George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Jazzy seems to be the most vocal about such issues . . .
WTC 7 (Building 7)
- Thread starter LogicAndSanity
- Start date
- Status
Proceed at your most advanced level. We can always look things up.
And here's an unlocked version of NCSTAR 1-9 if you need to cut and paste anything for reference:
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf
Last edited:
Tazmanian
Account Closed
joelb79
Active Member
That was it.
lol
So... I don't get it. So advanced we only get... What was that?
That was it.
lol
What was what?
SR1419
Senior Member.
Typical Oxy- bobing and weaving with misdirection and obfuscation.
In a thread on WTC7, I posted pictures of WTC7 burning. You claimed they were "after collapse"- which in fact, they were not after the collapse of WTC7. When the error of your observation is pointed out you simply move the goalposts and claim that posting a picture of WTC7 burning is somehow a "deliberate and dishonest attempt to portray 7's fires as far worse than they actually were".
Utterly inane and nonsensical...reverting to type are you?
Tazmanian
Account Closed
That's the extent of my expertise. I don't claim to know more than that and anything else would be speculation on my part. If it's not explosives and it's not fire, then it has to be a combination of those things or another technology that has not been considered so far.
joelb79
Active Member
Then start with the NIST report and show us how your expertise was applied to conclude that it was not possible. I hope that this would be able to be done without copy pasting some response from elsewhere on the web, or reposting photos like Oxy did; or anything of the like. When somebody says expertise; that usually means they can do more than copy/paste from a source and put that on metabunk.
How would you define expertise? Where did you study? What did you study? You said you speak on behalf of structural engineers; how is that possible unless you are a structural engineer?
Tazmanian
Account Closed
For starters, a scientific report released for the scientific community is something that can be verified by other people in the industry. That means the original assumptions need to be available before you can do any analysis to see if you can reach the same conclusion. None of that information is available, so the scientific community has nothing to verify. So much for that.
There were several versions of this report initially, and in it's original form it contained scientific language that actually meant something. None of that language remains in this final report. Some of the people creating this report are Nobel Prize winners in physics. In order to satisfy their disbelief in the findings, the scientific language has been removed almost entirely, so what you have is a report written in laymen's language that could mean almost anything and nothing specific.
The final assessment is that it could have happened as described, but very highly unlikely.
But you said that it's not fire. You said you know this because of "thermodynamics".
So back that up. Explain.
False. There's a vast amount of verifiable evidence in the report. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf
And how do you know this? Provide evidence.
Last edited:
Tazmanian
Account Closed
FEMA report found
• severe corrosion on steel
• oxidation and sulfidation
• intergrannular melting
• eutectic liquid of iron, oxygen and sulfur
This is not addressed by the NIST report, especially interesting is the sulfur. No melted steel was considered at all by the report.
I have to go now and may be gone for a few days. If someone can please come up with a solution, maybe we can end this thread, cheers.
FEMA report found
• severe corrosion on steel
• oxidation and sulfidation
• intergrannular melting
• eutectic liquid of iron, oxygen and sulfur
This is not addressed by the NIST report, especially interesting is the sulfur. No melted steel was considered at all by the report.
I have to go now and may be gone for a few days. If someone can please come up with a solution, maybe we can end this thread, cheers.
The things you list have nothing to do with thermodynamics. It was a chemical reaction that most people assume happened in the month-long fires after the building collapsed.
Tazmanian
Account Closed
You said you can look things up. When you release a report, do you release the first draft?
And there you have it.
No one in the scientific community assumes this. The presence of sulfur in a fire like this has everything to do with thermodynamics. Where did the sulfur come from?
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Wallboard for one source.
Lots of wallboard in those buildings. Much of it was pulverized.A wallboard panel is made of a paper liner wrapped around an inner core made primarily from gypsum plaster. The raw gypsum, CaSO4·2 H2O, (mined or obtained from flue-gas desulfurization (FGD)) must be calcined before use to produce the hemihydrate of calcium sulfate (CaSO4·½ H2O).
So you can't link to it? How do you know what it said?
It came from the wallboards, the drywall. Hundreds of tons of Calcium sulfate.
Thermodynamics is the science of heat. Sulphur is covered under chemistry. I think you have your terminology confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics is a branch of natural science concerned with heat and its relation to energy and work. It defines macroscopic variables (such as temperature, internal energy, entropy, and pressure) that characterize materials and radiation, and explains how they are related and by what laws they change with time.
Tazmanian
Account Closed
FYI, after structural engineers build something, I sign off on their work. What do you do?
No it's not. Look it up. Just just about where the heat goes. You might be thinking of thermochemistry.
They all agree that drywall contains sulfur.
Taz, let's stick to the issues at hand. Explain why it cannot be fire.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
At least he knows what building codes are . . .
. . . not that you don't . . . but it is his job . . .
Tazmanian
Account Closed
or a developer
ther·mo·dy·nam·ics
Physics that deals with the relationships and conversions between heat and other forms of energy.
Physics that deals with the relationships and conversions between heat and other forms of energy.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Taz . . . do you have any formal scientific training or experience? I talked to a very experienced and successful structural engineer one day about 911 . . . about the only thing he would venture was he saw some pictures of vertical steel support columns with 35 to 45 degree shear angles on them . . . he thought that was exactly what he would have expected in such a collapse . . . that is if they were not cut by torches in the clean up phase . . . another engineer . . . not structural engineer thought he felt things were suspect but would not venture why . . . I really think unless experts have the full weight of the information and data they have a hard time saying what they believe about 911 . . .
Tazmanian
Account Closed
yes
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
In what area of study?
Please get to the point. Why could fire not have caused the collapse?
SR, you stated earlier...
Originally Posted by SR1419
Sorry Oxy- try again....none of the pictures in that post are after the collapse. You can clearly see WTC7 standing in every photo. So much for being "dishonest"....
In a thread on WTC7, I posted pictures of WTC7 burning. You claimed they were "after collapse"- which in fact, they were not after the collapse of WTC7. When the error of your observation is pointed out you simply move the goalposts and claim that posting a picture of WTC7 burning is somehow a "deliberate and dishonest attempt to portray 7's fires as far worse than they actually were".
Of course they are after collapse... after collapse of 1 & 2... the place looks like a moonscape and disaster area... which it is... but we were discussing 7 and the severity of the fires... The pictures give no indication of the severity of the fires in 7.... only a non related issue designed to conflate the issue and embroil it into the shock and awe of the terrible surrounding destruction. You cannot see any fires in 7 and the smoke source is unclear... so what was the point of the pictures if they were not to conflate?
What visual evidence do you have for the severity of the fires? How about some video showing 'total involvement of 7 in fire'?
Last edited by a moderator:
The NIST report covers it in great detail
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf
The building was not totally involved, but substantial portions of several floors were, and it varied over time as the fire grew and moved.
Last edited:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The question becomes . . . were the fires hot enough in the proper locations . . . with the available fuel to attain and maintain the temperatures required to cause the failures . . . the NIST experts obviously think so but they have no choice but to conclude that they did . . . we have no direct thermal evidence except the failures . . .
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf
8.4.1 Column Failure by Heating
Heating of a column could occur as a result of a building contents fire, or as had been suggested, from a diesel fire resulting from rupture of a fuel line supplying one of several emergency generators in the building. Prediction of growth and spread of building contents fires (Section 9.3.2) indicated that such
fires moved from one location to the next (e.g., from one office cubicle to the next) and burned intensely in any one location for roughly 20 min to 30 min. However, the large floor area surrounding Column 79 would have had sufficient combustibles (i.e., cubicles) to support fires in that area for two to three hours.
A diesel fuel fire could also have occurred in the vicinity of Column 79, but analyses have shown (Section 9.2) that the duration of such a fire would be limited to less than two hours. A thermal analysis was conducted of Column 79, typical of the geometry found on lower floors, i.e., a W14x730 section with cover plates and thermal insulation (see Chapter 9). Based on the knowledge that the yield strength of steel is reduced to roughly 50 percent of its room temperature value at steel temperatures of around 500 ºC to 600 ºC, it was found that it would take roughly 6 h of continuous exposure from a fully developed fire (gas temperatures of around 1100 ºC) to reach these temperatures. Therefore, it would not have been possible for a building contents fire to have heated a massive, insulated column such as Column 79 to the point of failure.
Sections 9.2 and 8.9.1 show that the worst-case scenarios associated with ruptured fuel lines generated fires that could not be sustained long enough, would have produced too little heat to raise the temperatures of the steel to the point of significant loss of strength, and/or would have led to the flowing of smoke out the ventilation louvers, which contradicts the visual evidence.
Last edited by a moderator:
Absent that evidence, the best questions to ask is: "was it possible?".
Or maybe "is there any evidence that it was impossible?"
jomper
Inactive Member
This is also the answer the BBC offered at the conclusion of its Conspiracy Files programme on WTC 7. However, the programme did not ask the question of what kind of reaction might actually be required to isolate elemental sulfur from calcium sulfate. Have you? It is by no means as "simple" as baking it in a rubble pile.
FEMA had steel from WTC 7 that was evidence of a "hot corrosion" attack.
NIST ignored it.
JRBids
Senior Member.
FEMA report found
• severe corrosion on steel
• oxidation and sulfidation
• intergrannular melting
• eutectic liquid of iron, oxygen and sulfur
This is not addressed by the NIST report, especially interesting is the sulfur. No melted steel was considered at all by the report.
I have to go now and may be gone for a few days. If someone can please come up with a solution, maybe we can end this thread, cheers.
We could end the thread, or at least your part of it, if you would stop beating around the bush and say something. I feel like I'm watching a soap opera, I can tune in next month and the action will not have moved on, you will not have gotten to your point.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
In the above #1283 Post (cited and inserted quote) NIST questions IMO their own findings . . . Me thinks they did what you just said . . . it is the best fit . . . that is all . . . if you exclude any skullduggery . . . that is . . .
JRBids
Senior Member.
I'm a Realtor, I don't sign anything after an engineer inspects.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
Claim - UFO Crashes near Las Vegas, crash captured on Cop's Body-cam- Latest: NorCal Dave
-
-
