, and I am perpetually astonished that so many people still manage to live with such a medieval attitude.
Robert Anton Wilson book collection
Frater Plecticus vs Nine Inch Nails (10.6mb)
QUOTE (frater plecticus+May 29 2007, 04:10 AM)
Firstly I have No position. I believe in nothing.
Really?
Then you no longer believe this?
and
[QUOTE]Belief in the traditional sense, or certitude, or dogma, amounts to the grandiose delusion, "My current model" -- or grid, or map, or reality-tunnel -- "contains the whole universe and will never need to be revised." In terms of the history of science and knowledge in general, this appears absurd and arrogant to me, and I am perpetually astonished that so many people still manage to live with such a medieval attitude. [QUOTE]
So, basically, I was right. You feel that your cynicism makes you smarter than me.
Funny you should be quoting the Copenhagen Interpretation, that's one of the tenets of my philosophy. I think you'll find it interesting. I invite you to visit my website: http://hometown.aol.com/aliyat/
the wtc fire was a small office fire, jet fuel has a max temp around 825 C. And a fire in offices in a building like wtc cant reach temperatures of 1000-1100C in 45 min, it needs 6-8 hours for the fire to get to that temperature and stay at that temp without going down to lower temperatures. Yes it can reach a peak temp of 1000C in 45 min but only for some minutes then it goes quickly down to temperatures around 400-600 C.
At high enough temperatures, maybe not enough to completely melt. The steel will begin to become malleable. At room temperature, steel is pretty tough, but at 800 deg C, it will be malleable with a hammer, or the weight of the building. It might not melt, as I said, but it will bend, until it all comes crashing down.
At high enough temperatures, maybe not enough to completely melt. The steel will begin to become malleable. At room temperature, steel is pretty tough, but at 800 deg C, it will be malleable with a hammer, or the weight of the building. It might not melt, as I said, but it will bend, until it all comes crashing down.
So dont try to say that the fire could have made the steel collapse. we all know from nist own tests that 700C in almost 4 hours dont even weaken the steel seriously
It will weaken it enough to bend under weight. How much weight was above, I cannot say, but it must have been alot.
And there are other fires like The First Interstate Bank Fire 1988 that raged a much longer time then the wtc fire. So the temperature must have been higher to and the steel didnt collapse!
1) Did it have a plane crash into it at 500kmph?
2) Did it have all that Jet fuel burning?
3) Was it even made the same as the twin towers? (Might have been made better)
etc
Steel melts at 1510C. And FEMA has evidence that steel melted. And there are many eyewitnesses of molten steel.
Steel melts at 1510C. And FEMA has evidence that steel melted. And there are many eyewitnesses of molten steel.
It will weaken it enough to bend under weight. How much weight was above, I cannot say, but it must have been alot.
They Had the floor models under MAX loads.
1. NIST says that the plane crash didn't do any seriously damage.
2. The jet fuel did NOT burn, it was office material the entire time. the jet fuel burned upp in minutes.
3. No it was not made the same WTC was the best building in the world. And there are many other skyscrapers that has burned for a much longer time without collapsing.
NEU-FONZE. Yes of course it can be explained somehow. Thermate is one possibility. Did NIST look for this? no they broke the law and didnt do it.
Really?
Then you no longer believe this?
QUOTE (frater plecticus+ Nov 2005)
The melting point of steel is 1,538 degrees Celsius, equal to 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, although it will weaken and buckle at somewhat lower temperatures. But the absolute maximum that can be achieved with hydrocarbons, such as the kerosene-like mixture used for jet fuel is 825 degrees Celsius or 1517 Fahrenheit – unless the mixture is pressurized or pre-heated through the admixture of fuel and air, which in this case it could not be. Diffuse flames burn at a lower temperature, and fires fed by inadequate oxygen are cooler still. The best estimate is that the fires in the towers were burning at a temperature substantially less than 800 Celsius. The collapse of the towers through the effects of the fires is thus a physical impossibility.
If so, that's at least a START down the direction of RATIONAL THOUGHT.
Arthur
If so, that's at least a START down the direction of RATIONAL THOUGHT.
Arthur
Pierre-Normand:
Very briefly I evaluate the net acceleration, aN, of M40 using the relation:
aN = g - E1/(3.96xM40)
This equation allows the velocity of the falling mass of 40 floors of WTC 7 to be calculated at the moment of impact of the 8th floor on the 7th floor using appropriate values for E1 and M40, and the familiar relation:
v1 = Sqrt [ vo^2 - 2 x 3.96{g - E1/(3.96xM40)}]
After the impact of floor 8 on floor 7, the calculation may be repeated to determine the impact velocity of the remaining block of 39 floors onto the 9th floor. This is done by making v1 the new initial velocity, vo, in the above equation, and making M39 the new mass, and so on, until all the floors have impacted on the floor below and the building has totally collapsed.
I hope this doesn't make things more confusing!
Very briefly I evaluate the net acceleration, aN, of M40 using the relation:
aN = g - E1/(3.96xM40)
This equation allows the velocity of the falling mass of 40 floors of WTC 7 to be calculated at the moment of impact of the 8th floor on the 7th floor using appropriate values for E1 and M40, and the familiar relation:
v1 = Sqrt [ vo^2 - 2 x 3.96{g - E1/(3.96xM40)}]
After the impact of floor 8 on floor 7, the calculation may be repeated to determine the impact velocity of the remaining block of 39 floors onto the 9th floor. This is done by making v1 the new initial velocity, vo, in the above equation, and making M39 the new mass, and so on, until all the floors have impacted on the floor below and the building has totally collapsed.
I hope this doesn't make things more confusing!
QUOTE
QUOTE (wcelliott @ May 29 2007, 04:01 AM)
Except that the question I'd asked him was to provide me with the single, best *Fact* that supported his position.
Instead, I got rhetoric, polemic, and politics.
This speaks volumes.
Firstly I have No position. I believe in nothing.
Except that the question I'd asked him was to provide me with the single, best *Fact* that supported his position.
Instead, I got rhetoric, polemic, and politics.
This speaks volumes.
Firstly I have No position. I believe in nothing.
and
[QUOTE]Belief in the traditional sense, or certitude, or dogma, amounts to the grandiose delusion, "My current model" -- or grid, or map, or reality-tunnel -- "contains the whole universe and will never need to be revised." In terms of the history of science and knowledge in general, this appears absurd and arrogant to me, and I am perpetually astonished that so many people still manage to live with such a medieval attitude. [QUOTE]
So, basically, I was right. You feel that your cynicism makes you smarter than me.
Funny you should be quoting the Copenhagen Interpretation, that's one of the tenets of my philosophy. I think you'll find it interesting. I invite you to visit my website: http://hometown.aol.com/aliyat/
Hey Arthur,
How's it going?
I can't believe you're here still..
No rest for the wicked, eh?
The total collapse of the towers through fire alone is virtually a physical impossibility.
After being hit by aircraft at 500mph, on the other hand......
Wcelliot,
Sorry if you think that I think (!) that my cynicism makes me smarter than you.
I did check out your website..looks real interesting.
How's it going?
I can't believe you're here still..
No rest for the wicked, eh?
The total collapse of the towers through fire alone is virtually a physical impossibility.
After being hit by aircraft at 500mph, on the other hand......
Wcelliot,
Sorry if you think that I think (!) that my cynicism makes me smarter than you.
I did check out your website..looks real interesting.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+May 29 2007, 03:15 PM)
The total collapse of the towers through fire alone is virtually a physical impossibility.
After being hit by aircraft at 500mph, on the other hand......
After being hit by aircraft at 500mph, on the other hand......
In this abstract, it states that one million tons of smoke and dust were released into the air from the WTC on 9/11. Has anyone come across similar numbers?
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/32/11685
QUOTE
The catastrophic collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001, released an estimated 1 million tons of dust and smoke into the air of New York City (NYC) (1)
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/32/11685
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 29 2007, 03:19 PM)
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05272007/gossi...six/pagesix.htm
Read the last two paragraphs.
Yes?
As nobody knows how much the core was damaged, I find it difficult to believe completely either Loose changes' or Popular Mechanics' viewpoint.
Read the last two paragraphs.
Yes?
QUOTE
"Loose Change" pushes the widely debunked "controlled demolition" theory, which claims the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were blown up from within. It alleges the jet-fuel fires inside the towers weren't hot enough to melt the buildings' steel beams.
Those claims were soundly refuted by Popular Mechanics magazine, which meticulously shot down every single one.
Those claims were soundly refuted by Popular Mechanics magazine, which meticulously shot down every single one.
As nobody knows how much the core was damaged, I find it difficult to believe completely either Loose changes' or Popular Mechanics' viewpoint.
I've also tried to calculate wtc7's collapse time, this is the result I have so far
http://i17.tinypic.com/4mbmwea.gif
http://i17.tinypic.com/4mbmwea.gif
QUOTE (Capracus+May 29 2007, 10:30 AM)
In this abstract, it states that one million tons of smoke and dust were released into the air from the WTC on 9/11. Has anyone come across similar numbers?
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/32/11685
That's from Lioy's paper on the dust.
But Lioy doesn't show any actual basis for that comment.
Nor is it quite the same, that "released into the air" is an added commentary.
From Lioy's paper:
The primary differences would be the simultaneous occurrence of each type of
event, the intense fire (> 1,000°C), the extremely large mass of material (> 10 × 10^6 tons) reduced to dust and smoke, and the previously unseen degree of pulverization of the building materials.
Arthur
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/32/11685
That's from Lioy's paper on the dust.
But Lioy doesn't show any actual basis for that comment.
Nor is it quite the same, that "released into the air" is an added commentary.
From Lioy's paper:
The primary differences would be the simultaneous occurrence of each type of
event, the intense fire (> 1,000°C), the extremely large mass of material (> 10 × 10^6 tons) reduced to dust and smoke, and the previously unseen degree of pulverization of the building materials.
Arthur
It wasnt the jet fuel that burned in world trade center, it was
office material the entire time, the jet fuel burned upp in minutes. And
There was no Energy in the plane crash to destroy all the fire protection
systems NIST shows this in a shotgun test, and yet they say that the fire protection systems where destroyed. But the wtc fire was a small
office fire, jet fuel has a max temp around 825 C. And a fire in offices in a
building like wtc cant reach temperatures of 1000-1100C in 45 min, it needs 6-8 hours for the fire to get to that temperature and stay at that temp
without going down to lower temperatures. Yes it can reach a peak temp of
1000C in 45 min but only for some minutes then it goes quickly down to
temperatures around 400-600 C.
So dont try to say that the fire could have made the steel collapse. we all know from nist own tests that 700C in almost 4 hours dont even weaken the steel seriously
And there are other fires like The First Interstate Bank Fire 1988 that raged a much longer time then the wtc fire. So the temperature must have been higher to and the steel didnt collapse!
And you guys that say the molten iron is from the cleanup MUST be KIDDING. Just accept the facts and dont try to defend NIST. You cant explain the molten iron so dont TRY to do it. Just accept reality
office material the entire time, the jet fuel burned upp in minutes. And
There was no Energy in the plane crash to destroy all the fire protection
systems NIST shows this in a shotgun test, and yet they say that the fire protection systems where destroyed. But the wtc fire was a small
office fire, jet fuel has a max temp around 825 C. And a fire in offices in a
building like wtc cant reach temperatures of 1000-1100C in 45 min, it needs 6-8 hours for the fire to get to that temperature and stay at that temp
without going down to lower temperatures. Yes it can reach a peak temp of
1000C in 45 min but only for some minutes then it goes quickly down to
temperatures around 400-600 C.
So dont try to say that the fire could have made the steel collapse. we all know from nist own tests that 700C in almost 4 hours dont even weaken the steel seriously
And there are other fires like The First Interstate Bank Fire 1988 that raged a much longer time then the wtc fire. So the temperature must have been higher to and the steel didnt collapse!
And you guys that say the molten iron is from the cleanup MUST be KIDDING. Just accept the facts and dont try to defend NIST. You cant explain the molten iron so dont TRY to do it. Just accept reality
QUOTE
the wtc fire was a small office fire, jet fuel has a max temp around 825 C. And a fire in offices in a building like wtc cant reach temperatures of 1000-1100C in 45 min, it needs 6-8 hours for the fire to get to that temperature and stay at that temp without going down to lower temperatures. Yes it can reach a peak temp of 1000C in 45 min but only for some minutes then it goes quickly down to temperatures around 400-600 C.
At high enough temperatures, maybe not enough to completely melt. The steel will begin to become malleable. At room temperature, steel is pretty tough, but at 800 deg C, it will be malleable with a hammer, or the weight of the building. It might not melt, as I said, but it will bend, until it all comes crashing down.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
the wtc fire was a small office fire, jet fuel has a max temp around 825 C. And a fire in offices in a building like wtc cant reach temperatures of 1000-1100C in 45 min, it needs 6-8 hours for the fire to get to that temperature and stay at that temp without going down to lower temperatures. Yes it can reach a peak temp of 1000C in 45 min but only for some minutes then it goes quickly down to temperatures around 400-600 C. |
At high enough temperatures, maybe not enough to completely melt. The steel will begin to become malleable. At room temperature, steel is pretty tough, but at 800 deg C, it will be malleable with a hammer, or the weight of the building. It might not melt, as I said, but it will bend, until it all comes crashing down.
So dont try to say that the fire could have made the steel collapse. we all know from nist own tests that 700C in almost 4 hours dont even weaken the steel seriously
It will weaken it enough to bend under weight. How much weight was above, I cannot say, but it must have been alot.
QUOTE
And there are other fires like The First Interstate Bank Fire 1988 that raged a much longer time then the wtc fire. So the temperature must have been higher to and the steel didnt collapse!
1) Did it have a plane crash into it at 500kmph?
2) Did it have all that Jet fuel burning?
3) Was it even made the same as the twin towers? (Might have been made better)
etc
Capracus:
About the "1 million tons of dust":
I think this is another one of those dubious numbers that gets quoted from time to time, like the towers fell in 9 seconds or the towers were pulverized to 60 micron dust.
I always like to see if the author of such statements actually USE the number to calculate something or are just making a passing comment. More often than not it is just a passing comment and is not subsequently used.
About the "1 million tons of dust":
I think this is another one of those dubious numbers that gets quoted from time to time, like the towers fell in 9 seconds or the towers were pulverized to 60 micron dust.
I always like to see if the author of such statements actually USE the number to calculate something or are just making a passing comment. More often than not it is just a passing comment and is not subsequently used.
Malmoesoldier:
When you say : "You cant explain the molten iron so dont TRY to do it." I have a problem with this. As a scientist I like to believe that things can be explained. So if there was indeed molten iron in the WTC rubble pile, its presence CAN be explained... somehow!
When you say : "You cant explain the molten iron so dont TRY to do it." I have a problem with this. As a scientist I like to believe that things can be explained. So if there was indeed molten iron in the WTC rubble pile, its presence CAN be explained... somehow!
QUOTE
At high enough temperatures, maybe not enough to completely melt. The steel will begin to become malleable. At room temperature, steel is pretty tough, but at 800 deg C, it will be malleable with a hammer, or the weight of the building. It might not melt, as I said, but it will bend, until it all comes crashing down.
Steel melts at 1510C. And FEMA has evidence that steel melted. And there are many eyewitnesses of molten steel.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| At high enough temperatures, maybe not enough to completely melt. The steel will begin to become malleable. At room temperature, steel is pretty tough, but at 800 deg C, it will be malleable with a hammer, or the weight of the building. It might not melt, as I said, but it will bend, until it all comes crashing down. |
Steel melts at 1510C. And FEMA has evidence that steel melted. And there are many eyewitnesses of molten steel.
It will weaken it enough to bend under weight. How much weight was above, I cannot say, but it must have been alot.
They Had the floor models under MAX loads.
QUOTE
1) Did it have a plane crash into it at 500kmph?
2) Did it have all that Jet fuel burning?
3) Was it even made the same as the twin towers? (Might have been made better)
etc
2) Did it have all that Jet fuel burning?
3) Was it even made the same as the twin towers? (Might have been made better)
etc
1. NIST says that the plane crash didn't do any seriously damage.
2. The jet fuel did NOT burn, it was office material the entire time. the jet fuel burned upp in minutes.
3. No it was not made the same WTC was the best building in the world. And there are many other skyscrapers that has burned for a much longer time without collapsing.
QUOTE
When you say : "You cant explain the molten iron so dont TRY to do it." I have a problem with this. As a scientist I like to believe that things can be explained. So if there was indeed molten iron in the WTC rubble pile, its presence CAN be explained... somehow!
NEU-FONZE. Yes of course it can be explained somehow. Thermate is one possibility. Did NIST look for this? no they broke the law and didnt do it.
Malmoesoldier
So many falsehoods, so little time(and patience)
But it set all of the other fuel available on fire at one time.
But it set all of the other fuel available on fire at one time.
And
There was no Energy in the plane crash to destroy all the fire protection
systems NIST shows this in a shotgun test, and yet they say that the fire protection systems where destroyed
NIST was correct, you are wrong.
A normal office fire is posited to start in one small space and spread over time. The fire in the towers was NOT a normal office fire, but a sudden multi-floor, widespread fire started in seconds by the burning jet fuel, a BIG difference.
A normal office fire is posited to start in one small space and spread over time. The fire in the towers was NOT a normal office fire, but a sudden multi-floor, widespread fire started in seconds by the burning jet fuel, a BIG difference.
And a fire in offices in a
building like wtc cant reach temperatures of 1000-1100C in 45 min, it needs 6-8 hours for the fire to get to that temperature and stay at that temp
without going down to lower temperatures.
See above, you simply don't know what you are ranting about.
At 1000C steel loses most of it's strength and deforms under load, it's called "creep", it is for this reason that fireproofing is required on steel, otherwise, why bother???
At 1000C steel loses most of it's strength and deforms under load, it's called "creep", it is for this reason that fireproofing is required on steel, otherwise, why bother???
So dont try to say that the fire could have made the steel collapse. we all know from nist own tests that 700C in almost 4 hours dont even weaken the steel seriously
NIST shut down those tests to prevent major damage to the test equipment DUE TO SAGGING STEEL(IIRC 15" in the long span test) Sagging steel is what caused the bowing in of the external frame, cooling that steel(after it starts sagging) increases the pull in force and the bowing in. Bowing of the external frame led directly to the collapse initiating buckling of that frame.
1) FIB was a CONCRETE REINFORCED STRUCTURE, the towers were not.
2). FIB did not have a 250,000 lb plane hit it at 500 mph.
1) FIB was a CONCRETE REINFORCED STRUCTURE, the towers were not.
2). FIB did not have a 250,000 lb plane hit it at 500 mph.
And you guys that say the molten iron is from the cleanup MUST be KIDDING. Just accept the facts and dont try to defend NIST. You cant explain the molten iron so dont TRY to do it. Just accept reality
Absolutely no "molten iron(or steel)" puddles were found anywhere on the WTC complex, therefore there is nothing to explain.
NIST doesn't need my defense, It stands as the ONLY scientifically supported explanation of the collapses and not a single valid peer reviewed paper has challenged ANY of it's reports. While it MAY not be perfect(few things done by man are) it is still the best explanation of those events. While I don't BELIEVE they are absolutely correct, I ACCEPT their findings until proven otherwise(using the same scientific method)
WHEEEW!!! Where are all these...logic bereft posts coming from???
Grumpy
So many falsehoods, so little time(and patience)
QUOTE
It wasnt the jet fuel that burned in world trade center, it was
office material the entire time, the jet fuel burned upp in minutes
office material the entire time, the jet fuel burned upp in minutes
But it set all of the other fuel available on fire at one time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It wasnt the jet fuel that burned in world trade center, it was office material the entire time, the jet fuel burned upp in minutes |
But it set all of the other fuel available on fire at one time.
And
There was no Energy in the plane crash to destroy all the fire protection
systems NIST shows this in a shotgun test, and yet they say that the fire protection systems where destroyed
NIST was correct, you are wrong.
QUOTE
But the wtc fire was a small
office fire
office fire
A normal office fire is posited to start in one small space and spread over time. The fire in the towers was NOT a normal office fire, but a sudden multi-floor, widespread fire started in seconds by the burning jet fuel, a BIG difference.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But the wtc fire was a small office fire |
A normal office fire is posited to start in one small space and spread over time. The fire in the towers was NOT a normal office fire, but a sudden multi-floor, widespread fire started in seconds by the burning jet fuel, a BIG difference.
And a fire in offices in a
building like wtc cant reach temperatures of 1000-1100C in 45 min, it needs 6-8 hours for the fire to get to that temperature and stay at that temp
without going down to lower temperatures.
See above, you simply don't know what you are ranting about.
QUOTE
Yes it can reach a peak temp of
1000C in 45 min but only for some minutes then it goes quickly down to
temperatures around 400-600 C.
1000C in 45 min but only for some minutes then it goes quickly down to
temperatures around 400-600 C.
At 1000C steel loses most of it's strength and deforms under load, it's called "creep", it is for this reason that fireproofing is required on steel, otherwise, why bother???
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes it can reach a peak temp of 1000C in 45 min but only for some minutes then it goes quickly down to temperatures around 400-600 C. |
At 1000C steel loses most of it's strength and deforms under load, it's called "creep", it is for this reason that fireproofing is required on steel, otherwise, why bother???
So dont try to say that the fire could have made the steel collapse. we all know from nist own tests that 700C in almost 4 hours dont even weaken the steel seriously
NIST shut down those tests to prevent major damage to the test equipment DUE TO SAGGING STEEL(IIRC 15" in the long span test) Sagging steel is what caused the bowing in of the external frame, cooling that steel(after it starts sagging) increases the pull in force and the bowing in. Bowing of the external frame led directly to the collapse initiating buckling of that frame.
QUOTE
And there are other fires like The First Interstate Bank Fire 1988 that raged a much longer time then the wtc fire. So the temperature must have been higher to and the steel didnt collapse!
1) FIB was a CONCRETE REINFORCED STRUCTURE, the towers were not.
2). FIB did not have a 250,000 lb plane hit it at 500 mph.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And there are other fires like The First Interstate Bank Fire 1988 that raged a much longer time then the wtc fire. So the temperature must have been higher to and the steel didnt collapse! |
1) FIB was a CONCRETE REINFORCED STRUCTURE, the towers were not.
2). FIB did not have a 250,000 lb plane hit it at 500 mph.
And you guys that say the molten iron is from the cleanup MUST be KIDDING. Just accept the facts and dont try to defend NIST. You cant explain the molten iron so dont TRY to do it. Just accept reality
Absolutely no "molten iron(or steel)" puddles were found anywhere on the WTC complex, therefore there is nothing to explain.
NIST doesn't need my defense, It stands as the ONLY scientifically supported explanation of the collapses and not a single valid peer reviewed paper has challenged ANY of it's reports. While it MAY not be perfect(few things done by man are) it is still the best explanation of those events. While I don't BELIEVE they are absolutely correct, I ACCEPT their findings until proven otherwise(using the same scientific method)
WHEEEW!!! Where are all these...logic bereft posts coming from???
Grumpy
Malmoesoldier:
Just to say thermate can explain molten steel at Ground Zero is not very convincing or helpful. And to say NIST did not look for thermate residues is a bit unfair. What should NIST have looked for? Iron and aluminum? There was plenty of iron and aluminum at Ground Zero anyway! Or should NIST look for the trace additives, K, Mn, S, Cu, Ba, etc. These elements were all NATURALLY present in the WTC in large amounts. (Check out the USGS elmental analysis data.)
I could say that the towers were brought down by ammonium perchlorate (rocket fuel) additives to the thermal insulation. It explains molten metal just as well as thermate and leaves no metal residues at all!
Just to say thermate can explain molten steel at Ground Zero is not very convincing or helpful. And to say NIST did not look for thermate residues is a bit unfair. What should NIST have looked for? Iron and aluminum? There was plenty of iron and aluminum at Ground Zero anyway! Or should NIST look for the trace additives, K, Mn, S, Cu, Ba, etc. These elements were all NATURALLY present in the WTC in large amounts. (Check out the USGS elmental analysis data.)
I could say that the towers were brought down by ammonium perchlorate (rocket fuel) additives to the thermal insulation. It explains molten metal just as well as thermate and leaves no metal residues at all!
On Big Bangs and Little (WTC) Bangs
Sorry, couldn't resist the pun.
Some of the arguments about what properties a worthy model must have are not unique to this thread. There is a significant dissent amongst physicists to the Big Bang theory, and at least 300 scientists have formed the "Alternative Cosmology Group".
The following reference is from a summary paper on presentations in the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, helf in 2005. (See http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-03-03.PDF )
We read (p. 2)
Professor Mike Disney of the School of Physics and Astronomy at Cardiff University calls a spade a spade. He has created and intersting benchmark for the evaluation of scientific models - he compares the number of free parameters in a theory with the number of independent measurements, and set an arbitrary minimum of +3 for the excess of measurments over free parameters to indicate that the theory is empirically viable. He ran through the exercise for th Big Bang model, and arrived at a figure of -3 (17 free parameters against 14 measured.) He therefore argued that the there is little statistical significance in the good fits claimed by Big Bang cosmologists since the surfeit of free parameters can easily mould new data to fit a desired conclusion. Quote: "The study of some 60 cultures, going back 12,000 years, show that, like it or not, we will always have a cosmology, and there hav always been more free parameters than independent measurements. The best model is a compromise between parsimony (Occam's razor) and goodness-of-fit".
(bolding mine)
Frankly, I don't think there is a generally agreed on notion as to how much measurements should exceed free parameters (otherwise, Disney would have used that, I should think), and I doubt that that will be the end of the story, anyways.
However, if we adopt Disney's +3 value as a convention (call it "+3 significance"), then we can look at WTC collapse papers and and ask if they satisfy this criteria.
Before we do that, let's see if a +3 convention makes any sense.
For 1 dimension spring problem, if we statically measure the mass and spring constant, and dynamically measure the displacement and time, I think everybody would agree that the theoretical solution, incorporating Newton's laws of motion, will indeed be verified. (And we are not being lucky, so to speak.)
In this case, we have "+4 significance".
Furthermore, suppose we don't measure the spring constant k, but instead consider it a free parameter. In this "+3 significance" case, I'm sure most physicists would agree that we can simultaneously accurately determine k, as well as verify that our Newtonian analysis is correct.
Now, if we measure neither k nor the mass m, will our "+2 significance" experiment allow us to determine k and m? Of course not.
Since Sum(F) = -kx + mg = ma if we scale k and m by the same factor, then the dynamic behavior of the system will be the same.
In the "little Bang", WTC model of Greening, E1 is implicitly treated as a measurable. (An estimate, to be sure, but not one which is much in doubt.) However I claim that it is nothing of the sort. Greening's E1 derives from Bazant and Zhou's estimates, and I don't believe that quasi-static buckling energies, which completely ignore dynamic effects ala Calladine and English*, can be taken seriously.
(One could make a similar criticism regarding the mass of the top block, however I believe that such criticism is of less significance.)
The net/net is that, even granting a 1 dimensional treatment, the doubtfulness of E1 gives us a "+2 significance", as (analogously to a 1-d spring problem) we must decrease our measurables count by 1 at the same time increasing our free parameters count by 1.
In other words, such simple models cannot be considered as capable of explaining anything, unless you can nail down the status of E1. If the proponents of these simple models really believe in their conclusions, then they should be eager to nail down the status of E1, instead of telling us that they have solved the problem, and that no further investigation is necessary.
* Neu-Fonze has recently cited papers which mention flexural waves, or some such, but has not told us how this quantitatively relates to either E1 or Calladine and English.
Sorry, couldn't resist the pun.
Some of the arguments about what properties a worthy model must have are not unique to this thread. There is a significant dissent amongst physicists to the Big Bang theory, and at least 300 scientists have formed the "Alternative Cosmology Group".
The following reference is from a summary paper on presentations in the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, helf in 2005. (See http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-03-03.PDF )
We read (p. 2)
QUOTE
Professor Mike Disney of the School of Physics and Astronomy at Cardiff University calls a spade a spade. He has created and intersting benchmark for the evaluation of scientific models - he compares the number of free parameters in a theory with the number of independent measurements, and set an arbitrary minimum of +3 for the excess of measurments over free parameters to indicate that the theory is empirically viable. He ran through the exercise for th Big Bang model, and arrived at a figure of -3 (17 free parameters against 14 measured.) He therefore argued that the there is little statistical significance in the good fits claimed by Big Bang cosmologists since the surfeit of free parameters can easily mould new data to fit a desired conclusion. Quote: "The study of some 60 cultures, going back 12,000 years, show that, like it or not, we will always have a cosmology, and there hav always been more free parameters than independent measurements. The best model is a compromise between parsimony (Occam's razor) and goodness-of-fit".
(bolding mine)
Frankly, I don't think there is a generally agreed on notion as to how much measurements should exceed free parameters (otherwise, Disney would have used that, I should think), and I doubt that that will be the end of the story, anyways.
However, if we adopt Disney's +3 value as a convention (call it "+3 significance"), then we can look at WTC collapse papers and and ask if they satisfy this criteria.
Before we do that, let's see if a +3 convention makes any sense.
For 1 dimension spring problem, if we statically measure the mass and spring constant, and dynamically measure the displacement and time, I think everybody would agree that the theoretical solution, incorporating Newton's laws of motion, will indeed be verified. (And we are not being lucky, so to speak.)
In this case, we have "+4 significance".
Furthermore, suppose we don't measure the spring constant k, but instead consider it a free parameter. In this "+3 significance" case, I'm sure most physicists would agree that we can simultaneously accurately determine k, as well as verify that our Newtonian analysis is correct.
Now, if we measure neither k nor the mass m, will our "+2 significance" experiment allow us to determine k and m? Of course not.
Since Sum(F) = -kx + mg = ma if we scale k and m by the same factor, then the dynamic behavior of the system will be the same.
In the "little Bang", WTC model of Greening, E1 is implicitly treated as a measurable. (An estimate, to be sure, but not one which is much in doubt.) However I claim that it is nothing of the sort. Greening's E1 derives from Bazant and Zhou's estimates, and I don't believe that quasi-static buckling energies, which completely ignore dynamic effects ala Calladine and English*, can be taken seriously.
(One could make a similar criticism regarding the mass of the top block, however I believe that such criticism is of less significance.)
The net/net is that, even granting a 1 dimensional treatment, the doubtfulness of E1 gives us a "+2 significance", as (analogously to a 1-d spring problem) we must decrease our measurables count by 1 at the same time increasing our free parameters count by 1.
In other words, such simple models cannot be considered as capable of explaining anything, unless you can nail down the status of E1. If the proponents of these simple models really believe in their conclusions, then they should be eager to nail down the status of E1, instead of telling us that they have solved the problem, and that no further investigation is necessary.
* Neu-Fonze has recently cited papers which mention flexural waves, or some such, but has not told us how this quantitatively relates to either E1 or Calladine and English.
Malmoesoldier
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and you seem to be very,VERY dangerous!!!
No, it isn't.(despite what an out of work cold fusion physicist may claim. He has to pay the bills some how).
No, it isn't.(despite what an out of work cold fusion physicist may claim. He has to pay the bills some how).
Did NIST look for this? no they broke the law and didnt do it.
Actually the BATF and the FBI looked and found no evidence of it's use. NIST didn't see a need to plow an already thoroughly plowed field.
And without exception they were simply wrong(mistaken).
And without exception they were simply wrong(mistaken).
No it was not made the same WTC was the best building in the world.
Depends on what criteria you use to determine "best". If you mean the most floor space for the amount of steel used, OK, the towers were very efficient. If you mean ability to withstand being hit by fully loaded aircraft full of fuel at 500 mph, not so much. Nuclear power plant containment buildings and the Pyramids are the best at that. If it is withstanding fires, any of the concrete reinforced buildings(such as the Windsor Towers or Empire State buildings) are much better. The things that made the towers so vulnerable were the spray-on fire protection( shoddy job of applying, constant falling off ON IT"S OWN and the ease with which it could be knocked off), the truss floor system and their connections, which were very weak, yet critical to the building remaining up.
Says who??? Certainly not NIST. It is obvious from this that you haven't even read any of those reports, no wonder you sound so ignorant of the facts, YOU ARE!!!
Grumpy
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and you seem to be very,VERY dangerous!!!
QUOTE
Thermate is one possibility.
No, it isn't.(despite what an out of work cold fusion physicist may claim. He has to pay the bills some how).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Thermate is one possibility. |
No, it isn't.(despite what an out of work cold fusion physicist may claim. He has to pay the bills some how).
Did NIST look for this? no they broke the law and didnt do it.
Actually the BATF and the FBI looked and found no evidence of it's use. NIST didn't see a need to plow an already thoroughly plowed field.
QUOTE
And there are many eyewitnesses of molten steel.
And without exception they were simply wrong(mistaken).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And there are many eyewitnesses of molten steel. |
And without exception they were simply wrong(mistaken).
No it was not made the same WTC was the best building in the world.
Depends on what criteria you use to determine "best". If you mean the most floor space for the amount of steel used, OK, the towers were very efficient. If you mean ability to withstand being hit by fully loaded aircraft full of fuel at 500 mph, not so much. Nuclear power plant containment buildings and the Pyramids are the best at that. If it is withstanding fires, any of the concrete reinforced buildings(such as the Windsor Towers or Empire State buildings) are much better. The things that made the towers so vulnerable were the spray-on fire protection( shoddy job of applying, constant falling off ON IT"S OWN and the ease with which it could be knocked off), the truss floor system and their connections, which were very weak, yet critical to the building remaining up.
QUOTE
NIST says that the plane crash didn't do any seriously damage.
Says who??? Certainly not NIST. It is obvious from this that you haven't even read any of those reports, no wonder you sound so ignorant of the facts, YOU ARE!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+May 29 2007, 05:21 PM)
Malmoesoldier:
Just to say thermate can explain molten steel at Ground Zero is not very convincing or helpful. And to say NIST did not look for thermate residues is a bit unfair. What should NIST have looked for? Iron and aluminum? There was plenty of iron and aluminum at Ground Zero anyway! Or should NIST look for the trace additives, K, Mn, S, Cu, Ba, etc. These elements were all NATURALLY present in the WTC in large amounts. (Check out the USGS elmental analysis data.)
I could say that the towers were brought down by ammonium perchlorate (rocket fuel) additives to the thermal insulation. It explains molten metal just as well as thermate and leaves no metal residues at all!
And that is exactly the reason that the JREF'ers try to ridicule you. They are very afraid that their solid NIST world picture falls into parts. If it cannot be explained by friction you have to find something of course. This is science of course and no politics, in other words by ignoring things they don't disappear. If there is another 'natural' mechanism that's fine then but then they have to come up with such an other workable hypothesis.
Just to say thermate can explain molten steel at Ground Zero is not very convincing or helpful. And to say NIST did not look for thermate residues is a bit unfair. What should NIST have looked for? Iron and aluminum? There was plenty of iron and aluminum at Ground Zero anyway! Or should NIST look for the trace additives, K, Mn, S, Cu, Ba, etc. These elements were all NATURALLY present in the WTC in large amounts. (Check out the USGS elmental analysis data.)
I could say that the towers were brought down by ammonium perchlorate (rocket fuel) additives to the thermal insulation. It explains molten metal just as well as thermate and leaves no metal residues at all!
And that is exactly the reason that the JREF'ers try to ridicule you. They are very afraid that their solid NIST world picture falls into parts. If it cannot be explained by friction you have to find something of course. This is science of course and no politics, in other words by ignoring things they don't disappear. If there is another 'natural' mechanism that's fine then but then they have to come up with such an other workable hypothesis.
einsteen
But where is any evidence of molten metal, much less steel, anywhere but in the imaginations of CTers??? Eyewitnesses are unreliable (unless they have spectrographs for eyes), no cooled puddles were found and most of the reports of molten metal were simply hyperbole in the newspapers, those actually clearing debris never found any.
Grumpy
But where is any evidence of molten metal, much less steel, anywhere but in the imaginations of CTers??? Eyewitnesses are unreliable (unless they have spectrographs for eyes), no cooled puddles were found and most of the reports of molten metal were simply hyperbole in the newspapers, those actually clearing debris never found any.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 29 2007, 05:14 PM)
A normal office fire is posited to start in one small space and spread over time. The fire in the towers was NOT a normal office fire, but a sudden multi-floor, widespread fire started in seconds by the burning jet fuel, a BIG difference.
I don't know where you are getting your "information" from, but it certainly isn't the NIST report.
(bold added)
You DONT KNOW what you are talking about. Like i say a fire in offices in a
building like wtc CANT reach temperatures of 1000-1100C in 45 min, it needs 6-8 hours for the fire to get to that temperature and stay at that temp
without going down to lower temperatures.
Here is a link to the report of the testing that NIST did on ACTUAL FLOOR MODELS of the WTC towers. Replace the ** with http. **wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5E.pdf
During these test, the fires reached 1100 degrees at the 33 minute mark then decreased rapidly. Once the fuel burned off, the fires dropped down to around 400 degrees at the 41 minute mark.
These test prove that the fires didn't burn hot enough or long enough to weaken the structural steel. So this is EVIDENCE that WTC 1, 2 and 7 should not have collapsed from the "steel beams weakening"...
According to NIST's own report, they have no reason to believe any of the structural support columns reached any hotter than 675 C (1200 F) more than likely it was around 600 C (1112 F) and that is the steel that was supposedly "stripped" of its fire protectant...
source: **wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf
And i have talked with experts www.arup.com and they dont agree with you. Like i say IT IS that way fires behave, everyone knows that
Read my mail to theme here, replace the ** with http. **img169.imagevenue.com/view.php?image=09918_ARUPELD_122_459lo.JPG
You DONT KNOW what you are talking about. Like i say a fire in offices in a
building like wtc CANT reach temperatures of 1000-1100C in 45 min, it needs 6-8 hours for the fire to get to that temperature and stay at that temp
without going down to lower temperatures.
Here is a link to the report of the testing that NIST did on ACTUAL FLOOR MODELS of the WTC towers. Replace the ** with http. **wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5E.pdf
During these test, the fires reached 1100 degrees at the 33 minute mark then decreased rapidly. Once the fuel burned off, the fires dropped down to around 400 degrees at the 41 minute mark.
These test prove that the fires didn't burn hot enough or long enough to weaken the structural steel. So this is EVIDENCE that WTC 1, 2 and 7 should not have collapsed from the "steel beams weakening"...
According to NIST's own report, they have no reason to believe any of the structural support columns reached any hotter than 675 C (1200 F) more than likely it was around 600 C (1112 F) and that is the steel that was supposedly "stripped" of its fire protectant...
source: **wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf
And i have talked with experts www.arup.com and they dont agree with you. Like i say IT IS that way fires behave, everyone knows that
Read my mail to theme here, replace the ** with http. **img169.imagevenue.com/view.php?image=09918_ARUPELD_122_459lo.JPG
NIST shut down those tests to prevent major damage to the test equipment DUE TO SAGGING STEEL(IIRC 15" in the long span test) Sagging steel is what caused the bowing in of the external frame, cooling that steel(after it starts sagging) increases the pull in force and the bowing in. Bowing of the external frame led directly to the collapse initiating buckling of that frame.
THE STEEL DIDNT COME CLOSE TO COLLAPSE IN ALMOST 4 HOURS AT 700C. UNDER MAX LOADS. Wake upp??
FEMA found evidence of molten steel...
**www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
FEMA found evidence of molten steel...
**www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges–which are curled like a paper scroll–have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes–some larger than a silver dollar–let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending–but not holes.
And USGS DID FIND molten iron...
And the eyewitnesses of molten steel isnt wrong. It is you that cant accept reality because you believe in conspiracy theories like al-qaida.
It is YOU that HAVEN'T read the nist report. You SHOULD know that NIST says the plane crash DIDNT do any seriously damage. The damage it made is that the fire protection systems where destroyed they say. You should know that.
It is YOU that HAVEN'T read the nist report. You SHOULD know that NIST says the plane crash DIDNT do any seriously damage. The damage it made is that the fire protection systems where destroyed they say. You should know that.
Actually the BATF and the FBI looked and found no evidence of it's use. NIST didn't see a need to plow an already thoroughly plowed field.
Yeah right, give me a source.
End your posts with
Grumpy
Furthermore, suppose we don't measure the spring constant k, but instead consider it a free parameter. In this "+3 significance" case, I'm sure most physicists would agree that we can simultaneously accurately determine k, as well as verify that our Newtonian analysis is correct.
Now, if we measure neither k nor the mass m, will our "+2 significance" experiment allow us to determine k and m? Of course not.
Corrections:
Actually, moving just k from the observable bucket to the free parameter bucket in the spring problem should give "+2 significance", not +3.
Likewise, doing this wrt both k and m should give "+0 significance", not +2.
Not sure how to resolve this.....
Maybe acceleration due to gravity should be considered a measurable? If so, then we can get back to +3.
However, if we consider gravity thusly here, we need to do the same for Greening.
Summarizing (Greening)
measured: x, t, g, m
free: E1, k
=>
so we will get +2
or
measured: x, t, g, m
free: E1
=>
so we will get +3
I'd have to review Greening's papers to see if k enters the picture, or if it's effects are absorbed into E1.
Another facet of this problem is that {k,m, x} are independent, and {k, m, t} are independent.
In the case of Greening, E1 is a function of x and t (due to dynamic effects), though the opposite is assumed (IIRC).
The WTC was an optimized design, it had to be in order for the towers to be two of the tallest structures in the world.
"Optimized" means that they didn't use more structural material than was expected to be needed under normal circumstances. People who design structures calculate the expected loads and size the structural members according to nominal structural materials' strengths. They design-out the excess capacity. That is what "optimization" means.
If you're building a shed in your backyard, you pick whatever materials are handy, and the shed is in all likelihood more robust than it needs to be. The difference in costs associated with that shed and an optimized design would be a matter of a few bucks, cheaper to spend it than to agonize over whether you should use 2x4s or 1x3s.
In a 100+ story tower, it's a different matter. Excess structural capacity (more steel than is needed) costs many millions of dollars and needs to be justified to the building financiers. You can't just waltz in and tell them they need to spend an extra $50million dollars on steel because you were too lazy to calculate the right sizes for the elements. A "safety margin" gets negotiated and applied rigorously throughout the whole design. This safety margin is based on assumptions of structural materials strengths, and those go out the window when: 1) the structure is compromized by getting hit with an airplane and the majority of the structural supports on one side of the building are destroyed, and 2) when fire heats the steel to the point where the nominal strength values used for the calculated structure are no longer valid.
I suspect that the NIST study failed to appreciate just how hot the fire was, simply because combustion modeling isn't their strong suit. I seriously doubt that the jet fuel burned up in a matter of a few minutes after impact. More likely (based on my engineering background) the fuel remained in puddles on the floor in an oxygen-starved fire, with the dense smoke serving to insulate the floor from the heat of the flames, above. Smoke particulates absorb IR readily, so heat would be absorbed by the smoke, protecting the fuel puddles on the floor from evaporating at the rate they assumed. (It's common knowledge that people in fires are advised to keep low to the floor and crawl to safety. This is due to the absorption of the heat by the dense smoke layer above the floor.)
If you look at the WTC construction, you have acre-sized floors only about 12 feet high, concrete on top and bottom, and smoke and fire (where fresh oxygen is present) in between. How would heat resulting from the fuel burning escape that environment? Through the concrete ceilings or floors? Through the dense smoke? Neither is a good path for the heat to escape, it therefore did not escape readily. When heat is released into an environment where it can't readily escape, temperatures rise to extraordinary levels. This is the basic concept behind foundry design. Provide air to fuel, trap the resultant heat. The WTC became an unintentional foundry.
Temperatures never needed to reach "steel-melting" levels to cause the structural failure of the WTC, they only had to weaken a structure already-compromised by the impact damage.
The real question isn't why the towers fell, but why they managed to stand as long as they did.
You DONT KNOW what you are talking about. Like i say a fire in offices in a
building like wtc CANT reach temperatures of 1000-1100C in 45 min, it needs 6-8 hours for the fire to get to that temperature and stay at that temp
without going down to lower temperatures.
Here is a link to the report of the testing that NIST did on ACTUAL FLOOR MODELS of the WTC towers. Replace the ** with http. **wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5E.pdf
During these test, the fires reached 1100 degrees at the 33 minute mark then decreased rapidly. Once the fuel burned off, the fires dropped down to around 400 degrees at the 41 minute mark.
Interesting how you contradict yourself.
In the NIST tests of office workstations, temps reached >1,000 C in ~ 20 minutes.
BUT
Unlike your assertion, the tests WERE NOT of ACTUAL Floor models.
They were only THREE WORKSTATION models.
Which is why they died down so quickly.
The ACTUAL floors had well over 120 workstations.
The workstations tests were to see if the FDS would model the temp and heat release rates properly.
The FDS did.
See Chap 9 of NIST NCSTAR 1-5E.
Don't you just love it when Troofers try to use the NIST report to prove they know more than NIST?
For me, I know I'm ALWAYS in for good for a chuckle.
Arthur
adoucette. What are you trying to say with your post?. Everything i said in my post is true. Read it and you will know that the steel couldn't have collapsed. Yes there where fires but that doesn't mean the fires could make the steel collapse.
adoucette. What are you trying to say with your post?. Everything i said in my post is true. Read it and you will know that the steel couldn't have collapsed. Yes there where fires but that doesn't mean the fires could make the steel collapse.
They were only THREE WORKSTATION models.
THE TEST WAS OF WTC STEEL. I GUESS WHEN THEY PUT IT IN WTC IT BECAME WEAKER THEN LOL
Tell the truth you are a friend of Mark robert lol.
LOL are you joking or are you real stupid?. Read my post and you will know that the steel couldn't have collapsed.
Page 28. **://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf
"The Jet fuel, Which ignited the fires, was mostly, consumed within the first few minutes after impact. The fires that burned for almost the entire time that the buildings remained standing were due mainly to burning building contents and, to a lesser extent, aircraft contents, not jet fuel."
Funny how people that believes in the official story never has the facts right.
adoucette. What are you trying to say with your post?. Everything i said in my post is true. Read it and you will know that the steel couldn't have collapsed. Yes there where fires but that doesn't mean the fires could make the steel collapse.
THE TEST WAS OF WTC STEEL. I GUESS WHEN THE PUT IT IN WTC IT BECAME WEAKER THEN LOL
I'm trying to point out that you don't know what you are talking about.
Your replies continue to prove it.
NIST NCSTAR 1-5E has NOTHING to do with WTC steel.
It is about setting 3 WORKSTATIONS ON FIRE and seeing how fast and how much heat they release.
It was used to verify the behavior of the Fire Dyamics Simulator.
Arthur
OK, if you want to make this personal, what do *you* do for a living?
What's *your* level of education?
What area is *your* education in?
I work for a company that builds rocket engines.
I have Bachelors' and Masters' degrees in engineering, and 30 years' experience, 25 with either "Senior" or "Director of Research" in my job title.
You've demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about.
I don't know where you are getting your "information" from, but it certainly isn't the NIST report.
QUOTE
WTC1
Much of the fire activity was initially in the vicinity of the impact area in the north part of the building. As a result of the orientation of the impacting aircraft and its fuel tanks, the early fires on the 92nd through 94th floors tended toward the east side of the north face, while the early fires on the 97th through 99th floors tended toward the west side of the north face. The fires on all the floors spread along the east and west sides and were concentrated in the south part of the building at the time of collapse
NISTNCSTAR1 p.128/178Much of the fire activity was initially in the vicinity of the impact area in the north part of the building. As a result of the orientation of the impacting aircraft and its fuel tanks, the early fires on the 92nd through 94th floors tended toward the east side of the north face, while the early fires on the 97th through 99th floors tended toward the west side of the north face. The fires on all the floors spread along the east and west sides and were concentrated in the south part of the building at the time of collapse
(bold added)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| WTC1 Much of the fire activity was initially in the vicinity of the impact area in the north part of the building. As a result of the orientation of the impacting aircraft and its fuel tanks, the early fires on the 92nd through 94th floors tended toward the east side of the north face, while the early fires on the 97th through 99th floors tended toward the west side of the north face. The fires on all the floors spread along the east and west sides and were concentrated in the south part of the building at the time of collapse |
NISTNCSTAR1 p.128/178
(bold added)
WTC2
(...)
In contrast with WTC1, in WTC2 there was less movement of the fires. The major burning occurred along the east side, with some spread to the north. There was no significant burning on the west side of the tower.
(bold added)
WTC2
(...)
In contrast with WTC1, in WTC2 there was less movement of the fires. The major burning occurred along the east side, with some spread to the north. There was no significant burning on the west side of the tower.
NISTNCSTAR1 p.130/180
(bold added)
(bold added)
Metamars:
In quantum chemistry there are two types of calculation: ab initio and semi-empirical. Only the simplest of molecules, such as H2, can be properly treated by full ab initio methods. These calculations are truely remarkable since they predict energy levels accurately to about 1 part in 10^7. Unfortunately, however, most molecular structure calculations have to settle for a semi-empirical methodology, which is crude, but if done properly is nonetheless capable of reliably predicting geometries, ionization energies and bond strengths to within a few percent.
Well, you know, I feel the same way about collapse calculations, where a WTC tower would be like a DNA molecule. We have to use approximate calculations to get anywhere in understanding how large molecules behave, AND how large buildings collapse! The calculation I use has two variable parameters, E1 and M, but we can estimate a realistic value for each by a number of techniques. Certainly M can be determined quite precisely and I would say its value is known well enough to no longer consider it to be an adjustable parameter. I have, in fact varied the mass of a tower between 350,000 and 550,000 tonnes to see what happens and the effects on the collapse time is quite small. (This is to be expected, since true free fall is independent of mass as we all know.)
This leave us with E1......! Well, I have tried to calculate it, as has Bazant.....
To obtain a precise value is no simple task, but I believe a lower and upper limit can be derived. Actually, the lower limit on E1 is not important, so it all comes down to an upper limit. Now, here, no matter how I cut the cake, or should I say the building, I get an E1 value that predicts a self-sustaining collapse. While that may not be good enough for you, Metamars, its good enough for me!
In quantum chemistry there are two types of calculation: ab initio and semi-empirical. Only the simplest of molecules, such as H2, can be properly treated by full ab initio methods. These calculations are truely remarkable since they predict energy levels accurately to about 1 part in 10^7. Unfortunately, however, most molecular structure calculations have to settle for a semi-empirical methodology, which is crude, but if done properly is nonetheless capable of reliably predicting geometries, ionization energies and bond strengths to within a few percent.
Well, you know, I feel the same way about collapse calculations, where a WTC tower would be like a DNA molecule. We have to use approximate calculations to get anywhere in understanding how large molecules behave, AND how large buildings collapse! The calculation I use has two variable parameters, E1 and M, but we can estimate a realistic value for each by a number of techniques. Certainly M can be determined quite precisely and I would say its value is known well enough to no longer consider it to be an adjustable parameter. I have, in fact varied the mass of a tower between 350,000 and 550,000 tonnes to see what happens and the effects on the collapse time is quite small. (This is to be expected, since true free fall is independent of mass as we all know.)
This leave us with E1......! Well, I have tried to calculate it, as has Bazant.....
To obtain a precise value is no simple task, but I believe a lower and upper limit can be derived. Actually, the lower limit on E1 is not important, so it all comes down to an upper limit. Now, here, no matter how I cut the cake, or should I say the building, I get an E1 value that predicts a self-sustaining collapse. While that may not be good enough for you, Metamars, its good enough for me!
QUOTE (metamars+May 29 2007, 05:36 PM)
In the "little Bang", WTC model of Greening, E1 is implicitly treated as a measurable. (An estimate, to be sure, but not one which is much in doubt.) However I claim that it is nothing of the sort.
Then you have not been paying attention.
NEU-FONZE measured the drop of both towers for the first few seconds.
Using this data, the best fitting value for E1 is readily obtained, using the actual mass of the top block as given in NIST's NCSTAR1-6D, via Bazant & Verdure's crush-down equation.
Answer: E1 = 510 MJ.
Then you have not been paying attention.
NEU-FONZE measured the drop of both towers for the first few seconds.
Using this data, the best fitting value for E1 is readily obtained, using the actual mass of the top block as given in NIST's NCSTAR1-6D, via Bazant & Verdure's crush-down equation.
Answer: E1 = 510 MJ.
QUOTE
See above, you simply don't know what you are ranting about.
You DONT KNOW what you are talking about. Like i say a fire in offices in a
building like wtc CANT reach temperatures of 1000-1100C in 45 min, it needs 6-8 hours for the fire to get to that temperature and stay at that temp
without going down to lower temperatures.
Here is a link to the report of the testing that NIST did on ACTUAL FLOOR MODELS of the WTC towers. Replace the ** with http. **wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5E.pdf
During these test, the fires reached 1100 degrees at the 33 minute mark then decreased rapidly. Once the fuel burned off, the fires dropped down to around 400 degrees at the 41 minute mark.
These test prove that the fires didn't burn hot enough or long enough to weaken the structural steel. So this is EVIDENCE that WTC 1, 2 and 7 should not have collapsed from the "steel beams weakening"...
According to NIST's own report, they have no reason to believe any of the structural support columns reached any hotter than 675 C (1200 F) more than likely it was around 600 C (1112 F) and that is the steel that was supposedly "stripped" of its fire protectant...
source: **wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf
And i have talked with experts www.arup.com and they dont agree with you. Like i say IT IS that way fires behave, everyone knows that
Read my mail to theme here, replace the ** with http. **img169.imagevenue.com/view.php?image=09918_ARUPELD_122_459lo.JPG
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| See above, you simply don't know what you are ranting about. |
You DONT KNOW what you are talking about. Like i say a fire in offices in a
building like wtc CANT reach temperatures of 1000-1100C in 45 min, it needs 6-8 hours for the fire to get to that temperature and stay at that temp
without going down to lower temperatures.
Here is a link to the report of the testing that NIST did on ACTUAL FLOOR MODELS of the WTC towers. Replace the ** with http. **wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5E.pdf
During these test, the fires reached 1100 degrees at the 33 minute mark then decreased rapidly. Once the fuel burned off, the fires dropped down to around 400 degrees at the 41 minute mark.
These test prove that the fires didn't burn hot enough or long enough to weaken the structural steel. So this is EVIDENCE that WTC 1, 2 and 7 should not have collapsed from the "steel beams weakening"...
According to NIST's own report, they have no reason to believe any of the structural support columns reached any hotter than 675 C (1200 F) more than likely it was around 600 C (1112 F) and that is the steel that was supposedly "stripped" of its fire protectant...
source: **wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf
And i have talked with experts www.arup.com and they dont agree with you. Like i say IT IS that way fires behave, everyone knows that
Read my mail to theme here, replace the ** with http. **img169.imagevenue.com/view.php?image=09918_ARUPELD_122_459lo.JPG
NIST shut down those tests to prevent major damage to the test equipment DUE TO SAGGING STEEL(IIRC 15" in the long span test) Sagging steel is what caused the bowing in of the external frame, cooling that steel(after it starts sagging) increases the pull in force and the bowing in. Bowing of the external frame led directly to the collapse initiating buckling of that frame.
THE STEEL DIDNT COME CLOSE TO COLLAPSE IN ALMOST 4 HOURS AT 700C. UNDER MAX LOADS. Wake upp??
QUOTE
Absolutely no "molten iron(or steel)" puddles were found anywhere on the WTC complex, therefore there is nothing to explain.
FEMA found evidence of molten steel...
**www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Absolutely no "molten iron(or steel)" puddles were found anywhere on the WTC complex, therefore there is nothing to explain. |
FEMA found evidence of molten steel...
**www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges–which are curled like a paper scroll–have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes–some larger than a silver dollar–let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending–but not holes.
And USGS DID FIND molten iron...
And the eyewitnesses of molten steel isnt wrong. It is you that cant accept reality because you believe in conspiracy theories like al-qaida.
QUOTE
Says who??? Certainly not NIST. It is obvious from this that you haven't even read any of those reports, no wonder you sound so ignorant of the facts, YOU ARE!!!
It is YOU that HAVEN'T read the nist report. You SHOULD know that NIST says the plane crash DIDNT do any seriously damage. The damage it made is that the fire protection systems where destroyed they say. You should know that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Says who??? Certainly not NIST. It is obvious from this that you haven't even read any of those reports, no wonder you sound so ignorant of the facts, YOU ARE!!! |
It is YOU that HAVEN'T read the nist report. You SHOULD know that NIST says the plane crash DIDNT do any seriously damage. The damage it made is that the fire protection systems where destroyed they say. You should know that.
Actually the BATF and the FBI looked and found no evidence of it's use. NIST didn't see a need to plow an already thoroughly plowed field.
Yeah right, give me a source.
End your posts with
Grumpy
Actually the NIST quotes don't disagree with what Grumpy posted.
The fires were STARTED within seconds.
Though it did take MINUTES for them to grow from their initial levels, it certainly wasn't long and it most certainly was quicker than most office fires which are slowed down by sprinkler systems and lack of air.
The fires WERE widespread. Your quotes indicate that even initially the fires were on 8 floors and on the South, East and West sides and (though not necessarily on the all sides on all floors)
Still looking at NIST NCSTAR 1-5A E5 & E6 its clear that the fires were, as Grumpy said, WIDESPREAD (or E12 for WTC 2).
Note that NIST identified 14 people who fell from WTC 1 in the 15 min from 9:03-9:18, so CLEARLY the situation in the towers was DIRE, and so for CT'ers to continue to spread the LIE that the fires were not intense, given how many people jumped to their certain death, is frankly, despicable.
Arthur
The fires were STARTED within seconds.
Though it did take MINUTES for them to grow from their initial levels, it certainly wasn't long and it most certainly was quicker than most office fires which are slowed down by sprinkler systems and lack of air.
The fires WERE widespread. Your quotes indicate that even initially the fires were on 8 floors and on the South, East and West sides and (though not necessarily on the all sides on all floors)
Still looking at NIST NCSTAR 1-5A E5 & E6 its clear that the fires were, as Grumpy said, WIDESPREAD (or E12 for WTC 2).
Note that NIST identified 14 people who fell from WTC 1 in the 15 min from 9:03-9:18, so CLEARLY the situation in the towers was DIRE, and so for CT'ers to continue to spread the LIE that the fires were not intense, given how many people jumped to their certain death, is frankly, despicable.
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+May 29 2007, 05:36 PM)
Furthermore, suppose we don't measure the spring constant k, but instead consider it a free parameter. In this "+3 significance" case, I'm sure most physicists would agree that we can simultaneously accurately determine k, as well as verify that our Newtonian analysis is correct.
Now, if we measure neither k nor the mass m, will our "+2 significance" experiment allow us to determine k and m? Of course not.
Corrections:
Actually, moving just k from the observable bucket to the free parameter bucket in the spring problem should give "+2 significance", not +3.
Likewise, doing this wrt both k and m should give "+0 significance", not +2.
Not sure how to resolve this.....
Maybe acceleration due to gravity should be considered a measurable? If so, then we can get back to +3.
However, if we consider gravity thusly here, we need to do the same for Greening.
Summarizing (Greening)
measured: x, t, g, m
free: E1, k
=>
so we will get +2
or
measured: x, t, g, m
free: E1
=>
so we will get +3
I'd have to review Greening's papers to see if k enters the picture, or if it's effects are absorbed into E1.
Another facet of this problem is that {k,m, x} are independent, and {k, m, t} are independent.
In the case of Greening, E1 is a function of x and t (due to dynamic effects), though the opposite is assumed (IIRC).
QUOTE
WTC was the best building in the world.
The WTC was an optimized design, it had to be in order for the towers to be two of the tallest structures in the world.
"Optimized" means that they didn't use more structural material than was expected to be needed under normal circumstances. People who design structures calculate the expected loads and size the structural members according to nominal structural materials' strengths. They design-out the excess capacity. That is what "optimization" means.
If you're building a shed in your backyard, you pick whatever materials are handy, and the shed is in all likelihood more robust than it needs to be. The difference in costs associated with that shed and an optimized design would be a matter of a few bucks, cheaper to spend it than to agonize over whether you should use 2x4s or 1x3s.
In a 100+ story tower, it's a different matter. Excess structural capacity (more steel than is needed) costs many millions of dollars and needs to be justified to the building financiers. You can't just waltz in and tell them they need to spend an extra $50million dollars on steel because you were too lazy to calculate the right sizes for the elements. A "safety margin" gets negotiated and applied rigorously throughout the whole design. This safety margin is based on assumptions of structural materials strengths, and those go out the window when: 1) the structure is compromized by getting hit with an airplane and the majority of the structural supports on one side of the building are destroyed, and 2) when fire heats the steel to the point where the nominal strength values used for the calculated structure are no longer valid.
I suspect that the NIST study failed to appreciate just how hot the fire was, simply because combustion modeling isn't their strong suit. I seriously doubt that the jet fuel burned up in a matter of a few minutes after impact. More likely (based on my engineering background) the fuel remained in puddles on the floor in an oxygen-starved fire, with the dense smoke serving to insulate the floor from the heat of the flames, above. Smoke particulates absorb IR readily, so heat would be absorbed by the smoke, protecting the fuel puddles on the floor from evaporating at the rate they assumed. (It's common knowledge that people in fires are advised to keep low to the floor and crawl to safety. This is due to the absorption of the heat by the dense smoke layer above the floor.)
If you look at the WTC construction, you have acre-sized floors only about 12 feet high, concrete on top and bottom, and smoke and fire (where fresh oxygen is present) in between. How would heat resulting from the fuel burning escape that environment? Through the concrete ceilings or floors? Through the dense smoke? Neither is a good path for the heat to escape, it therefore did not escape readily. When heat is released into an environment where it can't readily escape, temperatures rise to extraordinary levels. This is the basic concept behind foundry design. Provide air to fuel, trap the resultant heat. The WTC became an unintentional foundry.
Temperatures never needed to reach "steel-melting" levels to cause the structural failure of the WTC, they only had to weaken a structure already-compromised by the impact damage.
The real question isn't why the towers fell, but why they managed to stand as long as they did.
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+May 29 2007, 02:35 PM)
You DONT KNOW what you are talking about. Like i say a fire in offices in a
building like wtc CANT reach temperatures of 1000-1100C in 45 min, it needs 6-8 hours for the fire to get to that temperature and stay at that temp
without going down to lower temperatures.
Here is a link to the report of the testing that NIST did on ACTUAL FLOOR MODELS of the WTC towers. Replace the ** with http. **wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5E.pdf
During these test, the fires reached 1100 degrees at the 33 minute mark then decreased rapidly. Once the fuel burned off, the fires dropped down to around 400 degrees at the 41 minute mark.
Interesting how you contradict yourself.
In the NIST tests of office workstations, temps reached >1,000 C in ~ 20 minutes.
BUT
Unlike your assertion, the tests WERE NOT of ACTUAL Floor models.
They were only THREE WORKSTATION models.
Which is why they died down so quickly.
The ACTUAL floors had well over 120 workstations.
The workstations tests were to see if the FDS would model the temp and heat release rates properly.
The FDS did.
See Chap 9 of NIST NCSTAR 1-5E.
Don't you just love it when Troofers try to use the NIST report to prove they know more than NIST?
For me, I know I'm ALWAYS in for good for a chuckle.
Arthur
QUOTE (forthetrees+May 28 2007, 03:45 AM)
There was no air resistence[sic] from below that was of any consequence, as per your explanation of this to me on our go around about it a couple of weeks ago....or, am I missing your point, again?
The air resistance grows with the speed. It is a secondary source of energy consumption, but enough to avoid neglecting...
The air resistance grows with the speed. It is a secondary source of energy consumption, but enough to avoid neglecting...
QUOTE (wcelliott+May 29 2007, 02:52 PM)
I suspect that the NIST study failed to appreciate just how hot the fire was, simply because combustion modeling isn't their strong suit. I seriously doubt that the jet fuel burned up in a matter of a few minutes after impact. More likely (based on my engineering background) the fuel remained in puddles on the floor in an oxygen-starved fire, with the dense smoke serving to insulate the floor from the heat of the flames, above. Smoke particulates absorb IR readily, so heat would be absorbed by the smoke, protecting the fuel puddles on the floor from evaporating at the rate they assumed. (It's common knowledge that people in fires are advised to keep low to the floor and crawl to safety. This is due to the absorption of the heat by the dense smoke layer above the floor.)
If you look at the WTC construction, you have acre-sized floors only about 12 feet high, concrete on top and bottom, and smoke and fire (where fresh oxygen is present) in between. How would heat resulting from the fuel burning escape that environment? Through the concrete ceilings or floors? Through the dense smoke? Neither is a good path for the heat to escape, it therefore did not escape readily. When heat is released into an environment where it can't readily escape, temperatures rise to extraordinary levels.
You make great comments but please do me a favor and read NIST NCSTAR 1-5F.
Pay particular attention to the description of the advanced Fire Dynamics Simulator used by NIST for predicting fire and smoke behavior in buildings.
It IS one of their STRONG SUITS.
Reading 1-5F you would find that they did NOT predict that ALL the jet fuel burned up in a few minutes, just that MOST of it did (or leaked away down the many open shafts). They also talk about puddles of fuel throughout their fire descriptions and of the testimony of survivors from below the impact floors of jet fuel dripping from the ceiling. But the KEY point from 1-5F is the low total amount of jet fuel to fuel from office materials (~160,000 lbs per floor) made it a moot point. As NIST said, the simulations were insenstive to the amount or distribution of the fuel.
Arthur
If you look at the WTC construction, you have acre-sized floors only about 12 feet high, concrete on top and bottom, and smoke and fire (where fresh oxygen is present) in between. How would heat resulting from the fuel burning escape that environment? Through the concrete ceilings or floors? Through the dense smoke? Neither is a good path for the heat to escape, it therefore did not escape readily. When heat is released into an environment where it can't readily escape, temperatures rise to extraordinary levels.
You make great comments but please do me a favor and read NIST NCSTAR 1-5F.
Pay particular attention to the description of the advanced Fire Dynamics Simulator used by NIST for predicting fire and smoke behavior in buildings.
It IS one of their STRONG SUITS.
Reading 1-5F you would find that they did NOT predict that ALL the jet fuel burned up in a few minutes, just that MOST of it did (or leaked away down the many open shafts). They also talk about puddles of fuel throughout their fire descriptions and of the testimony of survivors from below the impact floors of jet fuel dripping from the ceiling. But the KEY point from 1-5F is the low total amount of jet fuel to fuel from office materials (~160,000 lbs per floor) made it a moot point. As NIST said, the simulations were insenstive to the amount or distribution of the fuel.
Arthur
QUOTE
Actually the NIST quotes don't disagree with what Grumpy posted.
adoucette. What are you trying to say with your post?. Everything i said in my post is true. Read it and you will know that the steel couldn't have collapsed. Yes there where fires but that doesn't mean the fires could make the steel collapse.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Actually the NIST quotes don't disagree with what Grumpy posted. |
adoucette. What are you trying to say with your post?. Everything i said in my post is true. Read it and you will know that the steel couldn't have collapsed. Yes there where fires but that doesn't mean the fires could make the steel collapse.
They were only THREE WORKSTATION models.
THE TEST WAS OF WTC STEEL. I GUESS WHEN THEY PUT IT IN WTC IT BECAME WEAKER THEN LOL
Tell the truth you are a friend of Mark robert lol.
QUOTE
The real question isn't why the towers fell, but why they managed to stand as long as they did.
LOL are you joking or are you real stupid?. Read my post and you will know that the steel couldn't have collapsed.
Page 28. **://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf
"The Jet fuel, Which ignited the fires, was mostly, consumed within the first few minutes after impact. The fires that burned for almost the entire time that the buildings remained standing were due mainly to burning building contents and, to a lesser extent, aircraft contents, not jet fuel."
Funny how people that believes in the official story never has the facts right.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 29 2007, 07:31 PM)
Then you have not been paying attention.
NEU-FONZE measured the drop of both towers for the first few seconds.
Using this data, the best fitting value for E1 is readily obtained, using the actual mass of the top block as given in NIST's NCSTAR1-6D, via Bazant & Verdure's crush-down equation.
Answer: E1 = 510 MJ.
Greening used BV to determine E1? If so, I need to review his paper. I thought Greening wrote his paper before BV.
NEU-FONZE measured the drop of both towers for the first few seconds.
Using this data, the best fitting value for E1 is readily obtained, using the actual mass of the top block as given in NIST's NCSTAR1-6D, via Bazant & Verdure's crush-down equation.
Answer: E1 = 510 MJ.
Greening used BV to determine E1? If so, I need to review his paper. I thought Greening wrote his paper before BV.
QUOTE (wcelliott+May 29 2007, 07:52 PM)
I suspect that the NIST study failed to appreciate just how hot the fire was, simply because combustion modeling isn't their strong suit.
Actually it is. The NIST group that did the WTC study has been doing building fire safety studies since 1923.
This doesn't mean that they appreciated the possibilities for unusual chemistry in the WTC fires. There is no mention of it in the NCSTAR1 report.
Actually it is. The NIST group that did the WTC study has been doing building fire safety studies since 1923.
This doesn't mean that they appreciated the possibilities for unusual chemistry in the WTC fires. There is no mention of it in the NCSTAR1 report.
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+May 29 2007, 03:22 PM)
adoucette. What are you trying to say with your post?. Everything i said in my post is true. Read it and you will know that the steel couldn't have collapsed. Yes there where fires but that doesn't mean the fires could make the steel collapse.
THE TEST WAS OF WTC STEEL. I GUESS WHEN THE PUT IT IN WTC IT BECAME WEAKER THEN LOL
I'm trying to point out that you don't know what you are talking about.
Your replies continue to prove it.
NIST NCSTAR 1-5E has NOTHING to do with WTC steel.
It is about setting 3 WORKSTATIONS ON FIRE and seeing how fast and how much heat they release.
It was used to verify the behavior of the Fire Dyamics Simulator.
Arthur
QUOTE
LOL are you joking or are you real stupid?.
OK, if you want to make this personal, what do *you* do for a living?
What's *your* level of education?
What area is *your* education in?
I work for a company that builds rocket engines.
I have Bachelors' and Masters' degrees in engineering, and 30 years' experience, 25 with either "Senior" or "Director of Research" in my job title.
You've demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about.
QUOTE (metamars+May 29 2007, 08:24 PM)
Greening used BV to determine E1?
...
I thought Greening wrote his paper before BV.
(1) No, I did.
(2) Yes.
...
I thought Greening wrote his paper before BV.
(1) No, I did.
(2) Yes.
adoucette i am talking about these tests: **://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/Sunder_WTCTechnicalConference_091305short.pdf
NIST sponsored Underwriter Laboratories to conduct fire test on actual floor models of the WTC towers. They used the identical steel that was used to build the WTC towers and put them under MAX loads. Guess what? They could not get the models to fail. UL even went WELL beyond the temperatures and times that actually happened on 9/11. Please take note, they where put under 700 C fires for 210 minutes, and didn't even weaken.
Under solicitation number SB1341-03-Q-0281, a firm fixed-price purchase order has been awarded to Underwriters Laboratory Inc. for the testing of the steel joist-supported floor system of the Word Trade Center towers under the fire conditions prescribed in ASTM E119. The results of the testing will provide the fire endurance ratings of typical floor construction to evaluate three primary factors, 1) test scale, 2) fireproofing thickness, and 3) thermal restraint.
Under this solicitation, three ASTM E119 tests of the WTC floor construction will be performed as follows:
1) 17 ft (5.2 m) span assembly, thermally restrained
2) 35 ft (10.7 m) span assembly, thermally restrained
3) 35 ft (10.7 m) span assembly, thermally unrestrained.
**://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0281.htm (contract details)
Findings : The floor system DID NOT FAIL to support loads in any test.
Kevin Ryan is a former lab director at Environmental Health Laboratories, Inc. a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratory, Inc.. After he saw these test with his own eyes, he took it upon himself to write NIST. "This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institutes metallurgy division. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
NIST sponsored Underwriter Laboratories to conduct fire test on actual floor models of the WTC towers. They used the identical steel that was used to build the WTC towers and put them under MAX loads. Guess what? They could not get the models to fail. UL even went WELL beyond the temperatures and times that actually happened on 9/11. Please take note, they where put under 700 C fires for 210 minutes, and didn't even weaken.
Under solicitation number SB1341-03-Q-0281, a firm fixed-price purchase order has been awarded to Underwriters Laboratory Inc. for the testing of the steel joist-supported floor system of the Word Trade Center towers under the fire conditions prescribed in ASTM E119. The results of the testing will provide the fire endurance ratings of typical floor construction to evaluate three primary factors, 1) test scale, 2) fireproofing thickness, and 3) thermal restraint.
Under this solicitation, three ASTM E119 tests of the WTC floor construction will be performed as follows:
1) 17 ft (5.2 m) span assembly, thermally restrained
2) 35 ft (10.7 m) span assembly, thermally restrained
3) 35 ft (10.7 m) span assembly, thermally unrestrained.
**://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0281.htm (contract details)
Findings : The floor system DID NOT FAIL to support loads in any test.
Kevin Ryan is a former lab director at Environmental Health Laboratories, Inc. a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratory, Inc.. After he saw these test with his own eyes, he took it upon himself to write NIST. "This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institutes metallurgy division. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+May 29 2007, 08:37 PM)
adoucette i am talking about these tests: **://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/Sunder_WTCTechnicalConference_091305short.pdf
... under the fire conditions prescribed in ASTM E119.
Arthur has replied to this same misunderstanding by previous posters so many times I almost have his answer memorized.
The tested trusses bowed, but did not break.
What role did that play in destroying the towers?
... under the fire conditions prescribed in ASTM E119.
Arthur has replied to this same misunderstanding by previous posters so many times I almost have his answer memorized.
The tested trusses bowed, but did not break.
What role did that play in destroying the towers?
Except you must be confused since you claimed that:
But those tests had NOTHING to do with these type conditions.
As to the Truss Fire Resistance tests as described in a DIFFERENT REPORT, NIST NCSTAR 1-6B
They simulated the response of trusses with INTACT fire insulation.
While its true that the trusses didn't fail to support their load, NIST does not claim they failed to support their load in the towers either.
Arthur
QUOTE
During these test, the fires reached 1100 degrees at the 33 minute mark then decreased rapidly. Once the fuel burned off, the fires dropped down to around 400 degrees at the 41 minute mark.
But those tests had NOTHING to do with these type conditions.
As to the Truss Fire Resistance tests as described in a DIFFERENT REPORT, NIST NCSTAR 1-6B
They simulated the response of trusses with INTACT fire insulation.
While its true that the trusses didn't fail to support their load, NIST does not claim they failed to support their load in the towers either.
Arthur
Malmoesoldier
Yet they did collapse, we all watched it live on the TV. What's your explanation???
Yet they did collapse, we all watched it live on the TV. What's your explanation???
Findings : The floor system DID NOT FAIL to support loads in any test.
But they did SAG, and it was this SAGGING that caused the outer frame to fail due to the caternary forces, which only got worse as they cooled. No one is saying the floors collapsed, even NIST says this was not the initiating event.
Not even close, your ignorance is biting you on the butt.
Grumpy
The floor models didnt come close to collapse. So why did they fail and collapse in WTC?. They had the floor models in 700 C in almost 4 hours under MAX loads. The WTC fire was only 45 min. And a fire needs 6-8 hours to get a fire to stay at 1000 C. In 45 min it can only reach a peak temp of around 1000C in some minutes and that aint enough to weaken the steel.
And look at the hole picture and all the evidence, stop watching the trees when there are a forest
Steel melted. FEMA findings. Iron melted. USGS findings.
NIST didnt find any evidence that the core columns had reach any hotter then 250 C to
NIST stated "None of the samples were from zones where [high] heating was predicted"
And all the steel and evidence was shipped to China and destroyed. Easily the three largest and least understood structural failures in World history
QUOTE
Read my post and you will know that the steel couldn't have collapsed.
Yet they did collapse, we all watched it live on the TV. What's your explanation???
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Read my post and you will know that the steel couldn't have collapsed. |
Yet they did collapse, we all watched it live on the TV. What's your explanation???
Findings : The floor system DID NOT FAIL to support loads in any test.
But they did SAG, and it was this SAGGING that caused the outer frame to fail due to the caternary forces, which only got worse as they cooled. No one is saying the floors collapsed, even NIST says this was not the initiating event.
QUOTE
Everything i said in my post is true.
Not even close, your ignorance is biting you on the butt.
Grumpy
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 29 2007, 08:31 PM)
(1) No, I did.
(2) Yes.
Just skimmed the Greening paper. Greening computed collapse times as a function of E1. E1 values he considered plausible were quoted from BZ and Wierzbicki. Even in the case of Wierzbicki, it is not a given that their values are credibly extended to the case of gravitational collapse. This leap of logic is extremely dubious, for reasons already posted about on this thread.
IOW, E1 is, indeed, a free parameter, but with BZ and Wierzbicki providing plausibility for Greening's interpretation.
Regarding your claim to have used BV to deduce a similar E1 from Greening's acceleration measurements, I suspect it suffers from a similar mis-characterization.
Reasoning by analogy from the spring problem wherein one doesn't know the spring constant, if one mis-characterized it as a measurable, but it was actually a free parameter, that doesn't mean that the value determined for it is incorrect.
Similarly, your value for E1 may not be incorrect in a similar sense, though BV being an invalid model to begin with makes all such considerations besides the point. Nobody doubts Newton's laws in a classical regime. BV, "homogenization" and all, cannot lay claim to such a similarly lofty position.
But even if, for the sake of argument, BV was as unassailable as Newton, that doesn't mean that trying to milk it for E1 will not fail the Disney convention.
Does it?
(2) Yes.
Just skimmed the Greening paper. Greening computed collapse times as a function of E1. E1 values he considered plausible were quoted from BZ and Wierzbicki. Even in the case of Wierzbicki, it is not a given that their values are credibly extended to the case of gravitational collapse. This leap of logic is extremely dubious, for reasons already posted about on this thread.
IOW, E1 is, indeed, a free parameter, but with BZ and Wierzbicki providing plausibility for Greening's interpretation.
Regarding your claim to have used BV to deduce a similar E1 from Greening's acceleration measurements, I suspect it suffers from a similar mis-characterization.
Reasoning by analogy from the spring problem wherein one doesn't know the spring constant, if one mis-characterized it as a measurable, but it was actually a free parameter, that doesn't mean that the value determined for it is incorrect.
Similarly, your value for E1 may not be incorrect in a similar sense, though BV being an invalid model to begin with makes all such considerations besides the point. Nobody doubts Newton's laws in a classical regime. BV, "homogenization" and all, cannot lay claim to such a similarly lofty position.
But even if, for the sake of argument, BV was as unassailable as Newton, that doesn't mean that trying to milk it for E1 will not fail the Disney convention.
Does it?
QUOTE (metamars+May 29 2007, 09:12 PM)
... Greening's acceleration measurements, ...
But even if, for the sake of argument, BV was as unassailable as Newton, that doesn't mean that trying to milk it for E1 will not fail the Disney convention.
(1) drop, i.e., displacement. Not acceleration.
(2) I used to do lots of exactly this sort of parameter estimation. Often enough sets of equations with many parameters and much stiffer than the B & V crush-down equation. I assure you this is not milking it, but rather a standard scientific practice.
(3) What is the Disney convention?
But even if, for the sake of argument, BV was as unassailable as Newton, that doesn't mean that trying to milk it for E1 will not fail the Disney convention.
(1) drop, i.e., displacement. Not acceleration.
(2) I used to do lots of exactly this sort of parameter estimation. Often enough sets of equations with many parameters and much stiffer than the B & V crush-down equation. I assure you this is not milking it, but rather a standard scientific practice.
(3) What is the Disney convention?
QUOTE
But they did SAG, and it was this SAGGING that caused the outer frame to fail due to the caternary forces, which only got worse as they cooled. No one is saying the floors collapsed, even NIST says this was not the initiating event.
The floor models didnt come close to collapse. So why did they fail and collapse in WTC?. They had the floor models in 700 C in almost 4 hours under MAX loads. The WTC fire was only 45 min. And a fire needs 6-8 hours to get a fire to stay at 1000 C. In 45 min it can only reach a peak temp of around 1000C in some minutes and that aint enough to weaken the steel.
And look at the hole picture and all the evidence, stop watching the trees when there are a forest
Steel melted. FEMA findings. Iron melted. USGS findings.
NIST didnt find any evidence that the core columns had reach any hotter then 250 C to
NIST stated "None of the samples were from zones where [high] heating was predicted"
And all the steel and evidence was shipped to China and destroyed. Easily the three largest and least understood structural failures in World history
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+May 29 2007, 04:48 PM)
And a fire needs 6-8 hours to get a fire to stay at 1000 C. In 45 min it can only reach a peak temp of around 1000C in some minutes and that aint enough to weaken the steel.
If a fire needs 6-8 hours to weaken steel why do you think they bother to fire proof steel, since no fire would burn for 6-8 hours in one place?
Arthur
If a fire needs 6-8 hours to weaken steel why do you think they bother to fire proof steel, since no fire would burn for 6-8 hours in one place?
Arthur
Malmoesoldier
They didn't.
They didn't.
And a fire needs 6-8 hours to get a fire to stay at 1000 C
The fires in the wtc got over 1000 C in MINUTES, not hours. You keep repeating this nonsense as if the wtc fires were a normal office fire, they were not.
You're talking the difference between a cigarette dropped in a sofa house fire and a fire in the same house where an arsonist has spread 25 gallons of kerosene around, soaking the rugs and furniture. Get a grip, will you???
1000C is PLENTY hot enough to affect the strength of steel. 1000-1100C is as hot as a blacksmith heats steel in order to work it. Why??? because at that temp IT IS SOFT.
1000C is PLENTY hot enough to affect the strength of steel. 1000-1100C is as hot as a blacksmith heats steel in order to work it. Why??? because at that temp IT IS SOFT.
Steel melted. FEMA findings. Iron melted. USGS findings.
No, steel did not melt. The only thing FEMA or USGS found was ERODED steel, probably due to all the sulfur in the fuel oil in 7(12,000 gallons). NO PUDDLES OF SOLIDIFIED STEEL WAS FOUND ANYWHERE ON THE WTC COMPLEX. And that is just fact.
NIST could not identify any samples that were unambiguously from the fire zone THAT WERE NOT AFFECTED BY TEMPS IN THE RUBBLE PILE. NIST itself said that this could not be interpreted as precluding their estimates of between 1000-1200C in the fire zones.
NIST could not identify any samples that were unambiguously from the fire zone THAT WERE NOT AFFECTED BY TEMPS IN THE RUBBLE PILE. NIST itself said that this could not be interpreted as precluding their estimates of between 1000-1200C in the fire zones.
And all the steel and evidence was shipped to China and destroyed.
Another CTer lie.
http://www.pbase.com/bornfromjets/world_trade_center&page=1
They kept all the RELIVANT samples in a hangar at JFK. Here's a bunch of pictures. See for yourself that the "Evidence sent to China" is just a big lie.
Grumpy
What i am saying is that a fire needs 6-8 hours to get to a temperature that will START to weaken the steel. It CANT do it in 45 minutes, in that time it only can reach a peak temp of around 1000C in some minutes. And that is defiantly not enough. The steel dont fail when its under 700 C in almost 4 hours, witch means that it could make it without collapsing a longer time under 700 C or higher temperatures. So like i say it would need a much higher temperature under a longer time then 45 min for it to fail, and it can only reach that temp if it burns for 6-8 hours. And there are NO proof that the core was damage.
What i am saying is that a fire needs 6-8 hours to get to a temperature that will START to weaken the steel.
So once AGAIN.
IF your statement WERE true
Then
Why did they BOTHER putting MILLIONS of dollars worth of SFRM on the Steel in the WTC towers?
No FIRE would have burnt in one place or on one floor for 6-8 hours.
Arthur
Sorry i mean why did the support columns fail. The temp cant to any damage to them under 45 min.
Sorry i mean why did the support columns fail. The temp cant to any damage to them under 45 min.
The fires in the wtc got over 1000 C in MINUTES, not hours
I KNOW!! and that aint enough to weaken the steel. 1000C under some minutes dont make it collapse. Thats just the peak temp and it goes down to 400-600 C in some minutes.
It DID melt. READ the FEMA report!!!. the steel had HOLES in it. Steel needs 1510C to melt if you dont know. And the iron WAS melted, stop lieing like you was mark robert.
It DID melt. READ the FEMA report!!!. the steel had HOLES in it. Steel needs 1510C to melt if you dont know. And the iron WAS melted, stop lieing like you was mark robert.
Another CTer lie.
LIE?? IT IS A FACT that it was shipped to CHINA. FEMA/NIST STATES THAT THEY ONLY GOT AROUND 200 PISCES TO. So stop lieing
**://www.pbase.com/bornfromjets/world_trade_center&page=1
WOW that was much steel they had there! lol
And do you know how high temperatures you need to make this?? **://www.pbase.com/bornfromjets/image/67425048
QUOTE
The floor models didnt come close to collapse. So why did they fail and collapse in WTC?.
They didn't.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The floor models didnt come close to collapse. So why did they fail and collapse in WTC?. |
They didn't.
And a fire needs 6-8 hours to get a fire to stay at 1000 C
The fires in the wtc got over 1000 C in MINUTES, not hours. You keep repeating this nonsense as if the wtc fires were a normal office fire, they were not.
You're talking the difference between a cigarette dropped in a sofa house fire and a fire in the same house where an arsonist has spread 25 gallons of kerosene around, soaking the rugs and furniture. Get a grip, will you???
QUOTE
In 45 min it can only reach a peak temp of around 1000C in some minutes and that aint enough to weaken the steel.
1000C is PLENTY hot enough to affect the strength of steel. 1000-1100C is as hot as a blacksmith heats steel in order to work it. Why??? because at that temp IT IS SOFT.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In 45 min it can only reach a peak temp of around 1000C in some minutes and that aint enough to weaken the steel. |
1000C is PLENTY hot enough to affect the strength of steel. 1000-1100C is as hot as a blacksmith heats steel in order to work it. Why??? because at that temp IT IS SOFT.
Steel melted. FEMA findings. Iron melted. USGS findings.
No, steel did not melt. The only thing FEMA or USGS found was ERODED steel, probably due to all the sulfur in the fuel oil in 7(12,000 gallons). NO PUDDLES OF SOLIDIFIED STEEL WAS FOUND ANYWHERE ON THE WTC COMPLEX. And that is just fact.
QUOTE
NIST didnt find any evidence that the core columns had reach any hotter then 250 C to
NIST stated "None of the samples were from zones where [high] heating was predicted"
NIST stated "None of the samples were from zones where [high] heating was predicted"
NIST could not identify any samples that were unambiguously from the fire zone THAT WERE NOT AFFECTED BY TEMPS IN THE RUBBLE PILE. NIST itself said that this could not be interpreted as precluding their estimates of between 1000-1200C in the fire zones.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| NIST didnt find any evidence that the core columns had reach any hotter then 250 C to NIST stated "None of the samples were from zones where [high] heating was predicted" |
NIST could not identify any samples that were unambiguously from the fire zone THAT WERE NOT AFFECTED BY TEMPS IN THE RUBBLE PILE. NIST itself said that this could not be interpreted as precluding their estimates of between 1000-1200C in the fire zones.
And all the steel and evidence was shipped to China and destroyed.
Another CTer lie.
http://www.pbase.com/bornfromjets/world_trade_center&page=1
They kept all the RELIVANT samples in a hangar at JFK. Here's a bunch of pictures. See for yourself that the "Evidence sent to China" is just a big lie.
Grumpy
QUOTE
If a fire needs 6-8 hours to weaken steel why do you think they bother to fire proof steel, since no fire would burn for 6-8 hours in one place?
What i am saying is that a fire needs 6-8 hours to get to a temperature that will START to weaken the steel. It CANT do it in 45 minutes, in that time it only can reach a peak temp of around 1000C in some minutes. And that is defiantly not enough. The steel dont fail when its under 700 C in almost 4 hours, witch means that it could make it without collapsing a longer time under 700 C or higher temperatures. So like i say it would need a much higher temperature under a longer time then 45 min for it to fail, and it can only reach that temp if it burns for 6-8 hours. And there are NO proof that the core was damage.
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+May 29 2007, 06:04 PM)
What i am saying is that a fire needs 6-8 hours to get to a temperature that will START to weaken the steel.
So once AGAIN.
IF your statement WERE true
Then
Why did they BOTHER putting MILLIONS of dollars worth of SFRM on the Steel in the WTC towers?
No FIRE would have burnt in one place or on one floor for 6-8 hours.
Arthur
QUOTE
They didn't.
Sorry i mean why did the support columns fail. The temp cant to any damage to them under 45 min.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They didn't. |
Sorry i mean why did the support columns fail. The temp cant to any damage to them under 45 min.
The fires in the wtc got over 1000 C in MINUTES, not hours
I KNOW!! and that aint enough to weaken the steel. 1000C under some minutes dont make it collapse. Thats just the peak temp and it goes down to 400-600 C in some minutes.
QUOTE
No, steel did not melt
It DID melt. READ the FEMA report!!!. the steel had HOLES in it. Steel needs 1510C to melt if you dont know. And the iron WAS melted, stop lieing like you was mark robert.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, steel did not melt |
It DID melt. READ the FEMA report!!!. the steel had HOLES in it. Steel needs 1510C to melt if you dont know. And the iron WAS melted, stop lieing like you was mark robert.
Another CTer lie.
LIE?? IT IS A FACT that it was shipped to CHINA. FEMA/NIST STATES THAT THEY ONLY GOT AROUND 200 PISCES TO. So stop lieing
**://www.pbase.com/bornfromjets/world_trade_center&page=1
WOW that was much steel they had there! lol
And do you know how high temperatures you need to make this?? **://www.pbase.com/bornfromjets/image/67425048
adoucette. If you are saying that 800 C under 45 minutes can make the steel collapse you are WRONG. If you say the temperatures could get hotter then 800 C under 45 min more then some minutes you are WRONG. If you say that 1000 C under some minutes can make the steel collapse you are WRONG.
So it would be more fire safe
QUOTE
Why did they BOTHER putting MILLIONS of dollars worth of SFRM on the Steel in the WTC towers?
So it would be more fire safe
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+May 29 2007, 11:30 PM)
So it would be more fire safe
At 600 degrees Celsius, steel has only 15% of its cold strength. Therefore, under load, it creeps and deforms.
At 600 degrees Celsius, steel has only 15% of its cold strength. Therefore, under load, it creeps and deforms.
Malmoesoldier
I know that is what you are saying, you are just plain wrong in the case of the towers. That 6-8 hour estimate is rubbish.
I know that is what you are saying, you are just plain wrong in the case of the towers. That 6-8 hour estimate is rubbish.
It CANT do it in 45 minutes
It not only can, but it did, twice(WTC1+2)
1000C is plenty hot enough to weaken metal, you are simply wrong again.
1000C is plenty hot enough to weaken metal, you are simply wrong again.
The steel dont fail when its under 700 C in almost 4 hours, witch means that it could make it without collapsing a longer time under 700 C or higher temperatures. So like i say it would need a much higher temperature under a longer time then 45 min for it to fail, and it can only reach that temp if it burns for 6-8 hours. And there are NO proof that the core was damage.
Where are you getting this crap??? Cite a study that says it takes that long to reach dangerous temps.
Says who??? The support columns failed due to damage from impact and high heat from fires causing sagging floors and bowing external columns to the point where one critical overloaded column failed, leading to a cascade of adjacent columns failing and the tilt of the top blocks.
Says who??? The support columns failed due to damage from impact and high heat from fires causing sagging floors and bowing external columns to the point where one critical overloaded column failed, leading to a cascade of adjacent columns failing and the tilt of the top blocks.
I KNOW!! and that aint enough to weaken the steel. 1000C under some minutes dont make it collapse. Thats just the peak temp and it goes down to 400-600 C in some minutes.
Above 600C steel loses 85% of its room temp strength, that was enough.
The steel shipped to china was irrelivant to the investigation, IT WAS NOT EVIDENCE. The samples chosen by NIST that ARE EVIDENCE are still in a climate controlled hangar at JFK. To say that all the EVIDENCE was shipped to China is a lie.
The steel shipped to china was irrelivant to the investigation, IT WAS NOT EVIDENCE. The samples chosen by NIST that ARE EVIDENCE are still in a climate controlled hangar at JFK. To say that all the EVIDENCE was shipped to China is a lie.
And do you know how high temperatures you need to make this??
Since there is unburned paper in it, the temps came nowhere near 451 F, Why do you ask???
Grumpy
paper
QUOTE
What i am saying is that a fire needs 6-8 hours to get to a temperature that will START to weaken the steel.
I know that is what you are saying, you are just plain wrong in the case of the towers. That 6-8 hour estimate is rubbish.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What i am saying is that a fire needs 6-8 hours to get to a temperature that will START to weaken the steel. |
I know that is what you are saying, you are just plain wrong in the case of the towers. That 6-8 hour estimate is rubbish.
It CANT do it in 45 minutes
It not only can, but it did, twice(WTC1+2)
QUOTE
it only can reach a peak temp of around 1000C in some minutes. And that is defiantly not enough.
1000C is plenty hot enough to weaken metal, you are simply wrong again.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| it only can reach a peak temp of around 1000C in some minutes. And that is defiantly not enough. |
1000C is plenty hot enough to weaken metal, you are simply wrong again.
The steel dont fail when its under 700 C in almost 4 hours, witch means that it could make it without collapsing a longer time under 700 C or higher temperatures. So like i say it would need a much higher temperature under a longer time then 45 min for it to fail, and it can only reach that temp if it burns for 6-8 hours. And there are NO proof that the core was damage.
Where are you getting this crap??? Cite a study that says it takes that long to reach dangerous temps.
QUOTE
Sorry i mean why did the support columns fail. The temp cant to any damage to them under 45 min.
Says who??? The support columns failed due to damage from impact and high heat from fires causing sagging floors and bowing external columns to the point where one critical overloaded column failed, leading to a cascade of adjacent columns failing and the tilt of the top blocks.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sorry i mean why did the support columns fail. The temp cant to any damage to them under 45 min. |
Says who??? The support columns failed due to damage from impact and high heat from fires causing sagging floors and bowing external columns to the point where one critical overloaded column failed, leading to a cascade of adjacent columns failing and the tilt of the top blocks.
I KNOW!! and that aint enough to weaken the steel. 1000C under some minutes dont make it collapse. Thats just the peak temp and it goes down to 400-600 C in some minutes.
Above 600C steel loses 85% of its room temp strength, that was enough.
QUOTE
LIE?? IT IS A FACT that it was shipped to CHINA. FEMA/NIST STATES THAT THE ONLY GOT AROUND 200 PISCES TO. So stop lieing
The steel shipped to china was irrelivant to the investigation, IT WAS NOT EVIDENCE. The samples chosen by NIST that ARE EVIDENCE are still in a climate controlled hangar at JFK. To say that all the EVIDENCE was shipped to China is a lie.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| LIE?? IT IS A FACT that it was shipped to CHINA. FEMA/NIST STATES THAT THE ONLY GOT AROUND 200 PISCES TO. So stop lieing |
The steel shipped to china was irrelivant to the investigation, IT WAS NOT EVIDENCE. The samples chosen by NIST that ARE EVIDENCE are still in a climate controlled hangar at JFK. To say that all the EVIDENCE was shipped to China is a lie.
And do you know how high temperatures you need to make this??
Since there is unburned paper in it, the temps came nowhere near 451 F, Why do you ask???
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 29 2007, 11:44 PM)
The samples chosen by NIST that ARE EVIDENCE are still in a climate controlled hangar at JFK.
AFAIK, the steel samples photographed at NIST's Gaithersburg campus are still there.
AFAIK, the steel samples photographed at NIST's Gaithersburg campus are still there.
David B. Benson
Are you talking about all the "coupons" taken at ground zero???
Grumpy
Are you talking about all the "coupons" taken at ground zero???
Grumpy
paper
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 29 2007, 11:54 PM)
Are you talking about all the "coupons" taken at ground zero?
Yes. Some are at NIST and some are in the JFK hanger. Except for one member which is in both places.
Yes. Some are at NIST and some are in the JFK hanger. Except for one member which is in both places.
Have all objects in the building, been catalogued, so that we can tell what there was that could have burned? All I've heard so far is jet fuel and paper. What else was there?
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+)
What i am saying is that a fire needs 6-8 hours to get to a temperature that will START to weaken the steel.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Why did they BOTHER putting MILLIONS of dollars worth of SFRM on the Steel in the WTC towers?
Guys, he's under the misapprehension that when we say that elevated temperatures reduce steel's strength, that we're talking about steel losing its temper. He doesn't understand that hot steel is weaker because it's hot, he's talking about permanent changes in steel's strength. He hasn't a clue what he's talking about.
Malmoesoldier: Steel doesn't melt all at once, like ice does, it goes from being strong at room temperature to being more taffy-like as it gets warmer. That's what we're talking about. It doesn't take 6-8 hours at an elevated temperature to lose its strength, the instant it reaches an elevated temperature, it's already softer, and therefore less capable of supporting its design load. If it reaches 600C in 30 seconds, it's already only 15% of its nominal strength.
Also, you're apparently assuming that the exterior steel curtain wall was ornamental, or just there to hold the windows in. Wrong. It was an essential element of the structure's strength. Whatever other BS you seem to believe, you must recognize that the plane(s) took out a wide section of those exterior steel members. All of those were load-bearing, and the loads they'd been carrying were transferring to the closest members that remained after the impact. Clearly, that exceeded their design loads, and they deformed under the extreme stresses. That contributed to their failure, and to the failure of the structure as a whole.
I haven't read the NIST report, so someone correct me if I have a false impression, but I get the idea that NIST calculated an average peak temperature of the interior due to the fire. This is my complaint about the NIST analysis (if I'm correct in my assumption). Fire is chaotic, so average-value estimates are fundamentally flawed. Fires will get hotter than average in some areas and cooler in others. A structure is only as strong as its weakest element, and steel strength is a strong function of its temperature. In the WTC fires there were undoubtedly places where the fire was much hotter than any average temperature, and that would cause the steel in that hot-spot to fail, then and there. A truss with one small section that's extremely hot is a failed strut, because that hot portion will stretch like taffy even if it doesn't melt. I'd be surprised if there *wasn't* any melted steel in the fire, simply because of the unpredictable nature of chaotic systems. There is no "maximum temperature possible" for burning fuels in a chaotic/turbulent environment. There are hot-spots in every fire, except those fires which are strictly controlled, like in jet engines or rocket engines.
And the "swiss-cheese" is only evidence of erosion, not melting. Fire is quite capable of burning steel, going from solid steel to ferrous oxides without "melting". The "swiss-cheese" effect is likely to be the result of hot gases eroding the steel chemically.
But in any case, jet fuel can melt steel. They used to make jet engines out of steel components, and stopped, because the steel failed and sometimes melted in the engines. The most-famous case of this was when a Russian-made FOXBAT flew into Israeli airspace and got intercepted by an Israeli jet. The MIG pilot turned-tail and put it into full afterburner, and the MIG was clocked at Mach 3 in its escape. Molten steel was seen coming out of its exhaust. The steel in the engine in full A/B was melting.
OK, I already have misgivings.
Temperatures seen through windows being taken as boundary conditions implies an assumption of non-turbulence, which is exactly the least-likely scenario in a chaotic fire for a couple of reasons.
First, that black sooty smoke is very effective at absorbing IR, and the temperature that you'd see from the outside would be the average of the internal temperature and the external temperature. The outer edges of the smoke are cooler because they're being heated from behind and cooled from the front at the same time. So even if you had an optical pyrometer aiming at the smoke, that reading would be low. The temperatures even a few feet in would be a lot hotter. Smoke acts like a layer of IR insulation.
The second thing that bothers me about that is the notion of a "boundary layer" in a fire. If you were standing inside, watching (God forbid!) when it was burning, you'd see mini-tornadoes of super-hot flames wherever the air (with the fresh oxygen) was coming in. By "mini-", I don't mean on the order of inches, but on the order of meters. Their locations would be determined by elements too small to be considered in any analysis that uses terms like "boundary layer", things like partitions, filing cabinets, desks, etc., in front of a broken window would be sufficient to create a vortex of flame that would act like a blowtorch that'd be burning at temperatures much higher than any steady-state model would predict.
Again, I haven't read the NIST report so I recognize that I could be completely off-base, but fires are chaotic systems and linear-analyses tend to provide average values more reliably than extreme values, when it's the extreme values that are most-relevant to discussions of what happened to the structural steel.
The nominal temperatures, or the extreme temperatures...?
The fact that they've spent ten years on the model doesn't give me warm-fuzzies that they're doing it right. Fire is chaotic, and it still sounds like you're describing a linear-approximation model. I'd trust the nominal temperatures that'd come out of a linear model, but it's the temperature extremes that would dominate the effect on the structure. (Visualize a chain with a cutting-torch focused on one link. How much good does it do for me to know the average temperature of the entire chain?)
Maybe you could point me to the NIST link. I should probably give up and read what they assumed in their model.
Maybe you could point me to the NIST link. I should probably give up and read what they assumed in their model.
It would be much appreciated.
You are obviously very smart.
But so are the scientists at NIST.
I think you will be impressed by their work.
The primary site link is: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
However, if you want to focus on the Fire aspects that is in Chapter 5
Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf
For more detail on their fire reconstruction see
Computer Simulation of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5F.pdf
and
Fire Structure Interface and Thermal Response of the World Trade Center Towers
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5G.pdf
Arthur
forthetrees wrote @ May 28 2007, 03:45 AM) There was no air resistence[sic] from below that was of any consequence, as per your explanation of this to me on our go around about it a couple of weeks ago....or, am I missing your point, again?
The air resistance grows with the speed. It is a secondary source of energy consumption, but enough to avoid neglecting...
Are we pointing out all typos now, or only being selective in doing so?
To the point...enhanced air resistance due to the confined nature of the trapped air must be factored into calculations of acceleration rates, no? You always seem to use normal, unconfined air in arriving at acceleration values. The more resistance there was from confined air, the less of a factor resistance from material in intact zones below the impact site.
It continues to seem to me that you want it both ways depending on the topic. If it's squibs, then they are explained away by the tremendous force of confined air seeking escape. If it's acceleration rates, the resistance from confined air is neglected. I don't much care which way it goes, but pick one and stick with it, eh?
Malmoesoldier: Steel doesn't melt all at once, like ice does, it goes from being strong at room temperature to being more taffy-like as it gets warmer. That's what we're talking about. It doesn't take 6-8 hours at an elevated temperature to lose its strength, the instant it reaches an elevated temperature, it's already softer, and therefore less capable of supporting its design load.
If it reaches 600C in 30 seconds, it's already only 15% of its nominal strength.The "swiss-cheese" effect is likely to be the result of hot gases eroding the steel chemically.
But in any case, jet fuel can melt steel. They used to make jet engines out of steel components, and stopped, because the steel failed and sometimes melted in the engines. The most-famous case of this was when a Russian-made FOXBAT flew into Israeli airspace and got intercepted by an Israeli jet. The MIG pilot turned-tail and put it into full afterburner, and the MIG was clocked at Mach 3 in its escape. Molten steel was seen coming out of its exhaust. The steel in the engine in full A/B was melting.
good stuff.
"taffy like" stuff does not SHATTER INSTANTLY. it sags, it slides, it shifts, and yet retains that 60% of it's strength, and so is able to slow any kind of instant catasrophic failure.
evaporated steel is the result of chemical erosion. very good.
FOXBAT jets were flying in regular service(for how many years?) before a real life battle encounter caused the pilot to push the envelope of the plane's capabilities. it wasn't until then that a problem with using steel in a jet engine was found. OBVIOUSLY the engineers considered heat when picking materials to build their jet engine.
the jet engine got the pilot home, and did not suffer critical structural failure, even though it was MELTING.
BTW. i enjoyed your views on god and 'reality'(from your site). i wholeheartedly agree with you.
I guess it might've been before your time, but we used to have a taffy candy bar back when I was a kid, I forget the name, but you'd buy it whole, and if you wanted to eat it piece by piece, you'd smack it on a hard surface and it'd shatter in a hundred pieces.
Silly Putty does the same, you can stretch it out or smack it and it shatters.
Steel at plastic temperatures will shatter, but more to the point, if it's a long truss holding something up, as it starts to stretch, it also starts to sag, and that sagging leads to structural failure, which can be very sudden in human time scales. If you have 100 of them holding up a load (like 30 floors of the WTC tower) and they start stretching, then they'll start falling away. The first 5 failed trusses will only make the remaining 95 support 100/95 or about 105% of their nominal design load, no big deal, other than the fact that they're hotter and therefore stretchier than usual, too. The next five to drop make the remaining 90 support 111% of their nominal design load, so they're getting closer to that design margin I mentioned earlier. Once it gets to half of them dropped, then the remaining ones are required to support 200% of their design capacity, and now we're at the point where even if they weren't hot, they'd fail rapidly. When it's 2/3rds dropped, the remaining 1/3rd have to support 300% of their design load, and none of them can hold that much and they all go in a split second, even if they weren't hot at all.
It's the nature of an optimized system that when it fails, it fails catastrophically. This isn't a critique of the design, it's just a matter that if they'd built the structure using twice as much steel, it wouldn't have been an optimized design, it would've cost more and been less profitable, and for no foreseeable reason.
The fire insulation on the struts was a recognized problem, building inspectors routinely found that the insulation was falling off on its own and they had to re-apply it on a regular basis. Spray-on insulating foam tends to fall off. Same problem as with the Shuttle. They knew it was a problem, but they thought it was academic, they never figured it'd be a real problem. They didn't foresee getting hit by an airplane going 470mph with full fuel tanks. Not a lot they could've done from a design viewpoint even if they did, there's not a lot that you can do to protect a hi-rise from an plane hitting it. Even so, the NIST analysis I'm reading claims that if the damage to the WTC towers had been limited to the impact damage, then the structures could've stood indefinitely with that damage. Hard to believe, but I'm assuming they've done their structural analysis correctly, even though I'm less confident in their thermal analysis.
Glad you found my website interesting.
I like Nine-Inch Nails.
Very briefly I evaluate the net acceleration, aN, of M40 using the relation:
aN = g - E1/(3.96xM40)
This equation allows the velocity of the falling mass of 40 floors of WTC 7 to be calculated at the moment of impact of the 8th floor on the 7th floor using appropriate values for E1 and M40, and the familiar relation:
v1 = Sqrt [ vo^2 - 2 x 3.96{g - E1/(3.96xM40)}]
After the impact of floor 8 on floor 7, the calculation may be repeated to determine the impact velocity of the remaining block of 39 floors onto the 9th floor. This is done by making v1 the new initial velocity, vo, in the above equation, and making M39 the new mass, and so on, until all the floors have impacted on the floor below and the building has totally collapsed.
I hope this doesn't make things more confusing!
OK, Thanks.
I had to ponder over this a while before I got it all. Things started to get clear when I understood that this only describe the crush-up phase. I assume you computed the crush-down phase the same way you did in your Energy Transfer paper. Also, I had to check how the units matched before I realized 3.96 was actually 3.96 meters. So now it's clear, finally.
I see that to use a constant E1 for all the floors. This bugged me when I first read your paper. Why go over the cross-sections of the columns to get a good estimate if one is later on to ignore that these values vary greatly over the length of the towers? But I understand that the end result is quite insensitive to E1. (However, see below)
Further, in the case of WTC1 and WTC2, I understand that the falling mass increases during the crush-down phase, so that if if the collapse is allowed to begin, it is at the very least guaranteed not to slow down.
In the case of WTC7, however, as you recently remarked, your model predicts a progressive reduction of aN. This seems an artifact from choosing E1 to be constant, however. While the mass of the "hammer" diminishes, the strength of the structural support below should diminish in exact proportion (assuming the WTC7 tower to be optimally designed). And so the acceleration ought to be constant.
I wouldn't expect the same to hold in the case of the crush-down phase of WTC1 and WTC2 since in that case it seems to me that the resistance must mainly be provided by horizontal structural elements rather than the columns. (David B. Benson convinced me of this). And thus it makes sense to assume a constant E1. The case of WTC7 might be different since the bottom of the columns of the upper block have to hit the solid bottom of the pile.
However, the more I think about the messiness of the crush zone, the less clear it is which model is more appropriate in any one phase.
What effect(s) are considered "squib-like"? Are they talking about the windows being blown out several floors down below the crush-zone, or the "flash" seen in a window of a lower floor?
Because I don't think people who're claiming either/both of those effects really know what a squib looks like, a squib wouldn't do either thing.
A squib would blow your fingers off if it went off in your hand, but that's about it. It wouldn't blow out a window unless it was right next to it, and even then, maybe not. They don't make any more of a flash than a firecracker, maybe even less than that.
If a flash was seen in a window, it was probably an electrical short due to the shock waves going through the building, or maybe a light bulb going out with a flash or a fluorescent bulb breaking while lit. Those (all) will emit a bright flash of light. A squib won't. Also, if a squib was seen through the window, what was it trying to destroy? All the structural members are either in the central core (way too far in the building to be seen, and covered with drywall in any case) or we're talking about the curtain wall, and you've got plenty of redundancy/strength in that wall, so one squib would have no effect at all on the structural integrity. After all, a plane completely transected most of them in the impact, and that didn't drop the tower(s), so somebody would put a squid on one external beam? For what purpose?
Even bombs don't make big flashes of light, unless they're Hollywood special-effects bombs. The real bombs just make a big cloud of smelly smoke (*distinctive-smell* smelly). So if it was a bomb that caused the glass to blow out of that lower floor, why'd they put it near the window? The structural strength was in the core of the building, some 200 feet away. There was nothing closer for a bomb to blow up.
It further begs the question, why bother planting explosives *and* hijacking four airplanes? If you've managed a way to sneak explosives into the WTC towers (all three) without getting caught, what do you need the planes for? And recognize that if you're trying to make it look like the planes did it, you'd better be real clever about how you fuse those explosive charges and/or how accurate those planes hit the towers. If they're off by one floor, then the charges won't make it look like the tower is failing in a progressive manner, which, we've shown, is the only way that it *wouldn't* look like a CD.
So the impact-point would be critical, for both planes. You'd think that both planes would've hit the same way, then, if that was a critical part of the plan, but they didn't. One hit mainly dead-on, one floor, almost horizontally, the other swooped-in clipping several floors off-center at a downward angle. Two completely different types of impacts. Both tightly controlled? Doesn't look like it.
LIE?? IT IS A FACT that it was shipped to CHINA. FEMA/NIST STATES THAT THEY ONLY GOT AROUND 200 PISCES TO. So stop lieing
**://www.pbase.com/bornfromjets/world_trade_center&page=1
WOW that was much steel they had there! lol
What effect(s) are considered "squib-like"? Are they talking about the windows being blown out several floors down below the crush-zone, or the "flash" seen in a window of a lower floor?
Because I don't think people who're claiming either/both of those effects really know what a squib looks like, a squib wouldn't do either thing.
This is a "squib" to a CT'er.
CT'ers routinely explain this as a "miswired/timed squib"
http://pharaqey.org/temp/squib1.jpg
Yes, we've explained MANY times that a real squib used to set off high explosives would not create anywhere near that kind of effect.
Yes, we've explained MANY times that the HE set off by a real squib would be near the Center columns (either 35 ft or 60 ft away from the outside wall, not 200', the towers were square but the inner core was rectangular)
Yes, we've explained MANY times that the propagation rate of a HE is supersonic and we wouldn't see the air mass expand over MANY frames of a video.
Most CT'ers routinely ignore ANY evidence that conflicts with their BELIEFS.
Arthur
I have already showed you NIST tests that shows that the temp was 1100 C after 33 min and at the 41 mark it was 400 C. Like i say the peak temp only lasts for some minutes then it goes down to around 400 C, And the tests they did was under good fire conditions. And i showed you my mail when i talked to arup.com about it. It is no secret that a fire needs 6-8 hours to get to 1000C and stay at that temp without going down to lower temperatures.
I have already showed you NIST tests that shows that the temp was 1100 C after 33 min and at the 41 mark it was 400 C. Like i say the peak temp only lasts for some minutes then it goes down to around 400 C, And the tests they did was under good fire conditions. And i showed you my mail when i talked to arup.com about it. It is no secret that a fire needs 6-8 hours to get to 1000C and stay at that temp without going down to lower temperatures.
The steel shipped to china was irrelivant to the investigation, IT WAS NOT EVIDENCE. The samples chosen by NIST that ARE EVIDENCE
LOL i agree that the samples chosen by NIST ARE EVIDENCE that they dont have any EVIDENCE that the support columns reach any hotter then 600 C and that the core columns didnt reach any hotter then 250 C.
He doesnt agree with you. (maybe it is a norther one)*www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_meteorite.wmv
And stop saying that there was no melted iron when USGS has evidence of it!!. Maybe it was steven jones that went there after the collapse and planted it there so USGS would find it later LOL
He doesnt agree with you. (maybe it is a norther one)*www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_meteorite.wmv
And stop saying that there was no melted iron when USGS has evidence of it!!. Maybe it was steven jones that went there after the collapse and planted it there so USGS would find it later LOL
If it reaches 600C in 30 seconds, it's already only 15% of its nominal strength.
OF COURSE fires will DO damage to the steel lol. But it will not weaken the steel that much so it will collapse. Read my posts if you want to learn something, NIST did tests of WTC STEEL and had theme under 700 C in almost 4 hours under MAX LOADS and they did NOT FAIL. So stop the bullshit about that the steel could have collapsed if it was under 600-800 C in 45 minutes.
And you guys believes in a theory, yes thats all the NIST report is a THEORY. They have NO PROOF that the support columns reach any hotter then 600 C, and they have NO PROOF that the core columns reach any hotter then 250 C. And thats because they SHIPPED all the other steel to CHINA and DESTROYED THE EVIDENCE. You can believe in a theory if you want, i like proof of something before i will believe in it.
QUOTE (malmoesoldier+)
So it would be more fire safe
PRICELESS
Don't you just love it when a Troother with this level of FRIGGIN AMAZING intellect shows up?
Sort of adds spice to the club that Loose Change created don't you think?
Arthur
PRICELESS
Don't you just love it when a Troother with this level of FRIGGIN AMAZING intellect shows up?
Sort of adds spice to the club that Loose Change created don't you think?
Arthur
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+May 29 2007, 11:22 PM)
...
...IT IS A FACT that it was shipped to CHINA. FEMA/NIST STATES THAT THEY ONLY GOT AROUND 200 PISCES TO.
...
Yes.
...
"In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.
Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three-day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation.
...
Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the fire protection engineering department at the University of Maryland, said he believed the decision could ultimately compromise any investigation of the collapses. ''I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling,'' Dr. Mowrer said.
...
Some experts have suggested that the only way to definitively determine the sequence and cause of the collapse is to recover large amounts of steel from the areas near where the planes struck, and possibly reassemble sections of the towers.
Others say such a reconstruction of an entire section might be impractical, but also expressed discomfort with the impediments they said they have faced in their investigation."
...
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E0DA1531F936A15751C1A9679C8B63
But what information did the steel gave which was research ? The only availeble evidence. This:
"More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels...Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C."
...
"Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.
Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fireaffected floors of the towers."
wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
...IT IS A FACT that it was shipped to CHINA. FEMA/NIST STATES THAT THEY ONLY GOT AROUND 200 PISCES TO.
...
Yes.
...
"In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.
Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three-day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation.
...
Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the fire protection engineering department at the University of Maryland, said he believed the decision could ultimately compromise any investigation of the collapses. ''I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling,'' Dr. Mowrer said.
...
Some experts have suggested that the only way to definitively determine the sequence and cause of the collapse is to recover large amounts of steel from the areas near where the planes struck, and possibly reassemble sections of the towers.
Others say such a reconstruction of an entire section might be impractical, but also expressed discomfort with the impediments they said they have faced in their investigation."
...
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E0DA1531F936A15751C1A9679C8B63
But what information did the steel gave which was research ? The only availeble evidence. This:
"More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels...Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C."
...
"Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.
Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fireaffected floors of the towers."
wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 29 2007, 07:32 PM)
Have all objects in the building, been catalogued, so that we can tell what there was that could have burned? All I've heard so far is jet fuel and paper. What else was there?
Have ALL objects in the towers been cataloged?
No.
Of course only the fire/impact floors were particularly relevant to the fire/collapse.
They do have a reasonably good idea of what was on them.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5E and NCSTAR 1-5F.
The net of it, is the combustible load was estimated to be somewhere between 4 & 5 lbs per square ft of office space.
The buildings were ~ 40,000 sq ft per floor and had ~ 32,000 sq ft of office space per floor.
Arthur
Have ALL objects in the towers been cataloged?
No.
Of course only the fire/impact floors were particularly relevant to the fire/collapse.
They do have a reasonably good idea of what was on them.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5E and NCSTAR 1-5F.
The net of it, is the combustible load was estimated to be somewhere between 4 & 5 lbs per square ft of office space.
The buildings were ~ 40,000 sq ft per floor and had ~ 32,000 sq ft of office space per floor.
Arthur
QUOTE
And a fire needs 6-8 hours to get a fire to stay at 1000 C. In 45 min it can only reach a peak temp of around 1000C in some minutes and that aint enough to weaken the steel.
Guys, he's under the misapprehension that when we say that elevated temperatures reduce steel's strength, that we're talking about steel losing its temper. He doesn't understand that hot steel is weaker because it's hot, he's talking about permanent changes in steel's strength. He hasn't a clue what he's talking about.
Malmoesoldier: Steel doesn't melt all at once, like ice does, it goes from being strong at room temperature to being more taffy-like as it gets warmer. That's what we're talking about. It doesn't take 6-8 hours at an elevated temperature to lose its strength, the instant it reaches an elevated temperature, it's already softer, and therefore less capable of supporting its design load. If it reaches 600C in 30 seconds, it's already only 15% of its nominal strength.
Also, you're apparently assuming that the exterior steel curtain wall was ornamental, or just there to hold the windows in. Wrong. It was an essential element of the structure's strength. Whatever other BS you seem to believe, you must recognize that the plane(s) took out a wide section of those exterior steel members. All of those were load-bearing, and the loads they'd been carrying were transferring to the closest members that remained after the impact. Clearly, that exceeded their design loads, and they deformed under the extreme stresses. That contributed to their failure, and to the failure of the structure as a whole.
I haven't read the NIST report, so someone correct me if I have a false impression, but I get the idea that NIST calculated an average peak temperature of the interior due to the fire. This is my complaint about the NIST analysis (if I'm correct in my assumption). Fire is chaotic, so average-value estimates are fundamentally flawed. Fires will get hotter than average in some areas and cooler in others. A structure is only as strong as its weakest element, and steel strength is a strong function of its temperature. In the WTC fires there were undoubtedly places where the fire was much hotter than any average temperature, and that would cause the steel in that hot-spot to fail, then and there. A truss with one small section that's extremely hot is a failed strut, because that hot portion will stretch like taffy even if it doesn't melt. I'd be surprised if there *wasn't* any melted steel in the fire, simply because of the unpredictable nature of chaotic systems. There is no "maximum temperature possible" for burning fuels in a chaotic/turbulent environment. There are hot-spots in every fire, except those fires which are strictly controlled, like in jet engines or rocket engines.
And the "swiss-cheese" is only evidence of erosion, not melting. Fire is quite capable of burning steel, going from solid steel to ferrous oxides without "melting". The "swiss-cheese" effect is likely to be the result of hot gases eroding the steel chemically.
But in any case, jet fuel can melt steel. They used to make jet engines out of steel components, and stopped, because the steel failed and sometimes melted in the engines. The most-famous case of this was when a Russian-made FOXBAT flew into Israeli airspace and got intercepted by an Israeli jet. The MIG pilot turned-tail and put it into full afterburner, and the MIG was clocked at Mach 3 in its escape. Molten steel was seen coming out of its exhaust. The steel in the engine in full A/B was melting.
QUOTE (wcelliott+May 30 2007, 12:50 AM)
... so someone correct me if I have a false impression ...
You have a false impression. NIST's ability to simulate actual building fires is quite impressive.
Since there was ample visual evidence at the windows, basically they needed to solve a boundary value problem. That they did very well. While I have some complaints about the report, they deserve (almost) full marks for the fire studies. They don't get the highest grade because there is no indication that they considered any possibilities for exotic chemistry at the same time.
You have a false impression. NIST's ability to simulate actual building fires is quite impressive.
Since there was ample visual evidence at the windows, basically they needed to solve a boundary value problem. That they did very well. While I have some complaints about the report, they deserve (almost) full marks for the fire studies. They don't get the highest grade because there is no indication that they considered any possibilities for exotic chemistry at the same time.
QUOTE
Since there was ample visual evidence at the windows,
OK, I already have misgivings.
Temperatures seen through windows being taken as boundary conditions implies an assumption of non-turbulence, which is exactly the least-likely scenario in a chaotic fire for a couple of reasons.
First, that black sooty smoke is very effective at absorbing IR, and the temperature that you'd see from the outside would be the average of the internal temperature and the external temperature. The outer edges of the smoke are cooler because they're being heated from behind and cooled from the front at the same time. So even if you had an optical pyrometer aiming at the smoke, that reading would be low. The temperatures even a few feet in would be a lot hotter. Smoke acts like a layer of IR insulation.
The second thing that bothers me about that is the notion of a "boundary layer" in a fire. If you were standing inside, watching (God forbid!) when it was burning, you'd see mini-tornadoes of super-hot flames wherever the air (with the fresh oxygen) was coming in. By "mini-", I don't mean on the order of inches, but on the order of meters. Their locations would be determined by elements too small to be considered in any analysis that uses terms like "boundary layer", things like partitions, filing cabinets, desks, etc., in front of a broken window would be sufficient to create a vortex of flame that would act like a blowtorch that'd be burning at temperatures much higher than any steady-state model would predict.
Again, I haven't read the NIST report so I recognize that I could be completely off-base, but fires are chaotic systems and linear-analyses tend to provide average values more reliably than extreme values, when it's the extreme values that are most-relevant to discussions of what happened to the structural steel.
QUOTE (wcelliott+May 30 2007, 01:21 AM)
... so I recognize that I could be completely off-base ...
You are. They just needed to know in what direction the fires moved, how fast, etc. The temperatures were then determined by their fire model, which they had been working on for at least ten years.
Keep in mind that this was a building fire safety group. They know what they are doing...
You are. They just needed to know in what direction the fires moved, how fast, etc. The temperatures were then determined by their fire model, which they had been working on for at least ten years.
Keep in mind that this was a building fire safety group. They know what they are doing...
QUOTE
They just needed to know in what direction the fires moved, how fast, etc. The temperatures were then determined by their fire model
The nominal temperatures, or the extreme temperatures...?
The fact that they've spent ten years on the model doesn't give me warm-fuzzies that they're doing it right. Fire is chaotic, and it still sounds like you're describing a linear-approximation model. I'd trust the nominal temperatures that'd come out of a linear model, but it's the temperature extremes that would dominate the effect on the structure. (Visualize a chain with a cutting-torch focused on one link. How much good does it do for me to know the average temperature of the entire chain?)
Maybe you could point me to the NIST link. I should probably give up and read what they assumed in their model.
QUOTE (wcelliott+May 29 2007, 09:11 PM)
Maybe you could point me to the NIST link. I should probably give up and read what they assumed in their model.
It would be much appreciated.
You are obviously very smart.
But so are the scientists at NIST.
I think you will be impressed by their work.
The primary site link is: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
However, if you want to focus on the Fire aspects that is in Chapter 5
Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf
For more detail on their fire reconstruction see
Computer Simulation of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5F.pdf
and
Fire Structure Interface and Thermal Response of the World Trade Center Towers
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5G.pdf
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 29 2007, 09:27 PM)
(1) drop, i.e., displacement. Not acceleration.
(2) I used to do lots of exactly this sort of parameter estimation. Often enough sets of equations with many parameters and much stiffer than the B & V crush-down equation. I assure you this is not milking it, but rather a standard scientific practice.
(3) What is the Disney convention?
From my post on the previous page.:
Professor Mike Disney of the School of Physics and Astronomy at Cardiff University calls a spade a spade. He has created and intersting benchmark for the evaluation of scientific models - he compares the number of free parameters in a theory with the number of independent measurements, and set an arbitrary minimum of +3 for the excess of measurments over free parameters to indicate that the theory is empirically viable.
The Big Bang theory is said, by it's adherents, to "fit the data" better than any other model. (This is vigorously contested by skeptics.) While OCT collapse theories don't postulate entities that aren't observed in a laboratory, such as dark matter and dark energy, I believe a similar, illogical desire to fit data to theory is going on.*
The fact that fiddling with 17 parameters and making ad hoc assumptions seems just hunky dory to most scientists working in cosmology does not impress those scientists who signed the petition at http://cosmologystatement.org/.
Now that you see what I meant by the "Disney criteria", what do you have to say about whether Greening, Benson, et. al., meet such criteria?
Unfortunately, I don't believe that universally accepted principles about what constitutes a valid physical theory are even exist. There is a discipline called mathematical physics which tries to derive physical theories from axioms, in the tradition of Euclid. But most physicist couldn't care less about these programs. (AFAIK). If they did, how do you explain the popularity of string theory and big bang theory?
Consequently, one has to keep such things in mind when criticizing OCT (and non-OCT) physical theories. If physics was as clean as mathematics, it would have a similar level of certitude. However, as Smolin points out in "The Trouble with Physics", physics has less rigor than mathematics, and engineering less rigor, still.
I have a cousin who was trained as a bio-mathematician, and developed a breathing model having, IIRC, 17 equations. It modeled the transition from pure oxygen breathing to oxygen-argon. It was quite successful, and he felt it likely to be used by future astronauts going to Mars.
I tend to believe it was also a good model of how human breathing apparati handle the test situation, as 17 equations sounds sufficiently sophisticated to handle known biochemical pathways (just guessing here, frankly).
If he came up with a "system" of 1 equation, even if it sort of worked, I wouldn't believe that he understood anything.... Ditto if his model had 10 adjustable constants and 13 free parameters.
Hopefully, FEA models being developed will allow "testing" of simple collapse models.
* I might add that I briefly queried Lee Smolin, author of "The Trouble with Physics", about problems with the Big Bang theory, but he had no problem with it, adjustable constants and all.
(2) I used to do lots of exactly this sort of parameter estimation. Often enough sets of equations with many parameters and much stiffer than the B & V crush-down equation. I assure you this is not milking it, but rather a standard scientific practice.
(3) What is the Disney convention?
From my post on the previous page.:
QUOTE
Professor Mike Disney of the School of Physics and Astronomy at Cardiff University calls a spade a spade. He has created and intersting benchmark for the evaluation of scientific models - he compares the number of free parameters in a theory with the number of independent measurements, and set an arbitrary minimum of +3 for the excess of measurments over free parameters to indicate that the theory is empirically viable.
The Big Bang theory is said, by it's adherents, to "fit the data" better than any other model. (This is vigorously contested by skeptics.) While OCT collapse theories don't postulate entities that aren't observed in a laboratory, such as dark matter and dark energy, I believe a similar, illogical desire to fit data to theory is going on.*
The fact that fiddling with 17 parameters and making ad hoc assumptions seems just hunky dory to most scientists working in cosmology does not impress those scientists who signed the petition at http://cosmologystatement.org/.
Now that you see what I meant by the "Disney criteria", what do you have to say about whether Greening, Benson, et. al., meet such criteria?
Unfortunately, I don't believe that universally accepted principles about what constitutes a valid physical theory are even exist. There is a discipline called mathematical physics which tries to derive physical theories from axioms, in the tradition of Euclid. But most physicist couldn't care less about these programs. (AFAIK). If they did, how do you explain the popularity of string theory and big bang theory?
Consequently, one has to keep such things in mind when criticizing OCT (and non-OCT) physical theories. If physics was as clean as mathematics, it would have a similar level of certitude. However, as Smolin points out in "The Trouble with Physics", physics has less rigor than mathematics, and engineering less rigor, still.
I have a cousin who was trained as a bio-mathematician, and developed a breathing model having, IIRC, 17 equations. It modeled the transition from pure oxygen breathing to oxygen-argon. It was quite successful, and he felt it likely to be used by future astronauts going to Mars.
I tend to believe it was also a good model of how human breathing apparati handle the test situation, as 17 equations sounds sufficiently sophisticated to handle known biochemical pathways (just guessing here, frankly).
If he came up with a "system" of 1 equation, even if it sort of worked, I wouldn't believe that he understood anything.... Ditto if his model had 10 adjustable constants and 13 free parameters.
Hopefully, FEA models being developed will allow "testing" of simple collapse models.
* I might add that I briefly queried Lee Smolin, author of "The Trouble with Physics", about problems with the Big Bang theory, but he had no problem with it, adjustable constants and all.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 29 2007, 08:17 PM)
forthetrees wrote @ May 28 2007, 03:45 AM) There was no air resistence[sic] from below that was of any consequence, as per your explanation of this to me on our go around about it a couple of weeks ago....or, am I missing your point, again?
The air resistance grows with the speed. It is a secondary source of energy consumption, but enough to avoid neglecting...
Are we pointing out all typos now, or only being selective in doing so?
To the point...enhanced air resistance due to the confined nature of the trapped air must be factored into calculations of acceleration rates, no? You always seem to use normal, unconfined air in arriving at acceleration values. The more resistance there was from confined air, the less of a factor resistance from material in intact zones below the impact site.
It continues to seem to me that you want it both ways depending on the topic. If it's squibs, then they are explained away by the tremendous force of confined air seeking escape. If it's acceleration rates, the resistance from confined air is neglected. I don't much care which way it goes, but pick one and stick with it, eh?
QUOTE (forthetrees+)
It continues to seem to me that you want it both ways depending on the topic. If it's squibs, then they are explained away by the tremendous force of confined air seeking escape. If it's acceleration rates, the resistance from confined air is neglected. I don't much care which way it goes, but pick one and stick with it, eh?
But it isn't the same.
The amount of force that could cause a "squib" like effect could be quite large. Large enough to move say several 1,000 cubic feet of air and dust out of the building in a half of a second.
On the other hand, this same force, when compared to the KE of the falling mass would have an insignificant effect.
On the other hand, as the speed of the collapse increases and becomes more uniform as it nears the lower floors, the volume of air on a floor that must get expelled in a fraction of a second would be ~ half a million cubic feet of air and that would result in sufficient resistance that we can probably start to see its impact on the rate of the collapse.
Arthur
But it isn't the same.
The amount of force that could cause a "squib" like effect could be quite large. Large enough to move say several 1,000 cubic feet of air and dust out of the building in a half of a second.
On the other hand, this same force, when compared to the KE of the falling mass would have an insignificant effect.
On the other hand, as the speed of the collapse increases and becomes more uniform as it nears the lower floors, the volume of air on a floor that must get expelled in a fraction of a second would be ~ half a million cubic feet of air and that would result in sufficient resistance that we can probably start to see its impact on the rate of the collapse.
Arthur
QUOTE (wcelliott+May 30 2007, 12:50 AM)
Malmoesoldier: Steel doesn't melt all at once, like ice does, it goes from being strong at room temperature to being more taffy-like as it gets warmer. That's what we're talking about. It doesn't take 6-8 hours at an elevated temperature to lose its strength, the instant it reaches an elevated temperature, it's already softer, and therefore less capable of supporting its design load.
If it reaches 600C in 30 seconds, it's already only 15% of its nominal strength.The "swiss-cheese" effect is likely to be the result of hot gases eroding the steel chemically.
But in any case, jet fuel can melt steel. They used to make jet engines out of steel components, and stopped, because the steel failed and sometimes melted in the engines. The most-famous case of this was when a Russian-made FOXBAT flew into Israeli airspace and got intercepted by an Israeli jet. The MIG pilot turned-tail and put it into full afterburner, and the MIG was clocked at Mach 3 in its escape. Molten steel was seen coming out of its exhaust. The steel in the engine in full A/B was melting.
good stuff.
"taffy like" stuff does not SHATTER INSTANTLY. it sags, it slides, it shifts, and yet retains that 60% of it's strength, and so is able to slow any kind of instant catasrophic failure.
evaporated steel is the result of chemical erosion. very good.
FOXBAT jets were flying in regular service(for how many years?) before a real life battle encounter caused the pilot to push the envelope of the plane's capabilities. it wasn't until then that a problem with using steel in a jet engine was found. OBVIOUSLY the engineers considered heat when picking materials to build their jet engine.
the jet engine got the pilot home, and did not suffer critical structural failure, even though it was MELTING.
BTW. i enjoyed your views on god and 'reality'(from your site). i wholeheartedly agree with you.
QUOTE
"taffy like" stuff does not SHATTER INSTANTLY. it sags, it slides, it shifts, and yet retains that 60% of it's strength, and so is able to slow any kind of instant catastrophic failure.
I guess it might've been before your time, but we used to have a taffy candy bar back when I was a kid, I forget the name, but you'd buy it whole, and if you wanted to eat it piece by piece, you'd smack it on a hard surface and it'd shatter in a hundred pieces.
Silly Putty does the same, you can stretch it out or smack it and it shatters.
Steel at plastic temperatures will shatter, but more to the point, if it's a long truss holding something up, as it starts to stretch, it also starts to sag, and that sagging leads to structural failure, which can be very sudden in human time scales. If you have 100 of them holding up a load (like 30 floors of the WTC tower) and they start stretching, then they'll start falling away. The first 5 failed trusses will only make the remaining 95 support 100/95 or about 105% of their nominal design load, no big deal, other than the fact that they're hotter and therefore stretchier than usual, too. The next five to drop make the remaining 90 support 111% of their nominal design load, so they're getting closer to that design margin I mentioned earlier. Once it gets to half of them dropped, then the remaining ones are required to support 200% of their design capacity, and now we're at the point where even if they weren't hot, they'd fail rapidly. When it's 2/3rds dropped, the remaining 1/3rd have to support 300% of their design load, and none of them can hold that much and they all go in a split second, even if they weren't hot at all.
It's the nature of an optimized system that when it fails, it fails catastrophically. This isn't a critique of the design, it's just a matter that if they'd built the structure using twice as much steel, it wouldn't have been an optimized design, it would've cost more and been less profitable, and for no foreseeable reason.
The fire insulation on the struts was a recognized problem, building inspectors routinely found that the insulation was falling off on its own and they had to re-apply it on a regular basis. Spray-on insulating foam tends to fall off. Same problem as with the Shuttle. They knew it was a problem, but they thought it was academic, they never figured it'd be a real problem. They didn't foresee getting hit by an airplane going 470mph with full fuel tanks. Not a lot they could've done from a design viewpoint even if they did, there's not a lot that you can do to protect a hi-rise from an plane hitting it. Even so, the NIST analysis I'm reading claims that if the damage to the WTC towers had been limited to the impact damage, then the structures could've stood indefinitely with that damage. Hard to believe, but I'm assuming they've done their structural analysis correctly, even though I'm less confident in their thermal analysis.
Glad you found my website interesting.
I like Nine-Inch Nails.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+May 29 2007, 02:22 PM)
Very briefly I evaluate the net acceleration, aN, of M40 using the relation:
aN = g - E1/(3.96xM40)
This equation allows the velocity of the falling mass of 40 floors of WTC 7 to be calculated at the moment of impact of the 8th floor on the 7th floor using appropriate values for E1 and M40, and the familiar relation:
v1 = Sqrt [ vo^2 - 2 x 3.96{g - E1/(3.96xM40)}]
After the impact of floor 8 on floor 7, the calculation may be repeated to determine the impact velocity of the remaining block of 39 floors onto the 9th floor. This is done by making v1 the new initial velocity, vo, in the above equation, and making M39 the new mass, and so on, until all the floors have impacted on the floor below and the building has totally collapsed.
I hope this doesn't make things more confusing!
OK, Thanks.
I had to ponder over this a while before I got it all. Things started to get clear when I understood that this only describe the crush-up phase. I assume you computed the crush-down phase the same way you did in your Energy Transfer paper. Also, I had to check how the units matched before I realized 3.96 was actually 3.96 meters. So now it's clear, finally.
I see that to use a constant E1 for all the floors. This bugged me when I first read your paper. Why go over the cross-sections of the columns to get a good estimate if one is later on to ignore that these values vary greatly over the length of the towers? But I understand that the end result is quite insensitive to E1. (However, see below)
Further, in the case of WTC1 and WTC2, I understand that the falling mass increases during the crush-down phase, so that if if the collapse is allowed to begin, it is at the very least guaranteed not to slow down.
In the case of WTC7, however, as you recently remarked, your model predicts a progressive reduction of aN. This seems an artifact from choosing E1 to be constant, however. While the mass of the "hammer" diminishes, the strength of the structural support below should diminish in exact proportion (assuming the WTC7 tower to be optimally designed). And so the acceleration ought to be constant.
I wouldn't expect the same to hold in the case of the crush-down phase of WTC1 and WTC2 since in that case it seems to me that the resistance must mainly be provided by horizontal structural elements rather than the columns. (David B. Benson convinced me of this). And thus it makes sense to assume a constant E1. The case of WTC7 might be different since the bottom of the columns of the upper block have to hit the solid bottom of the pile.
However, the more I think about the messiness of the crush zone, the less clear it is which model is more appropriate in any one phase.
QUOTE
The amount of force that could cause a "squib" like effect could be quite large.
What effect(s) are considered "squib-like"? Are they talking about the windows being blown out several floors down below the crush-zone, or the "flash" seen in a window of a lower floor?
Because I don't think people who're claiming either/both of those effects really know what a squib looks like, a squib wouldn't do either thing.
A squib would blow your fingers off if it went off in your hand, but that's about it. It wouldn't blow out a window unless it was right next to it, and even then, maybe not. They don't make any more of a flash than a firecracker, maybe even less than that.
If a flash was seen in a window, it was probably an electrical short due to the shock waves going through the building, or maybe a light bulb going out with a flash or a fluorescent bulb breaking while lit. Those (all) will emit a bright flash of light. A squib won't. Also, if a squib was seen through the window, what was it trying to destroy? All the structural members are either in the central core (way too far in the building to be seen, and covered with drywall in any case) or we're talking about the curtain wall, and you've got plenty of redundancy/strength in that wall, so one squib would have no effect at all on the structural integrity. After all, a plane completely transected most of them in the impact, and that didn't drop the tower(s), so somebody would put a squid on one external beam? For what purpose?
Even bombs don't make big flashes of light, unless they're Hollywood special-effects bombs. The real bombs just make a big cloud of smelly smoke (*distinctive-smell* smelly). So if it was a bomb that caused the glass to blow out of that lower floor, why'd they put it near the window? The structural strength was in the core of the building, some 200 feet away. There was nothing closer for a bomb to blow up.
It further begs the question, why bother planting explosives *and* hijacking four airplanes? If you've managed a way to sneak explosives into the WTC towers (all three) without getting caught, what do you need the planes for? And recognize that if you're trying to make it look like the planes did it, you'd better be real clever about how you fuse those explosive charges and/or how accurate those planes hit the towers. If they're off by one floor, then the charges won't make it look like the tower is failing in a progressive manner, which, we've shown, is the only way that it *wouldn't* look like a CD.
So the impact-point would be critical, for both planes. You'd think that both planes would've hit the same way, then, if that was a critical part of the plan, but they didn't. One hit mainly dead-on, one floor, almost horizontally, the other swooped-in clipping several floors off-center at a downward angle. Two completely different types of impacts. Both tightly controlled? Doesn't look like it.
QUOTE (einsteen+May 29 2007, 04:11 PM)
I've also tried to calculate wtc7's collapse time, this is the result I have so far
http://i17.tinypic.com/4mbmwea.gif
This is Gordon Ross in a nutshell.
If a diagram of forces show the net force on an object to be directed downward, complex energy calculations can show this object to remain at rest, somehow. There is no need to resolve the contradiction. Energy trumps force. It's more complicated so it must have greater authority!
http://i17.tinypic.com/4mbmwea.gif
This is Gordon Ross in a nutshell.
If a diagram of forces show the net force on an object to be directed downward, complex energy calculations can show this object to remain at rest, somehow. There is no need to resolve the contradiction. Energy trumps force. It's more complicated so it must have greater authority!
That's no Gordon Ross, that is Greening applied for wtc7.
In fact it says that wtc7 wouldn't collapse in first order approximation, however wtc1 and wtc2 did if you use a "first order" approximation, i.e. assume enough kinetic energy can be gathered, then since there is a hole you can assume that after a while the top block falls 3.8 meter.
If wtc7 was really silent (it didn't move, did it?) and the steel becomes weak leading to the failure of some "key columns" then it can only be that even the static weight couldn't be hold at a certain moment in one way or another. I've looked a little bit in the suggested Sheuerman paper, i.e. The sank of the penthouses indicate a horizontal collapse progression to the rectangular core, imploding the building....uhm... Is this the kind of exact science we have to expect from those experts. The CD companies can then use this knowledge and only cut a key column. Too bad the fire was just too intense at that key column. It is hard to imagine how initiation should occur, Sheuermann mentions an expansion due to heating leading to an amount of stress. This is absolutely bla bla talk, pure hypotheses, pure assumptions even a lay man could write down such a story.
I would say a low probability of occurrence and to be honest I’m a little bit astonished that people easily accept this story.
In fact it says that wtc7 wouldn't collapse in first order approximation, however wtc1 and wtc2 did if you use a "first order" approximation, i.e. assume enough kinetic energy can be gathered, then since there is a hole you can assume that after a while the top block falls 3.8 meter.
If wtc7 was really silent (it didn't move, did it?) and the steel becomes weak leading to the failure of some "key columns" then it can only be that even the static weight couldn't be hold at a certain moment in one way or another. I've looked a little bit in the suggested Sheuerman paper, i.e. The sank of the penthouses indicate a horizontal collapse progression to the rectangular core, imploding the building....uhm... Is this the kind of exact science we have to expect from those experts. The CD companies can then use this knowledge and only cut a key column. Too bad the fire was just too intense at that key column. It is hard to imagine how initiation should occur, Sheuermann mentions an expansion due to heating leading to an amount of stress. This is absolutely bla bla talk, pure hypotheses, pure assumptions even a lay man could write down such a story.
I would say a low probability of occurrence and to be honest I’m a little bit astonished that people easily accept this story.
QUOTE (einsteen+May 30 2007, 08:51 AM)
It is hard to imagine how initiation should occur, Sheuermann mentions an expansion due to heating leading to an amount of stress. This is absolutely bla bla talk, pure hypotheses, pure assumptions even a lay man could write down such a story.
Sorry, I didn't see that your issue was with collapse initiation.
I guess the best thing is to wait for the NIST report on WTC7 to come out.
Sorry, I didn't see that your issue was with collapse initiation.
I guess the best thing is to wait for the NIST report on WTC7 to come out.
I'm sorry... And yes it's more a symbolic notation. The left side is of course zero. Of course fire can do things to steel but it should be really really weak if it even cannot hold the static weight. The solution then should be differences in expansion leading to some initiation. You are right we have to wait for the final report. I remember that they are struggling with it...
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+May 29 2007, 11:22 PM)
LIE?? IT IS A FACT that it was shipped to CHINA. FEMA/NIST STATES THAT THEY ONLY GOT AROUND 200 PISCES TO. So stop lieing
**://www.pbase.com/bornfromjets/world_trade_center&page=1
WOW that was much steel they had there! lol
NIST use the steel inventory collected by FEMA and other engineering groups for their analysis. Some engineers have stated that they would have liked more samples, while others felt the collection was adequate. NIST only examined about 10% of the columns in the impact zones. I'm not sure if was a matter of not being able to identify the material, or if material was not available because of recycling efforts. You would think if the core columns in the impact zones were available, that they would have kept them for analysis.
Pierre-Normand:
Thanks for the posts. My WTC 7 calculation was really just a trial run. E1 could, of course, be varied...
Einsteen:
You are correct about collapse initiation in WTC 7. It's not part of my model anyway. I was just interested in the form of the collapse curve (height vs. time) and if the collapse would go to completion - it did!
How it got started is another issue!
Thanks for the posts. My WTC 7 calculation was really just a trial run. E1 could, of course, be varied...
Einsteen:
You are correct about collapse initiation in WTC 7. It's not part of my model anyway. I was just interested in the form of the collapse curve (height vs. time) and if the collapse would go to completion - it did!
How it got started is another issue!
Yes Frank indeed. Therefore it isn't strange that all collapse times are the same.
QUOTE (wcelliott+May 30 2007, 03:06 AM)
What effect(s) are considered "squib-like"? Are they talking about the windows being blown out several floors down below the crush-zone, or the "flash" seen in a window of a lower floor?
Because I don't think people who're claiming either/both of those effects really know what a squib looks like, a squib wouldn't do either thing.
This is a "squib" to a CT'er.
CT'ers routinely explain this as a "miswired/timed squib"
http://pharaqey.org/temp/squib1.jpg
Yes, we've explained MANY times that a real squib used to set off high explosives would not create anywhere near that kind of effect.
Yes, we've explained MANY times that the HE set off by a real squib would be near the Center columns (either 35 ft or 60 ft away from the outside wall, not 200', the towers were square but the inner core was rectangular)
Yes, we've explained MANY times that the propagation rate of a HE is supersonic and we wouldn't see the air mass expand over MANY frames of a video.
Most CT'ers routinely ignore ANY evidence that conflicts with their BELIEFS.
Arthur
@All,
I just found this interview with Stacey Loizeaux
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html
Some very informative stuff in it
1a) What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.
1b) Well, if I kick both your legs out from under you, you're going to fall right on your butt. If I kick one leg out from under you, you'll fall left or right. So the way we control the failure of the building is by using the delays. And, again, that varies structure to structure and depending on where we want the building to go.
2) About cardboards: Those little partitions actually add up and act as stiffeners. So that's one of the first things we strip out.
3) We only really need to work on the first two floors, because—you can make the building come down that way. But we work on several upper floors to help fragment debris for the contractor, so all the debris ends up in small, manageable pieces.
4) NOVA: When you're underwater, how do you spark an explosive?
SL: You don't. There are very few explosives that are spark sensitive anymore. Most are shock sensitive or compression sensitive.
5) About the Oklahoma City Federal Building: In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building.
I just found this interview with Stacey Loizeaux
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html
Some very informative stuff in it
1a) What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.
1b) Well, if I kick both your legs out from under you, you're going to fall right on your butt. If I kick one leg out from under you, you'll fall left or right. So the way we control the failure of the building is by using the delays. And, again, that varies structure to structure and depending on where we want the building to go.
2) About cardboards: Those little partitions actually add up and act as stiffeners. So that's one of the first things we strip out.
3) We only really need to work on the first two floors, because—you can make the building come down that way. But we work on several upper floors to help fragment debris for the contractor, so all the debris ends up in small, manageable pieces.
4) NOVA: When you're underwater, how do you spark an explosive?
SL: You don't. There are very few explosives that are spark sensitive anymore. Most are shock sensitive or compression sensitive.
5) About the Oklahoma City Federal Building: In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building.
einsteen
Looking back on it I would have to say that the probability of it occuring is 100%, we just need to try to find the mechanism that caused it. Acceptence of reality should be the first principle of any scientific investigation, and the reality is that 7 fell due to damage(of whatever extent, from whatever source) and fire(again, of whatever extent and source). Explosives have been ruled out because they always leave chemical and physical clues behind which are completely abscent in the WTC complex.
We now have a starting point.
CTers start with the idea that it must of been explosives(despite lack of any evidence) mostly because they cannot accept reality. This is not science, this is belief, and as frater plecticus recently pointed out, belief is the end of science(and of thought). In extreme cases(example quickandthedead's firetruck) can lead to delusion, which is the flat denial of reality even in the face of overwhelming, undeniable(by reasonable people) evidence. And this can lead to...well, an example is the woman calling Guiliani a murderer the other day.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I would say a low probability of occurrence and to be honest I’m a little bit astonished that people easily accept this story.
Looking back on it I would have to say that the probability of it occuring is 100%, we just need to try to find the mechanism that caused it. Acceptence of reality should be the first principle of any scientific investigation, and the reality is that 7 fell due to damage(of whatever extent, from whatever source) and fire(again, of whatever extent and source). Explosives have been ruled out because they always leave chemical and physical clues behind which are completely abscent in the WTC complex.
We now have a starting point.
CTers start with the idea that it must of been explosives(despite lack of any evidence) mostly because they cannot accept reality. This is not science, this is belief, and as frater plecticus recently pointed out, belief is the end of science(and of thought). In extreme cases(example quickandthedead's firetruck) can lead to delusion, which is the flat denial of reality even in the face of overwhelming, undeniable(by reasonable people) evidence. And this can lead to...well, an example is the woman calling Guiliani a murderer the other day.
Grumpy
QUOTE (adoucette+May 30 2007, 12:56 PM)
Most CT'ers routinely ignore ANY evidence that conflicts with their BELIEFS.
Yeah, I get that. It's like talking to religious people. Utterly pointless because at the end of the day, it comes down to belief/faith, and that is pretty much a conversation stopper.
Yeah, I get that. It's like talking to religious people. Utterly pointless because at the end of the day, it comes down to belief/faith, and that is pretty much a conversation stopper.
QUOTE
Where are you getting this crap??? Cite a study that says it takes that long to reach dangerous temps.
I have already showed you NIST tests that shows that the temp was 1100 C after 33 min and at the 41 mark it was 400 C. Like i say the peak temp only lasts for some minutes then it goes down to around 400 C, And the tests they did was under good fire conditions. And i showed you my mail when i talked to arup.com about it. It is no secret that a fire needs 6-8 hours to get to 1000C and stay at that temp without going down to lower temperatures.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where are you getting this crap??? Cite a study that says it takes that long to reach dangerous temps. |
I have already showed you NIST tests that shows that the temp was 1100 C after 33 min and at the 41 mark it was 400 C. Like i say the peak temp only lasts for some minutes then it goes down to around 400 C, And the tests they did was under good fire conditions. And i showed you my mail when i talked to arup.com about it. It is no secret that a fire needs 6-8 hours to get to 1000C and stay at that temp without going down to lower temperatures.
The steel shipped to china was irrelivant to the investigation, IT WAS NOT EVIDENCE. The samples chosen by NIST that ARE EVIDENCE
LOL
i agree that the samples chosen by NIST ARE EVIDENCE that they dont have any EVIDENCE that the support columns reach any hotter then 600 C and that the core columns didnt reach any hotter then 250 C. QUOTE
Since there is unburned paper in it, the temps came nowhere near 451 F, Why do you ask???
He doesnt agree with you. (maybe it is a norther one)*www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_meteorite.wmv
And stop saying that there was no melted iron when USGS has evidence of it!!. Maybe it was steven jones that went there after the collapse and planted it there so USGS would find it later
LOLQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Since there is unburned paper in it, the temps came nowhere near 451 F, Why do you ask??? |
He doesnt agree with you. (maybe it is a norther one)*www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_meteorite.wmv
And stop saying that there was no melted iron when USGS has evidence of it!!. Maybe it was steven jones that went there after the collapse and planted it there so USGS would find it later
LOLIf it reaches 600C in 30 seconds, it's already only 15% of its nominal strength.
OF COURSE fires will DO damage to the steel lol. But it will not weaken the steel that much so it will collapse. Read my posts if you want to learn something, NIST did tests of WTC STEEL and had theme under 700 C in almost 4 hours under MAX LOADS and they did NOT FAIL. So stop the bullshit about that the steel could have collapsed if it was under 600-800 C in 45 minutes.
And you guys believes in a theory, yes thats all the NIST report is a THEORY. They have NO PROOF that the support columns reach any hotter then 600 C, and they have NO PROOF that the core columns reach any hotter then 250 C. And thats because they SHIPPED all the other steel to CHINA and DESTROYED THE EVIDENCE. You can believe in a theory if you want, i like proof of something before i will believe in it.
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+May 30 2007, 07:45 AM)
It is no secret that a fire needs 6-8 hours to get to 1000C and stay at that temp without going down to lower temperatures.
That is the stupidest statement I have read on this forum in a long while.
Thanks for the laugh.
That is the stupidest statement I have read on this forum in a long while.
Thanks for the laugh.
QUOTE (adoucette+May 29 2007, 07:39 PM)
Actually the NIST quotes don't disagree with what Grumpy posted.
The fires were STARTED within seconds.
Though it did take MINUTES for them to grow from their initial levels, it certainly wasn't long and it most certainly was quicker than most office fires which are slowed down by sprinkler systems and lack of air.
The fires WERE widespread. Your quotes indicate that even initially the fires were on 8 floors and on the South, East and West sides and (though not necessarily on the all sides on all floors)
Still looking at NIST NCSTAR 1-5A E5 & E6 its clear that the fires were, as Grumpy said, WIDESPREAD (or E12 for WTC 2).
Note that NIST identified 14 people who fell from WTC 1 in the 15 min from 9:03-9:18, so CLEARLY the situation in the towers was DIRE, and so for CT'ers to continue to spread the LIE that the fires were not intense, given how many people jumped to their certain death, is frankly, despicable.
Arthur
intense for people is not the same as intense for steel, as has been pointed out to you about a gazillion times.
water boils at 100°C.
your appeal to emotion is frankly despicable. there are more people in the world being killed and maimed as we speak, as a result of the false-flag, fourth reich, orwellian war on the constitution, er, 'terror'.
The fires were STARTED within seconds.
Though it did take MINUTES for them to grow from their initial levels, it certainly wasn't long and it most certainly was quicker than most office fires which are slowed down by sprinkler systems and lack of air.
The fires WERE widespread. Your quotes indicate that even initially the fires were on 8 floors and on the South, East and West sides and (though not necessarily on the all sides on all floors)
Still looking at NIST NCSTAR 1-5A E5 & E6 its clear that the fires were, as Grumpy said, WIDESPREAD (or E12 for WTC 2).
Note that NIST identified 14 people who fell from WTC 1 in the 15 min from 9:03-9:18, so CLEARLY the situation in the towers was DIRE, and so for CT'ers to continue to spread the LIE that the fires were not intense, given how many people jumped to their certain death, is frankly, despicable.
Arthur
intense for people is not the same as intense for steel, as has been pointed out to you about a gazillion times.
water boils at 100°C.
your appeal to emotion is frankly despicable. there are more people in the world being killed and maimed as we speak, as a result of the false-flag, fourth reich, orwellian war on the constitution, er, 'terror'.
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+May 30 2007, 07:45 AM)
NIST did tests of WTC STEEL and had theme under 700 C in almost 4 hours under MAX LOADS and they did NOT FAIL.
Totally wrong and a complete misstatement of the purpose and proceedures of the fire tests.
Totally wrong and a complete misstatement of the purpose and proceedures of the fire tests.
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 30 2007, 01:30 PM)
einsteen
Looking back on it I would have to say that the probability of it occuring is 100%, we just need to try to find the mechanism that caused it. Acceptence of reality should be the first principle of any scientific investigation, and the reality is that 7 fell due to damage(of whatever extent, from whatever source) and fire(again, of whatever extent and source). Explosives have been ruled out because they always leave chemical and physical clues behind which are completely abscent in the WTC complex.
We now have a starting point.
Grumpy
uh, huh.
uh, huh.
and the reality is that 7 fell due to damage(of whatever extent, from whatever source) and fire(again, of whatever extent and source). Explosives have been ruled out because they always leave chemical and physical clues behind which are completely abscent in the WTC complex.
no. they are completely absent from your brain.
a steel column does not just evaporate and curl up like paper, without some extreme heat source(in this case, a chemical reaction).
that is evidence, as much as you're blindered reality doesn't like it.
you're popish proclamations are not science, nor are your 'facts' empirical facts. they are grumpy decrees, and that's it.
explosives have only been ruled out by YOU, which means less than nothing to people with their own eyes and ears.
You are REAL STUPID. What are you trying to say?. It is true, READ the nist report?. do you want me to post the facts 100 times more? idiot. the fire in WTC could NOT have been 1000 C more then some MINUTES NIST SHOWS THIS IN THEIR TESTS!!!! and READ my mail to arup.
You are REAL STUPID. What are you trying to say?. It is true, READ the nist report?. do you want me to post the facts 100 times more? idiot. the fire in WTC could NOT have been 1000 C more then some MINUTES NIST SHOWS THIS IN THEIR TESTS!!!! and READ my mail to arup.
Totally wrong and a complete misstatement of the purpose and proceedures of the fire tests.
IDIOT the steel WAS UNDER 700C under MAX loads and didnt FAIL. Now go and make out with mark roberts.
With Thermate it doesnt leave any physical clues behind.
OK, this confirms it. Malmo thinks we're talking about long-term damage to steel caused by heat.
No, Malmo, we aren't talking about long-term damage, we're talking about the INSTANTANEOUS strength of steel as a function of temperature.
Steel doesn't melt like ice does, at one specific temperature, it melts like taffy. The warmer it gets, the more it'll stretch under load. At 600C, it's down to 15% of its normal strength.
And that isn't 600C for 6-8 hours, or 600C for 30 minutes, that's an INSTANTANEOUS value - As soon as the steel is 600C, the strength is down to 15% of its normal room-temperature strength.
And that's like them leaving-out 85% of the structural steel.
And that definitely *will* cause the structure to fail.
You can't ignore an 85% drop in structural strength, construction margins aren't greater than a factor of 6.
Get it through your head - we're talking about INSTANTANEOUS STRENGTH of steel as a function of WHAT TEMPERATURE IT IS, RIGHT NOW.
So forget any point where you're assuming that the steel has to stay hot for 6-8 hours or that 30 minutes at whatever temperature isn't long enough... The *instant* it hits an elevated temperature, it's now in a taffy-like state and won't hold the load.
OK, this confirms it. Malmo thinks we're talking about long-term damage to steel caused by heat.
No, Malmo, we aren't talking about long-term damage, we're talking about the INSTANTANEOUS strength of steel as a function of temperature.
Steel doesn't melt like ice does, at one specific temperature, it melts like taffy. The warmer it gets, the more it'll stretch under load. At 600C, it's down to 15% of its normal strength.
And that isn't 600C for 6-8 hours, or 600C for 30 minutes, that's an INSTANTANEOUS value - As soon as the steel is 600C, the strength is down to 15% of its normal room-temperature strength.
And that's like them leaving-out 85% of the structural steel.
And that definitely *will* cause the structure to fail.
You can't ignore an 85% drop in structural strength, construction margins aren't greater than a factor of 6.
Get it through your head - we're talking about INSTANTANEOUS STRENGTH of steel as a function of WHAT TEMPERATURE IT IS, RIGHT NOW.
So forget any point where you're assuming that the steel has to stay hot for 6-8 hours or that 30 minutes at whatever temperature isn't long enough... The *instant* it hits an elevated temperature, it's now in a taffy-like state and won't hold the load.
explosives have only been ruled out by YOU, which means less than nothing to people with their own eyes and ears.
No, they were ruled-out by the FBI and ATF first. I pointed out that explosives have a distinctive odor, you don't need a bomb-sniffing dog to detect it, everyone in Manhattan would've smelled it if they'd used enough explosives to drop even one floor of one building, much less do a CD of all three buildings. And unless you're postulating a new, odorless explosive that's never been seen before or since, then the very fact that no one in Manhattan smelled explosives (or were they all "silenced"?) that fact alone blows a hole in the CD theory.
How do you do a CD without everyone in Manhattan smelling the explosives? Before they go off, you can keep them hermetically-sealed to prevent bomb-sniffing dogs from detecting them. (And good luck with that, they're very good at what they do.) But afterwards, every pound of explosive becomes a pound of explosive end-products, and they reek.
And the CDers think there was enough of it to drop three buildings.
Yet no one in Manhattan smelled explosives...
What's your take on why nobody in Manhattan smelled any explosives if it was a CD?
Looking back on it I would have to say that the probability of it occuring is 100%, we just need to try to find the mechanism that caused it. Acceptence of reality should be the first principle of any scientific investigation, and the reality is that 7 fell due to damage(of whatever extent, from whatever source) and fire(again, of whatever extent and source). Explosives have been ruled out because they always leave chemical and physical clues behind which are completely abscent in the WTC complex.
We now have a starting point.
Grumpy
QUOTE
we just need to try to find the mechanism that caused it.
uh, huh.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| we just need to try to find the mechanism that caused it. |
uh, huh.
and the reality is that 7 fell due to damage(of whatever extent, from whatever source) and fire(again, of whatever extent and source). Explosives have been ruled out because they always leave chemical and physical clues behind which are completely abscent in the WTC complex.
no. they are completely absent from your brain.
a steel column does not just evaporate and curl up like paper, without some extreme heat source(in this case, a chemical reaction).
that is evidence, as much as you're blindered reality doesn't like it.
you're popish proclamations are not science, nor are your 'facts' empirical facts. they are grumpy decrees, and that's it.
explosives have only been ruled out by YOU, which means less than nothing to people with their own eyes and ears.
QUOTE
That is the stupidest statement I have read on this forum in a long while.
You are REAL STUPID. What are you trying to say?. It is true, READ the nist report?. do you want me to post the facts 100 times more? idiot. the fire in WTC could NOT have been 1000 C more then some MINUTES NIST SHOWS THIS IN THEIR TESTS!!!! and READ my mail to arup.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That is the stupidest statement I have read on this forum in a long while. |
You are REAL STUPID. What are you trying to say?. It is true, READ the nist report?. do you want me to post the facts 100 times more? idiot. the fire in WTC could NOT have been 1000 C more then some MINUTES NIST SHOWS THIS IN THEIR TESTS!!!! and READ my mail to arup.
Totally wrong and a complete misstatement of the purpose and proceedures of the fire tests.
IDIOT the steel WAS UNDER 700C under MAX loads and didnt FAIL. Now go and make out with mark roberts.
QUOTE
Explosives have been ruled out because they always leave chemical and physical clues behind
With Thermate it doesnt leave any physical clues behind.
QUOTE
If it reaches 600C in 30 seconds, it's already only 15% of its nominal strength.
OF COURSE fires will DO damage to the steel lol. But it will not weaken the steel that much so it will collapse
OF COURSE fires will DO damage to the steel lol. But it will not weaken the steel that much so it will collapse
OK, this confirms it. Malmo thinks we're talking about long-term damage to steel caused by heat.
No, Malmo, we aren't talking about long-term damage, we're talking about the INSTANTANEOUS strength of steel as a function of temperature.
Steel doesn't melt like ice does, at one specific temperature, it melts like taffy. The warmer it gets, the more it'll stretch under load. At 600C, it's down to 15% of its normal strength.
And that isn't 600C for 6-8 hours, or 600C for 30 minutes, that's an INSTANTANEOUS value - As soon as the steel is 600C, the strength is down to 15% of its normal room-temperature strength.
And that's like them leaving-out 85% of the structural steel.
And that definitely *will* cause the structure to fail.
You can't ignore an 85% drop in structural strength, construction margins aren't greater than a factor of 6.
Get it through your head - we're talking about INSTANTANEOUS STRENGTH of steel as a function of WHAT TEMPERATURE IT IS, RIGHT NOW.
So forget any point where you're assuming that the steel has to stay hot for 6-8 hours or that 30 minutes at whatever temperature isn't long enough... The *instant* it hits an elevated temperature, it's now in a taffy-like state and won't hold the load.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If it reaches 600C in 30 seconds, it's already only 15% of its nominal strength. OF COURSE fires will DO damage to the steel lol. But it will not weaken the steel that much so it will collapse |
OK, this confirms it. Malmo thinks we're talking about long-term damage to steel caused by heat.
No, Malmo, we aren't talking about long-term damage, we're talking about the INSTANTANEOUS strength of steel as a function of temperature.
Steel doesn't melt like ice does, at one specific temperature, it melts like taffy. The warmer it gets, the more it'll stretch under load. At 600C, it's down to 15% of its normal strength.
And that isn't 600C for 6-8 hours, or 600C for 30 minutes, that's an INSTANTANEOUS value - As soon as the steel is 600C, the strength is down to 15% of its normal room-temperature strength.
And that's like them leaving-out 85% of the structural steel.
And that definitely *will* cause the structure to fail.
You can't ignore an 85% drop in structural strength, construction margins aren't greater than a factor of 6.
Get it through your head - we're talking about INSTANTANEOUS STRENGTH of steel as a function of WHAT TEMPERATURE IT IS, RIGHT NOW.
So forget any point where you're assuming that the steel has to stay hot for 6-8 hours or that 30 minutes at whatever temperature isn't long enough... The *instant* it hits an elevated temperature, it's now in a taffy-like state and won't hold the load.
explosives have only been ruled out by YOU, which means less than nothing to people with their own eyes and ears.
No, they were ruled-out by the FBI and ATF first. I pointed out that explosives have a distinctive odor, you don't need a bomb-sniffing dog to detect it, everyone in Manhattan would've smelled it if they'd used enough explosives to drop even one floor of one building, much less do a CD of all three buildings. And unless you're postulating a new, odorless explosive that's never been seen before or since, then the very fact that no one in Manhattan smelled explosives (or were they all "silenced"?) that fact alone blows a hole in the CD theory.
How do you do a CD without everyone in Manhattan smelling the explosives? Before they go off, you can keep them hermetically-sealed to prevent bomb-sniffing dogs from detecting them. (And good luck with that, they're very good at what they do.) But afterwards, every pound of explosive becomes a pound of explosive end-products, and they reek.
And the CDers think there was enough of it to drop three buildings.
Yet no one in Manhattan smelled explosives...
What's your take on why nobody in Manhattan smelled any explosives if it was a CD?
Malmoesoldier
IT WAS A TEST, not actual conditions. Only three cubical stations were included, not the hundreds per floor as in the towers. The test RAN OUT OF FUEL in a few minutes, the towers did not. And it reached over 1000C in MINUTES, not hours!!! And since the towers had ample fuel, it stayed above 1000C!!! And steel at 1100C has only one TENTH of it's strength left.
In one sentence you admit the temps reached levels where steel becomes putty(1100C) in 33 minutes, in the next sentence you say " It is no secret that a fire needs 6-8 hours to get to 1000C ".which is total BS(cite a source for this crap or drop it!!!) You contradict yourself in the same post, often in the same paragraph. Drop your dogma and THINK!!!
IT WAS A TEST, not actual conditions. Only three cubical stations were included, not the hundreds per floor as in the towers. The test RAN OUT OF FUEL in a few minutes, the towers did not. And it reached over 1000C in MINUTES, not hours!!! And since the towers had ample fuel, it stayed above 1000C!!! And steel at 1100C has only one TENTH of it's strength left.
In one sentence you admit the temps reached levels where steel becomes putty(1100C) in 33 minutes, in the next sentence you say " It is no secret that a fire needs 6-8 hours to get to 1000C ".which is total BS(cite a source for this crap or drop it!!!) You contradict yourself in the same post, often in the same paragraph. Drop your dogma and THINK!!!
And stop saying that there was no melted iron when USGS has evidence of it!!.
NO, THEY DO NOT. The USGS says they saw ERODED steel, not puddles of melted steel, probably from the sulfur in the fuel oil/diesel in 7(12,000 gallons).
Again, no steel could be unambiguously identified as having seen elivated temps in the original fires ONLY. Many samples showed extremely high temp exposure, but due to being in the rubble there were questions about whether that exposure was prior to collapse. NIST was very conservative in gathering evidence, read the reports. Besides, there was massive evidence otherwise indicating 1000-1100C and higher in the pre-collapse fires exclusive of the steel. The high temps of those fires is not scientifically in doubt, only CTers ignore that.
Again, no steel could be unambiguously identified as having seen elivated temps in the original fires ONLY. Many samples showed extremely high temp exposure, but due to being in the rubble there were questions about whether that exposure was prior to collapse. NIST was very conservative in gathering evidence, read the reports. Besides, there was massive evidence otherwise indicating 1000-1100C and higher in the pre-collapse fires exclusive of the steel. The high temps of those fires is not scientifically in doubt, only CTers ignore that.
He doesnt agree with you. (maybe it is a norther one)*www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_meteorite.wmv
He who??? And it is no supprise to me that a CTer would disregard the paper compacted in that "meteor", as well as the carpet, furnishings and other combustibles, it doesn't fit in with their beliefs, so it gets ignored.
So that overpass in California DIDN'T fall???? Again, drop the dogma of the CT religion and THINK!!!! Heat WILL cause steel to fail.
newton
So that overpass in California DIDN'T fall???? Again, drop the dogma of the CT religion and THINK!!!! Heat WILL cause steel to fail.
newton
no. they are completely absent from your brain.
a steel column does not just evaporate and curl up like paper, without some extreme heat source(in this case, a chemical reaction).
that is evidence, as much as you're blindered reality doesn't like it.
you're popish proclamations are not science, nor are your 'facts' empirical facts. they are grumpy decrees, and that's it.
explosives have only been ruled out by YOU, which means less than nothing to people with their own eyes and ears.
You know, newt, you could end all doubt about explosives with one bit of solid evidence. In over 5 years that bit hasn't been found. The erosion of steel in 7 has explanations having to do with high temp chemistry involving sulfur, an abundance of which was contained in the diesel fuel in 7, so you have NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH A LACK OF, ZERO. All reasonable people have moved on to find the mechanism for why those buildings fell, explosives have been eliminated as a cause,though NIST, to appease the bleaters such as yourself, has wasted time and money to reexamine 7 for explosives and thermite, most people realize they will find nothing BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO FIND. I doubt you will accept their findings because it goes against the BELIEFS of the RELIGION that CT has become, but at least it will peel away a few who still think for themselves.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I have already showed you NIST tests that shows that the temp was 1100 C after 33 min and at the 41 mark it was 400 C.
IT WAS A TEST, not actual conditions. Only three cubical stations were included, not the hundreds per floor as in the towers. The test RAN OUT OF FUEL in a few minutes, the towers did not. And it reached over 1000C in MINUTES, not hours!!! And since the towers had ample fuel, it stayed above 1000C!!! And steel at 1100C has only one TENTH of it's strength left.
In one sentence you admit the temps reached levels where steel becomes putty(1100C) in 33 minutes, in the next sentence you say " It is no secret that a fire needs 6-8 hours to get to 1000C ".which is total BS(cite a source for this crap or drop it!!!) You contradict yourself in the same post, often in the same paragraph. Drop your dogma and THINK!!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have already showed you NIST tests that shows that the temp was 1100 C after 33 min and at the 41 mark it was 400 C. |
IT WAS A TEST, not actual conditions. Only three cubical stations were included, not the hundreds per floor as in the towers. The test RAN OUT OF FUEL in a few minutes, the towers did not. And it reached over 1000C in MINUTES, not hours!!! And since the towers had ample fuel, it stayed above 1000C!!! And steel at 1100C has only one TENTH of it's strength left.
In one sentence you admit the temps reached levels where steel becomes putty(1100C) in 33 minutes, in the next sentence you say " It is no secret that a fire needs 6-8 hours to get to 1000C ".which is total BS(cite a source for this crap or drop it!!!) You contradict yourself in the same post, often in the same paragraph. Drop your dogma and THINK!!!
And stop saying that there was no melted iron when USGS has evidence of it!!.
NO, THEY DO NOT. The USGS says they saw ERODED steel, not puddles of melted steel, probably from the sulfur in the fuel oil/diesel in 7(12,000 gallons).
QUOTE
LOL i agree that the samples chosen by NIST ARE EVIDENCE that they dont have any EVIDENCE that the support columns reach any hotter then 600 C and that the core columns didnt reach any hotter then 250 C.
Again, no steel could be unambiguously identified as having seen elivated temps in the original fires ONLY. Many samples showed extremely high temp exposure, but due to being in the rubble there were questions about whether that exposure was prior to collapse. NIST was very conservative in gathering evidence, read the reports. Besides, there was massive evidence otherwise indicating 1000-1100C and higher in the pre-collapse fires exclusive of the steel. The high temps of those fires is not scientifically in doubt, only CTers ignore that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| LOL i agree that the samples chosen by NIST ARE EVIDENCE that they dont have any EVIDENCE that the support columns reach any hotter then 600 C and that the core columns didnt reach any hotter then 250 C. |
Again, no steel could be unambiguously identified as having seen elivated temps in the original fires ONLY. Many samples showed extremely high temp exposure, but due to being in the rubble there were questions about whether that exposure was prior to collapse. NIST was very conservative in gathering evidence, read the reports. Besides, there was massive evidence otherwise indicating 1000-1100C and higher in the pre-collapse fires exclusive of the steel. The high temps of those fires is not scientifically in doubt, only CTers ignore that.
He doesnt agree with you. (maybe it is a norther one)*www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_meteorite.wmv
He who??? And it is no supprise to me that a CTer would disregard the paper compacted in that "meteor", as well as the carpet, furnishings and other combustibles, it doesn't fit in with their beliefs, so it gets ignored.
QUOTE
OF COURSE fires will DO damage to the steel lol. But it will not weaken the steel that much so it will collapse.
So that overpass in California DIDN'T fall???? Again, drop the dogma of the CT religion and THINK!!!! Heat WILL cause steel to fail.
newton
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| OF COURSE fires will DO damage to the steel lol. But it will not weaken the steel that much so it will collapse. |
So that overpass in California DIDN'T fall???? Again, drop the dogma of the CT religion and THINK!!!! Heat WILL cause steel to fail.
newton
no. they are completely absent from your brain.
a steel column does not just evaporate and curl up like paper, without some extreme heat source(in this case, a chemical reaction).
that is evidence, as much as you're blindered reality doesn't like it.
you're popish proclamations are not science, nor are your 'facts' empirical facts. they are grumpy decrees, and that's it.
explosives have only been ruled out by YOU, which means less than nothing to people with their own eyes and ears.
You know, newt, you could end all doubt about explosives with one bit of solid evidence. In over 5 years that bit hasn't been found. The erosion of steel in 7 has explanations having to do with high temp chemistry involving sulfur, an abundance of which was contained in the diesel fuel in 7, so you have NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH A LACK OF, ZERO. All reasonable people have moved on to find the mechanism for why those buildings fell, explosives have been eliminated as a cause,though NIST, to appease the bleaters such as yourself, has wasted time and money to reexamine 7 for explosives and thermite, most people realize they will find nothing BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO FIND. I doubt you will accept their findings because it goes against the BELIEFS of the RELIGION that CT has become, but at least it will peel away a few who still think for themselves.
Grumpy
Did they ever find any traces of explosives in the WTC ruins? - I don't recall ever hearing about any.
cordite was smelled at the pentagon.
at the towers:
We arrived here two weeks after the terrorist attack. With so many of the dead still in the wreckage, it only seemed natural that decay would be the most pervasive odor. Instead, we encountered the stench of burning garbage.
there is a disconnect in NISTians logic.
ie. no explosives were needed, but if you did need them to explain the collapse, you would need thousands of tons of them.
more.
IF there is in fact a massive conspiracy, then there is no reason that the vast majority of the people looking for bombs knew the bombs were there, saw the evidence, and then didn't report or let anyone else see it.
the site was quickly locked down.
To get to Ground Zero, one has to walk thru a maze of 6-12 inch ash, paper, twisted iron, mud, junk, rubble....it looked like a tornado had hit the city. Next, you have to walk through a bombed out portion of 2 World Financial Building...
'bombed out'.
http://www.equipped.com/groundzero.htm
metal burning smell, eh? giant foundry, eh? uncontrolled demolition, eh?
at the towers:
QUOTE
Plastic smells acrid when it burns. The smoke that day was laden with burnt carpet fiber and steel and reams and reams of paper. People wore masks around the city to protect themselves from the benzene and asbestos floating in the air, but really they were trying to shield their senses from the tangible reminder the smellprovided—that vapor was all that was left of two airplanes, two buildings and three thousand people.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Plastic smells acrid when it burns. The smoke that day was laden with burnt carpet fiber and steel and reams and reams of paper. People wore masks around the city to protect themselves from the benzene and asbestos floating in the air, but really they were trying to shield their senses from the tangible reminder the smellprovided—that vapor was all that was left of two airplanes, two buildings and three thousand people. |
We arrived here two weeks after the terrorist attack. With so many of the dead still in the wreckage, it only seemed natural that decay would be the most pervasive odor. Instead, we encountered the stench of burning garbage.
there is a disconnect in NISTians logic.
ie. no explosives were needed, but if you did need them to explain the collapse, you would need thousands of tons of them.
more.
IF there is in fact a massive conspiracy, then there is no reason that the vast majority of the people looking for bombs knew the bombs were there, saw the evidence, and then didn't report or let anyone else see it.
the site was quickly locked down.
QUOTE
Actually getting to Ground Zero was no small feat as there is a check point about 10 blocks out where no reporters, civilians, etc. can go past. For future reference please bring ID, medical license, credentials. Fortunately I had taken these and I was shuttled up to about 4 blocks from Ground Zero and dropped off as there was no road left. We walked up about 2 more blocks and dropped off gear at a local high school which had been deemed a medical and general supply staging area. And then we left for the front.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Actually getting to Ground Zero was no small feat as there is a check point about 10 blocks out where no reporters, civilians, etc. can go past. For future reference please bring ID, medical license, credentials. Fortunately I had taken these and I was shuttled up to about 4 blocks from Ground Zero and dropped off as there was no road left. We walked up about 2 more blocks and dropped off gear at a local high school which had been deemed a medical and general supply staging area. And then we left for the front. |
To get to Ground Zero, one has to walk thru a maze of 6-12 inch ash, paper, twisted iron, mud, junk, rubble....it looked like a tornado had hit the city. Next, you have to walk through a bombed out portion of 2 World Financial Building...
'bombed out'.
http://www.equipped.com/groundzero.htm
QUOTE
The smell remains difficult to describe but impossible to forget: Faintly sweet, it tickles the nose and irritates the throat. Workers at the site compare it to a giant foundry with untold tons of metal burning under the torch. This smoke is of deep concern to federal, state and city health officials worried about workers cleaning up the site. The World Trade Center towers had served as cities unto themselves with all the attendant fuels, paints, insulating materials and other substances that when incinerated and released into the air may pose long-term health risks. Add to the mix exploded jet fuel and organic material from the nearly 5,100 people presumed killed and you have what Don Carson calls a gigantic, uncontrolled demolition site, a place whose acrid exhalations can change in composition by the minute based on the direction of the wind and the depth of the digging.
metal burning smell, eh? giant foundry, eh? uncontrolled demolition, eh?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.