WTC7: Did the fires burn long and hot enough?

[Oxymoron]

So, in short- you have structural steel failure and collapse after only 2.5 hrs of burning.

and the design of of the building ie; concrete core and frame and "strong" floors prevented further collapse.

thanks Oxy.

If that's what you glean from all the detailed technical information and analysis... I guess that will have to do for you. We each absorb information according to our own limitations. If that is yours... so be it.

 

[SR1419]

really? ad hominem attacks simply because your premise is undermined by the facts...

So typical.

 

[Oxymoron]

really? ad hominem attacks simply because your premise is undermined by the facts...

So typical.

No attack, merely an observation of the facts you stated.

What facts undermine my argument? you haven't put any... apart from your original post... which I thanked you for and then brought new evidence which negates it.

It is up to you to rationally negate what I have said... if you can... if not gracefully concede.

 

[SR1419]

Your evidence does not "negate" the FACT that the Windsor building had structural steel failure after on 2.5 hrs of being exposed to flame.

This indicates that is IS possible for structural steel to collapse after exposure to fire after even a relatively short term.

Everything else you mention is apples to oranges.



Moreover, suggesting my summary is due to my "limitations" IS a personal attack and you know it- you should be called out on it.

 

[Oxymoron]

Your evidence does not "negate" the FACT that the Windsor building had structural steel failure after on 2.5 hrs of being exposed to flame.

This indicates that is IS possible for structural steel to collapse after exposure to fire after even a relatively short term.

Everything else you mention is apples to oranges.



Moreover, suggesting my summary is due to my "limitations" IS a personal attack and you know it- you should be called out on it.

Look, I am trying to have a sensible conversation here.

You posted about the structural steel failure on certain floors and about the concrete core. I countered with a bona fide source which contradicts that and shows that the building was under renovation because they were doing fireproofing of the steel. Consequently fire stops were not in place and the floors which collapsed had no fireproofing and were lightweight steel... thats why they collapsed.

Where the steel was fireproofed it did not collapse even though it was lightweight. It survived intense fire for 18 hours. The report says... if the rest had been fireproofed, that would also have survived without collapse.

I shouldn't have to be rewriting all this... it all makes perfect sense. I know full well you are intelligent so why come out with such stupid things as you just did.

Obviously it is not apples and bananas or any other fruit... it is science and research by highly qualified people. It speaks for itself... I am merely the messenger here.

 

[SR1419]

Look, I am trying to have a sensible conversation here.

sensible?- is that why you resort to personal attacks? Seriously...an apology would be appropriate.

The report says... if the rest had been fireproofed, that would also have survived without collapse.

Dr Pope's opinion was merely his hypothesis and yet even he states:

although it cannot be stated with absolute certainty, the collapse of the upper storeys would not have occurred had this fire protection already been in place throughout.

Content from External Source

Consequently fire stops were not in place and the floors which collapsed had no fireproofing and were lightweight steel... thats why they collapsed.

NO- they collapsed because they were exposed to fire.

Its not "stupid" (again with the insults) to point out that fire HAS caused buildings to - at least- partially collapse...and that the design of the building contributed greatly to the how the building behaved in the fire.

...and yet, with all the various factors involved in any one building and fire- it IS like comparing apples and oranges.

Mick used this analogy before- does everyone who gets shot die?

 

[George B]

As a Mod . . . I would like to ask all participants (including myself) to remove all reference to personal attributes . . . let's all stick to the issues and not personal traits . . . Thanks!!!

 

[lee h oswald]

Essentially, but it's complicated, there were varying levels of damage. It was the cumulative effect that resulted in a loss of lateral support. Then there was an initiating event that caused the buckling.

See the different damage levels below:



Back to the original point. The 911Research excerpt is claiming that 3.5 hours of heating at 400C. Really all that is needed is for the steel to get to 400C. Once it's at 400C, then it's expanded, and the damage to the connections is done.

It's all just the usual guessing games.

Really all that is needed is for the steel to get to 400C. Once it's at 400C, then it's expanded, and the damage to the connections is done

Really?

 

[Oxymoron]

sensible?- is that why you resort to personal attacks? Seriously...an apology would be appropriate.

I refute a personal attack, I attacked what you said... let that be an end.

Dr Pope's opinion was merely his hypothesis and yet even he states:

although it cannot be stated with absolute certainty, the collapse of the upper storeys would not have occurred had this fire protection already been in place throughout.

Content from External Source

Dr Popes professional opinion after examining all the facts was: "the collapse of the upper storeys would not have occurred had this fire protection already been in place throughout.".

He prefaced it with "although it cannot be stated with absolute certainty". That is a very professional and necessary qualifier.

For something to be 'absolute' and 'certain' it would need be

1. complete; perfect
2. free from limitations, restrictions, or exceptions; unqualified an absolute choice
3. having unlimited authority; despotic an absolute ruler
4. undoubted; certain the absolute truth
5. not dependent on, conditioned by, or relative to anything else; independent an absolute term in logic the absolute value of a quantity in physics

cer·tain·ty (sûrtn-t)n. pl. cer·tain·ties 1. The fact, quality, or state of being certain: the certainty of death.
2. Something that is clearly established or assured: "On the field of battle there are no certainties" (Tom Clancy).

Synonyms: certainty, certitude, assurance, conviction
These nouns mean freedom from doubt. Certainty implies a thorough consideration of evidence: "the emphasis of a certainty that is not impaired by any shade of doubt" (Mark Twain).

Obviously he is saying that 'he is virtually sure that the collapse of the upper storeys would not have occurred had this fire protection already been in place throughout.' but he is qualifying it because there is an very small chance they could have collapsed through some other unforeseen anomaly.

NO- they collapsed because they were exposed to fire.

Then why did the fire protected ones not collapse?

fire HAS caused buildings to - at least- partially collapse...and that the design of the building contributed greatly to the how the building behaved in the fire.

Yes and this is a case in point. There are reasons for it when this happens as has been pointed out. But again... they are only partial collapses. There has never been either before or since a TOTAL COLLAPSE OF SUCH A BUILDING .... let alone, straight down and in seconds. I know you do not like it because of the implications but it is fact.

See: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/collapses.html

...and yet, with all the various factors involved in any one building and fire- it IS like comparing apples and oranges.

But it isn't. Even NIST does it. It is accepted practice in the building industry to do it... as posted previously here: https://www.metabunk.org/posts/42990

Overview... What is comparable or classified as a 'Major Event

http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415557337/

Content from external source:

Major events—notably the Broadgate fire in London, New York’s World Trade Center collapse, and the Windsor Tower fire in Madrid—as well as the enlightening studies at the Cardington fire research project have given international prominence to performance-based structural fire engineering. As a result, structural fire engineering has increasingly attracted the interest not only of fire and structural engineers but also of researchers and students

Mick used this analogy before- does everyone who gets shot die?

But that is an incomplete analogy IMO... Everyone who gets shot straight through the middle of the brain does die... no exceptions but I do take his point. So lets look at it.

We are all unique... not another one of us is exactly the same but we are all human. Does that mean we cannot draw comparisons about what is likely to harm or destroy us based on what happened in similar circumstances to someone else. No. The whole medical profession would collapse if we could not set parameters and use examples. The reason is, because we are all essentially the same construct.

The same is true of buildings and many many other things. It is how buildings and building codes have developed. It is the evidence based science that counts and that can be applied where appropriate.




[SIZE=-1]Buildings partially collapsed by the 1999 earthquake in Taiwan[/SIZE]

[h=4]The 1999 Taiwan Earthquake[/h] On September 21, 1999 an earthquake measuring 7.6 on the Richter scale shook the city of Taichung, Taiwan, killing 2,375 people. The epicenter was near Nanto, and 145 km south-southeast of Taipei. 3 The quake toppled 13,000 high-rise apartments. 4 ​ It appears that the only buildings that suffered total collapse from this earthquake were low-rise masonry structures.

Content from External Source

 

[Oxymoron]

It's all just the usual guessing games.
Really?

Nice to see you back Lee. Don't get banned again, could do with your research and application on this.

Mick wants to try and keep it science based and I agree. It would be really good if everyone could keep bang on topic and input as much scientific evidence as poss either for or against, whether the fires burned hot and long enough to bring down 7 at all, let alone so uniformly.

 

[lee h oswald]

They arrive at it through the results of the fire simulation.



One beam, maybe, but on multiple beams, on multiple floors, all pushing against basically immovable columns? And consider the key failure connection The Col 79 to Col 44 girder, look at the connection from above, it was a an angle, so an expansion of several inches would break the bolts and push it off its seat.



But again, the point I've been trying to make in this thread is that the 911Research's interpretation is entirely inaccurate. It's claiming that NIST says 3.5 hours of 400C is needed. NIST does not say that.

Thermal expansion with gradual heating is essentially instantaneous. I guess NIST did not spell that out because it's a basic science fact. In fact you can use thermal expansion as a way of measuring how hot something is.

They arrive at it through the results of the fire simulation.

'

'They' being Nist. Simulation, yes. There is no excuse for not doing a relatively cheap real-world test on the correctly sized and specified components.

consider the key failure connection The Col 79 to Col 44 girder, look at the connection from above, it was a an angle, so an expansion of several inches would break the bolts and push it off its seat.

Yes, you do need to consider it. An 'expansion of several inches' would have pushed the beam up against the column and any subsequent lateral movement would be restrained by the welded plate covers of the column. 'Would break the bolts' is a statement of fact and it's not a fact. Bolts used in steel construction are of a much greater tensile strength than the steel it attaches, by a factor of two or three + welding. That makes the connections much stronger than the steel itself. It would be far more likely that the steel would tear and fail around the bolts. And anyway, anyone believing that one steel pushed off its seat collapses a building like 7 collapsed is seriously gullible.

Thermal expansion with gradual heating is essentially instantaneous. I guess NIST did not spell that out because it's a basic science fact. In fact you can use thermal expansion as a way of measuring how hot something is.

No. You don't understand thermal expansion. You googled it and found the word 'instantaneous' and that was enough, presumably. Coefficient of thermal expansion is measured as a function of heat vs time and the expansion of the piece is expressed in parts per million against each 1 degree celcius rise in temp

http://www.ami.ac.uk/courses/topics/0197_cte/

Materials expand because an increase in temperature leads to greater thermal vibration of the atoms in a material, and hence to an increase in the average separation distance of adjacent atoms.

The linear coefficient of thermal expansion a (Greek letter alpha) describes by how much a material will expand for each degree of temperature increase, as given by the formula:

where:
dl = the change in length of material in the direction being measured
l = overall length of material in the direction being measured
dT = the change in temperature over which dl is measured
Although a ratio is dimensionless, expansion has the unit k−1​, and is normally quoted in parts per million per °C rise in temperature. There is a related volume coefficient of thermal expansion, but the acronym CTE1​ typically refers just to the linear expansion.

Content from External Source

The way you phrase your statement says that gradually heating something has no effect until it reaches a certain temperature and then 'ping', and it instantaneously expands. That's a big lump of bunk you just propagated.

 

[lee h oswald]

Perhaps if the entire building was suspended in space, composed of one material, and heated evenly at every point, yes.

But you have individual beams pushing against much stronger (and much cooler) columns that are anchored in place by the beams (and more importantly the rigid concrete slab) in the floors above and below.

Something has to give. As Oxy points out this can lead to the beam itself bending. However in order to do that it has to put sufficient force on the connection to bend the beam. That amount of force is not what the connection was designed to withstand, so it can fail. In some cases the beams are not at right angles to the column.

This is all in the report. Example:

8.7.5 Seats Used for Floor System Connections

Floor beams and girders that framed into exterior columns, and in some instances, girders that framed into
interior columns, had seated connections. For example, the girder that framed between interior Column
79 and exterior Column 44 had such connections at both ends.

Seat connections to exterior columns where the floor beam framing was perpendicular to the exterior
moment frame were as shown in Figure 8–20. Where the floor beam framed into an exterior column at a
skew angle, the seat angle was replaced by a plate. Figure 8–21 shows the seat connection at Column 79
that supported the girder spanning to Column 44 on the exterior. The details of the connections of the
other two girders that framed into Column 79 are not shown.



In a seated connection, the beam or girder was supported by the seat, which was welded to the column.
Bolts were installed that fasten the beam or girder to the seat for erection purposes. These erection bolts
did not carry any gravity load; rather, they were installed to insure that the beam or girder was held in
place during erection. NIST found no evidence that the girders or beams in WTC 7 were welded to the
seats. In a similar way, an angle or plate was bolted to the top flange to prevent the beam or girder from
twisting, but there was little restraint to bending in the plane of the beam.


Consider the girder that spanned between Column 79 on the interior of the building and Column 44 on the
exterior. Thermal expansion of this girder would have loaded the erection bolts in shear, since (1) there
were no shear studs anchoring the girder to the slab (and thereby restraining elongation), and (2) the
columns were prevented from lateral movement because they were embedded in the floor slabs which had
considerable in-plane stiffness. Additionally, the expansion of floor beams that framed into this girder,
because the framing was asymmetrical, tended to add additional shear load to the erection bolts. The
combination of these two shear loads could have failed the bolts in shear. If the erection bolts were to
fail, then there would be no positive attachment preventing the girder from being pushed off the seat.

Content from External Source

Look at the diagram in conjunction with the text there. Especially the top down view (Section A-A in fig 8-21) which shows the angle.

Note also that the only thing holding the girder on the plate was the erection bolts, which were not designed to take any structural load.

Girder expands, bolts break, end of the girder gets pushed off the seat.

This is just one mode of failure, but a key one. Other connections would fail in different ways.

And tying this all back to the original point - all that is needed for this particular failure is the heating of the beam up to 400C. Once it's at 400C it's either bent, or the bolts are broken, and the end of the girder has been pushed off the seat. If does not require 3.5 hours at 400C, as 911 research claims. It does not even require the connection itself to be heated.

But you have individual beams pushing against much stronger (and much cooler) columns that are anchored in place by the beams (and more importantly the rigid concrete slab) in the floors above and below.

Something has to give. As Oxy points out this can lead to the beam itself bending. However in order to do that it has to put sufficient force on the connection to bend the beam. That amount of force is not what the connection was designed to withstand, so it can fail. In some cases the beams are not at right angles to the column.

How do you know the beams were hotter than the columns? You can't know that. Also, where this imaginary expanded beam is pushing against the imaginary column, then that column will more than likely have another beam fixed to its other side, thus restraining it. Rigid concrete slab? Steel's rigid, too; and concrete has a coefficient of thermal expansion pretty much equivalent to steel, btw.
'As Oxy points out' - yes, exactly right. The connections were much more able to resist than the beams themselves - the connections should be the last thing to fail, by design. When you say that 'that amount of force is not what the connections were designed to withstand' - that's completely inverted - that's exactly what they are designed to withstand; what do you think they're there for?!

This is just one mode of failure, but a key one. Other connections would fail in different ways.

Like what? Something factual would be good.

 

[lee h oswald]

And I assume it's probably just from standard practice not to weld seated joins if they are not indicated in the shop drawings.

Shop drawings are for the manufacturer - they couldn't give a toss about any on site welding to be done - they're fabricators - they'll drill the holes for the bolts because it's on the drawing, but like said, the welding's done on site. The welds would have been made - likely a 6mm fillet weld all round. I expect the reason Nist says 'no evidence' to suggest welds were present is just a convenient lie - because they never looked for evidence, they never found it. Didn't they inspect the steel from the building, or what?? It's not very hard to see where something was welded or not. No need for 'simulations', guessing or omission - just a pair of eyeballs. 'No evidence'? Apart from that several thousand tonnes of material lying in the street?

 

[lee h oswald]

If the steel got to the softening temperature, then it stayed soft and deformable.

One of the reasons that 'Damascus' sword blades where valued, was their combination of hard steel that will hold an edge well and softer steel that doesn't break easily. There were some Viking blades that were braided from hard and softer steel. Most sword blades in medieval Europe were not good at cutting, most of the damage they did was from crushing. Japanese blades however, were able to be sharp and flexible.

If the steel got to the softening temperature, then it stayed soft and deformable.

In previous posts you've presented as though you understand steel in this context - but this is the inverse of reality. How do you think steel is made? If steel after being heated 'stayed soft and deformable' it wouldn't be a lot of use as a building material after being fabricated..... The reality is, steel after being heated, once cooled, regains 100% of its pre-heated strength.

 

[lee h oswald]

Nice to see you back Lee. Don't get banned again.

Cheers, O. How you? Banned? Moi? I have no control over arbitrary trumped up charges!

 

[George B]

Cheers, O. How you? Banned? Moi? I have no control over arbitrary trumped up charges!

Greetings Lee . . . Nice to have someone that has actually built something beyond a bird house . . .

 

[Jazzy]

That makes the connections much stronger than the steel itself.

You only have to compare the relative cross-sectional area of the fixing bolts with the cross-sectional area of the affixed beam to discount that idea completely.

Coefficient of thermal expansion is measured as a function of heat vs time

Since YOU defined it.

Everyone else defines it thus:

The linear coefficient of thermal expansion a (Greek letter alpha) describes by how much a material will expand for each degree of temperature increase, as given by the formula:
alpha = dl/l*dT
where:
dl = the change in length of material in the direction being measured
l = overall length of material in the direction being measured
dT = the change in temperature over which dl is measured

Content from External Source

You will notice that the T refers to temperature, not time.

The way you phrase your statement says that gradually heating something has no effect until it reaches a certain temperature and then 'ping', and it instantaneously expands. That's a big lump of bunk you just propagated.

That's another gem you offer.

Everyone else thinks thermometers work perfectly smoothly, matching their expansion exactly and instantaneously with the temperature they are at.

As did the beams.

 

[Jazzy]

How do you know the beams were hotter than the columns? You can't know that.

You ought to know it. Hot air rises to the ceilings. You will find beams there. They are never on the floors. The beams are in the hottest air, the columns stand in air from cold to hot. How can you not see this?

Also, where this imaginary expanded beam is pushing against the imaginary column, then that column will more than likely have another beam fixed to its other side, thus restraining it.

So the beam to the other side will be the same temperature? I thought the fires moved.

At best, the compressive force will reduce the lateral stability of the vertical column. If ANY component is off the horizontal and vertical, then you can kiss goodbye to the premises used in the original calculations.

Rigid concrete slab? Steel's rigid, too.

If you want something truly rigid you should try Star Trek's Neutronium. But even neutron stars have "neutron-quakes". Proper engineers call both steel and concrete elastic. Steel is used to make springs. Concrete isn't, only because it is weak in tension. But it is still elastic in compression.

Like what? Something factual would be good.

Why would you want facts? Don't you create your own?

 

[Jazzy]

I see the question: "WTC7: Did the fires burn long and hot enough?" quite simply answered by the above graphic. YES

It is only some people's inability to interpret this that has allowed the thread to meander pointlessly onward, dispensing bunk as it goes.

The graphic demonstrates quite clearly that sufficient heat soakage took place over at least 90% of the ceiling of Floor 8 to render beam connections broken by heat expansion. Weren't there another fifteen floors ablaze?

We know from video evidence that floors collapsed before the building structure began to fail, and thereafter the columns became unstable and buckled.

Furthermore the building's base was a bridge beam which lost its footing. The center of the building rested on this bridge.

None of this could possibly further a partial collapse.

 

[Cairenn]

In previous posts you've presented as though you understand steel in this context - but this is the inverse of reality. How do you think steel is made? If steel after being heated 'stayed soft and deformable' it wouldn't be a lot of use as a building material after being fabricated..... The reality is, steel after being heated, once cooled, regains 100% of its pre-heated strength.

Well I do understand steel. Soft doesn't mean molten, it means that it is more bendable. Steel can also be brittle and easy to crack. Heating and cooling incorrectly, can cause stress cracks.

The two major processes of hardening and tempering can be broken down into four major steps. First, a piece of metal is heated gradually until it reaches a high temperature. When the entire sample reaches a high temperature, a great heat intensity is applied to the area that will be hardened. When the steel reaches a temperature that causes it to turn red, it is time for the next step. Next, the piece of metal is removed and placed directly into cool water. At this point in the process, the steel is very hard, but as discussed above, is very brittle. At this point in the process the hardening has been completed and it is time to move onto step three and the second phase of tempering. The next step involves reheating the steel at the end which received the most intense heat in step one. The metal is heated until it turns the indicative blue color, which means tempering has occurred and the heat source is cut off. The last step is to allow the new hardened and tempered steel to cool on its own. After that has taken place, hardened steel has be synthesized. A visual representation of this process may make the concept easier to understand.

Content from External Source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardened_steel


http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Matter/Hardening.html

If steel is heated until it glows red and is quenched in clean water immediately, it becomes very hard but also brittle. This means it is likely to break or snap if put under great pressure. On the other hand, if the red hot steel is allowed to cool slowly, the resulting steel will be easier to cut, shape and file as it will be relatively soft. However, the industrial heat treatment of steel is a very complex and precise science.

Content from External Source

http://www.technologystudent.com/equip1/heat1.htm

Thermal properties

The properties of steel vary widely, depending on its alloying elements.

The austenizing temperature, the temperature where a steel transforms to an austenite crystal structure, for steel starts at 900 °C (1,650 °F) for pure iron, then, as more carbon is added, the temperature falls to a minimum 724 °C (1,335 °F) for eutectic steel (steel with only .83% by weight of carbon in it). As 2.1% carbon (by mass) is approached, the austenizing temperature climbs back up, to 1,130 °C (2,070 °F). Similarly, the melting point of steel changes based on the alloy.

The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F). Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F). 'Steel' with more than 2.1% Carbon is no longer Steel, but is known as Cast iron.[13]
Fire resistance
Metal deck and open web steel joist receiving spray fireproofing plaster, made of polystyrene leavened gypsum.

Steel loses strength when heated sufficiently. The critical temperature of a steel member is the temperature at which it cannot safely support its load. Building codes and structural engineering standard practice defines different critical temperatures depending on the structural element type, configuration, orientation, and loading characteristics. The critical temperature is often considered the temperature at which its yield stress has been reduced to 60% of the room temperature yield stress.[14] In order to determine the fire resistance rating of a steel member, accepted calculations practice can be used,[15] or a fire test can be performed, the critical temperature of which is set by the standard accepted to the Authority Having Jurisdiction, such as a building code. In Japan, this is below 400°C[citation needed]. In China, Europe and North America (e.g., ASTM E-119), this is approximately 1000–1300F[16] (530-810C). The time it takes for the steel element that is being tested to reach the temperature set by the test standard determines the duration of the fire-resistance rating. Heat transfer to the steel can be slowed by the use of fireproofing materials, thus limiting steel temperature.

Content from External Source

 

[JonN]

As i am unbiased on this subject, and don't believe in the conspiracy theory part of all this, and all theories aside. I do personally think that it is very "strange" for lack of a better word, that all three buildings did fall in a tight vertical pattern. With minimal damage to surrounding buildings. I guess what im getting at, is it was actually a really nice fall. I bet there are lots of demolitionist that would love to be able to take credit for their fall. I mean that in the sense that if there were no one in the building, and a legal demolition. Like i said before, its really not that i believe that it was some great conspiracy to go to war or whatever else people can make up. Just I am one of the curios ones, that wonder why it was such a perfect fall, and that the upper sections didn't topple over.

 

[lee h oswald]

Greetings Lee . . . Nice to have someone that has actually built something beyond a bird house . . .

Hi! How do?

 

[George B]

Hi! How do?

I am fine Lee. . . nice to see you back. . . hope you are well?

 

[lee h oswald]

You etc

You're not worth engaging. I've watched you spout ridiculous theory after ridiculous theory - from 'anything that glows orange is 1000c - it's a fact of physics' to 'core still standing all slagged up' to 'you can see the internal collapse of wtc 7 through the windows' to 'inevitable hotspots due to friction welding' to 'the steel that struck wtc7 caused the fire to start' to 'the concrete in the towers weighed 40,000 tonnes to 'how could a tower resist 500,000 tonnes falling on it' and on and on and on and on conflating, omitting, forgetting, twisting, fabricating, appealing to authority, appealing to fear.....etc etc etc

You're not even consistent in your inaccuracies.

 

[lee h oswald]

.......

Here it is again:

Your statement - one stand alone paragraph all to itself:

If the steel got to the softening temperature, then it stayed soft and deformable.

Post as many links as you like, there it is ^^^^ in black and white. Unequivocally wrong, it is. Why not just admit to the error? Or do you actually think it's right?

 

[George B]

.

Lee in an attempt to keep you here as long as possible (and I would like very much to accomplish that) . . . we are trying to reduce the amount of direct personal references . . . please take issue with the facts presented and not the personalities behind them . . . Thanks!! I REALIZE it is sometimes hard but please do your best . . . I ask Jazzy to do likewise . . .

 

[Oxymoron]

You're not worth engaging. I've watched you spout ridiculous theory after ridiculous theory - from 'anything that glows orange is 1000c - it's a fact of physics' to 'core still standing all slagged up' to 'you can see the internal collapse of wtc 7 through the windows' to 'inevitable hotspots due to friction welding' to 'the steel that struck wtc7 caused the fire to start' to 'the concrete in the towers weighed 40,000 tonnes to 'how could a tower resist 500,000 tonnes falling on it' and on and on and on and on conflating, omitting, forgetting, twisting, fabricating, appealing to authority, appealing to fear.....etc etc etc

You're not even consistent in your inaccuracies.

I agree with all of that apart from the 'You are not worth engaging' bit.

Well that is a matter of opinion, (personally I see it as grist for the mill and an excellent opportunity to show the pseudo-scientific arguments being promulgated in defense of the OS), but if you feel like that, I think the only route to take is to make it clear you will not engage further... as I did when another poster started using labels such as "nonse", (totally without censure I might add), and refused to retract.

Jazzy gets away with blue murder on the insulting personal attack levels... I don't mind too much because I have reciprocated without censure myself. But Lee, we don't want to lose you again so be a bit politic...and rise above it. I know it's hard but I also know you can do it.

Be and let the facts be your weapon and armour.

 

[Cairenn]

Soft in metal has a different meaning than it does in pillows.

If you wish to buy silver, copper or even brass wire for wire working you will need to specify, if you want hard, half-hard or dead soft wire. It refers to how 'workable' or deformable it is. Dead soft is the most flexible, hard will break with a lot of movement.

Steel has similar 'tempers'. The structure of the steel changes in response to heat. I am having problems understanding why you seem to have such a problem in understanding, what seems to me, to be a simple physical fact.

I must be failing to explain it properly.

I will attempt, tomorrow to find a simple explanation of this fact.

 

[Jazzy]

You're not worth engaging. I've watched you spout ridiculous theory after ridiculous theory - from 'anything that glows orange is 1000c - it's a fact of physics'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body_radiation

to 'core still standing all slagged up'

http://911blogger.com/node/18358

Here, horse, some water.

to 'you can see the internal collapse of wtc 7 through the windows'

http://letsrollforums.com/wtc-7-pull-according-t21675.html?p=180053

[video=youtube_share;rawrAdoccDk]http://youtu.be/rawrAdoccDk[/video]

Here, nice horsey-horsey, some more water.

to 'inevitable hotspots due to friction welding'

I suggested those hotspots to be due to impact energy being transferred to Gzero. Like this (just turn this on its side):

[video=youtube_share;mFNe_pFZrsA]http://youtu.be/mFNe_pFZrsA[/video]

I suggested elsewhere that the friction of the compacting floors passing the cores produced spherules of iron from the sparks that would have occurred.

to 'the steel that struck wtc7 caused the fire to start'

Impacts never start fires?

[video=youtube_share;v3iRu71PGDA]http://youtu.be/v3iRu71PGDA[/video]

The speed of the train was 92 mph and that of the falling WTC1 panels would have been 120 mph at Gzero.

to 'the concrete in the towers weighed 40,000 tonnes

103 floors. 210 ft square. 4" thick. Lightweight concrete mix density (est.) 109 lb/cu.ft. gives 73,600 tons, disregarding stair and lift apertures. Show me where I said 40,000.

to 'how could a tower resist 500,000 tonnes falling on it'

Estimates of the total weight of each of the working towers vary between 410,000 to 500,000 tons. Obviously the tops of WTC1 and WTC2 weighed less than that - 91,000 and 159,000 tons approx.

and on and on and on and on conflating, omitting, forgetting, twisting, fabricating, appealing to authority, appealing to fear.....etc etc etc

Enough mirror-talk.

You're not even consistent in your inaccuracies.

You are perfectly consistent in yours.

 

[Jazzy]

an excellent opportunity to show the pseudo-scientific arguments being promulgated in defense of the OS

You'd better write to Wikipedia, 911blogger, letsrollforums, etc., and tell them how wrong they are. You'll be a leader in your field.

Jazzy gets away with blue murder on the insulting personal attack levels

All that blue murder takes place in your mind, hopefully. That's a hint. You shouldn't take contradiction as insult. That's another.

I don't mind too much because I have reciprocated without censure myself. But Lee, we don't want to lose you again so be a bit politic...and rise above it. I know it's hard but I also know you can do it. Be and let the facts be your weapon and armour.

I'm just off to get his coat and hat. ROFLMAO.

Actually, it's better when he's teetering on the brink. I value his humor.

 

[SR1419]

I refute a personal attack, I attacked what you said... let that be an end.

Of course you do.

But its BS and you know it- you patronizingly suggested I had "limitations"- a personal jab if there ever was one.

You then said what I put forth was "stupid"- directly against the politeness policy.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1224-Politeness-Policy

Truth be told- it really doesn't bother me what You think. I wouldn't expect you to self-reflect and admit your immaturity- but your holier-than-thou sanctimony is hollow and tiresome.

Everyone who gets shot straight through the middle of the brain does die... no exceptions

Interesting opinion. Too bad its false- if the bullet hits the brain stem its likely they willl die but some do get shot "straight through the middle of the brain" and survive.:

While the first three bullets hit her arm, the fourth went through her nose, heading up through her cranium and reaching all the way to the back of her skull,

Content from External Source

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...g-victim-who-took-a-bullet-through-her-brain/

The bullet entered at the back of her skull and exited at the front

Content from External Source

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12148446


I do understand the point you are making regarding Dr. Popes opinion of the fire-proofing- its a logical assumption. I was merely pointing out the FACT that fire HAS caused steel buildings to collapse- if not fully. Thus, to suggest as some do that since its never happened before (fully) it therefore must be impossible is not accurate. Fire did cause the Windsor to collapse- that it did not collapse more fully was due in large part to the design of the building not merely fireproofing.

have you compared the fireproofing of WTC 7 and the Windsor? Were they the same kind? same quantity? same metrics of effectiveness? They were decades apart in their manufacture and application.

...and I understand this is a thread on WTC7 but since Dr.Popes opinion on the lack of fire proofing causing the collapse of the Windsor "all makes perfect sense" then how do you reconcile the major implications that has for WTC1&2 since there was a noted lack of fireproofing after impacts.

 

[Cairenn]

Well, Lee took a jab at me also. Him and others seem to be having trouble understanding that soft in a metal is not the same thing as soft in pillow and that heating a metal can alter it's 'softness'.

I have taken tool steel and altered it to make a chasing tool. To do that I had to soften it, then reharden it, then I had to 'draw' some of that stiffness out. It seems that they don't understand how making a sword is important.

Oh well.

 

[Jazzy]

Well, Lee took a jab at me also. Him and others seem to be having trouble understanding that soft in a metal is not the same thing as soft in pillow and that heating a metal can alter it's 'softness'.

I have taken tool steel and altered it to make a chasing tool. To do that I had to soften it, then reharden it, then I had to 'draw' some of that stiffness out. It seems that they don't understand how making a sword is important.

Oh well.

Dinnae fash yersen.

 

[Grieves]

The speed of the train was 92 mph and that of the falling WTC1 panels would have been 120 mph at Gzero.

What does a train-engine loaded with fuel crashing explosively with a shipping container have to do with the ability of falling debris to spontaneously erupt into flame by striking building 7? Your initial claim wasn't that the falling debris struck compressed explosive materials, it was that falling debris striking building 7 at the speed of free-fall could well result in the ignition of fires without accelerant... that the friction itself would produce flame enough for spreading fires. That's not what's happening in the video you show in the slightest. That's a fuel-laden vehicle exploding.

​
A superheated bolt of steel being fired at incredible speeds at a thick concrete wall. Not so much as a spark upon impact.


The irony of the highly bullying attitudes while accusing others of rudeness is hopefully not lost on passive readers.

 

[Oxymoron]

Interesting opinion. Too bad its false- if the bullet hits the brain stem its likely they willl die but some do get shot "straight through the middle of the brain" and survive.:

While the first three bullets hit her arm, the fourth went through her nose, heading up through her cranium and reaching all the way to the back of her skull,

Content from External Source

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...g-victim-who-took-a-bullet-through-her-brain/

This is not personal AFAIAC, I have thanked you on many occasions for posting interesting stuff. I don't really want to get distracted off topic but it is interesting that the link above is claiming a miracle, when it is no such thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/aurora-shooting-survivor-_n_1695792.html

Three shotgun pellets hit Anderson's arm and another went through her nose -- riding up the back of her cranium and hitting the back of her skull.

Strait, who was in the hospital during the young woman's surgery, added that doctors were worried that Anderson's injuries could impair her speech, motor and cognitive abilities.
But incredibly, during the five-hour surgery, doctors soon found that Anderson's brain sustained very little damage and the pellet was removed cleanly.

Content from External Source

So clearly we are talking here about a little shotgun pellet, which did not go through the middle of her brain and clearly posed no life threat and caused little damage. Not to mention she was pretty unique anyway.

The bullet entered at the back of her skull and exited at the front

Content from External Source

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12148446

(From same source). The bullet entered at the back of her skull and exited at the front, travelling through the left side of her brain - which controls speech among other things. Beating the odds Dr Rhee told reporters that Ms Giffords was fortunate that the bullet had stayed on one side and had not hit areas of the brain that are almost always fatal. Surgeons also did not have to remove much dead brain tissue, another positive sign.

So again, not the same as passing through the middle of the brain. More akin to someone who has something miss a vital artery or organ by a fraction of an inch.

There are many instances of brain trauma where people have survived. One very noted one is where a farm worker impaled himself on a pitchfork. The consequence of which was that it changed his personality from an aggressive and violent disposition to a docile nature... which was the precurser to the extensive use of the process known as Frontal Lobotomy'.

I do understand the point you are making regarding Dr. Popes opinion of the fire-proofing- its a logical assumption. I was merely pointing out the FACT that fire HAS caused steel buildings to collapse- if not fully.

That's great, I am really pleased you acknowledge it.

I agree there are differences in design but I reiterate they are comparable, (as evidenced), especially the effects of fire on steel, which when properly insulated and protected should not collapse due to fire. Another factor is the robustness of the beams and columns. What collapsed in the Windsor fire was 'unprotected lightweight steel trusses and lightweight steel mullions' Interestingly, on the 9th floor, even though the mullions were not fireproofed they only buckled but did not collapse. These were nothing in comparison to the massive steel columns of 7, which were in pristine condition and extremely well fireproofed.



Windsor Floor 9. Unprotected beam/columns... buckled but not collapsed, inc puny little steel ones in background.






Cardigan Fire Test Facility... What they are researching is how the connections and the steel resist fire. The design is not so important in this as that is taken care of by different processes and should therefore be safe anyway.

Thus, to suggest as some do that since its never happened before (fully) it therefore must be impossible is not accurate. Fire did cause the Windsor to collapse- that it did not collapse more fully was due in large part to the design of the building not merely fireproofing.

But we are evaluating the evidence here are we not. Looking for reasons why 7 collapsed in the way it did. NIST have come up with an explanation, (which has changed numerous times over the years), but many people dispute that reasoning... so let's look objectively at it.

have you compared the fireproofing of WTC 7 and the Windsor? Were they the same kind? same quantity? same metrics of effectiveness? They were decades apart in their manufacture and application.

Like I said, 7's fireproofing was immaculate and well above requirement, (apart from small areas of unprotected beams damaged by falling debris, which NIST admit had no impact on the failure of the building)

See pic... notice the size of the column and beams in comparison to the Windsor ones which survived.



This link goes into technical detail.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm

...and I understand this is a thread on WTC7 but since Dr.Popes opinion on the lack of fire proofing causing the collapse of the Windsor "all makes perfect sense" then how do you reconcile the major implications that has for WTC1&2 since there was a noted lack of fireproofing after impacts.

I am happy to discuss that on another thread but I really want to keep with Mick's wish to stay focused on 7 and whether the fires burned long and hot enough to cause a total collapse, straight down, in a few seconds.

But here are the latest findings

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/official/enr_silverstein1.html

The most comprehensive study yet on the destruction of the World Trade Center concludes that columns robbed of fireproofing failed first--not floor trusses--when the twin 110-story towers collapsed after being hit by terrorist plane attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The proof is in the smoke that emanated from the burning towers before the collapses.

"There is no doubt left about the sequence of failure," says Matthys P. Levy, chairman of Weidlinger Associates Inc., the New York City-based engineer that led the study.
"Failure of the floors...was shown not to have had any significant role in the initiation of the collapses," says the report. Levy describes the floor truss system as "not unsubstantial," acting more like a membrane than a one-way system. "There was nothing wrong with it," he says. If the floor trusses had collapsed first, there would have been a mass of smoke as opposed to differentiated smoke, floor by floor, he adds.

Content from External Source

Unsurprisingly, they disagree with Jazzy's theory and observations that the floors can be seen collapsing through the windows.

Sorry, couldn't resist but Jazzy is cool with it, I know

 

[George B]

OK everyone has had their jabs . . .it is time to refrain from any more references to people or personality . . . the debate can continue on the facts and needs no personal attributes attached . .

 

[SR1419]

This is not personal AFAIAC, I have thanked you on many occasions for posting interesting stuff.

then perhaps its your delivery...the responsibility of adequate conveyance of meaning and intention of your words is yours.

I don't really want to get distracted off topic...

The bullet entered at the back of her skull and exited at the front, travelling through the left side of her brain - which controls speech among other things. Beating the odds Dr Rhee told reporters that Ms Giffords was fortunate that the bullet had stayed on one side and had not hit areas of the brain that are almost always fatal.

Understood- but just to clarify- is almost always the same as "no exceptions"?

I agree there are differences in design but I reiterate they are comparable,

But I fail see how a concrete core and concrete "strong" floors- upon which the collapsed floors came to rest can be considered comparable to WTC7. The fact that lower floors were fireproofed does not speak the collapsing floors coming to rest on the concrete strong floor and not allowing the building to collapse further.

....whether the fires burned long and hot enough to cause a total collapse, straight down, in a few seconds.

I think the characterization of a "few" seconds is inaccurate at best and an intentional misdirection at worst. Its a least a "few" seconds from when the penthouse begins to collapse until the rest of the building begins to go. NIST sees movement 6 seconds before even the penthouse moves...Indeed for the penthouse to collapse that means portions of the building underneath the penthouse were already collapsing.

Some see movement as much as 2 minutes before the initial penthouse collapse:

The collective visual record of the WTC7 collapse is examined directly and independently of all other sources, groups or individuals. The movement of the structure during the initial column failure sequence is mapped and traced back to the earliest point of detectable movement from multiple angles. Features of the initial failure sequence can be understood as a rapid succession of 7 identifiable events occurring in the following order:


1) Movement Detected from 2 Minutes before Collapse
2) Increase of rocking 6 seconds before visible collapse
3) Ejections and overpressurizations
4) Collapse of the East Penthouse
5) Collective core failure
6) Perimeter response
7) Acceleration downward

Content from External Source

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=314&MMN_position=652:652


this video suggests 17 seconds for entire collapse- although the last few seconds are questionable as the dust shroud covers any specific understanding of what is taking place the the video keeps counting but still- more than a "few" seconds by any standard definition of a "few"

​

 

[Jazzy]

What does a train-engine loaded with fuel crashing explosively with a shipping container have to do with the ability of falling debris to spontaneously erupt into flame by striking building 7?

1. The train wasn't "loaded with fuel".
2. The crash wasn't "explosive", but merely an impact.
3. Falling debris doesn't "spontaneously erupt into flame" unless it is a meteorite doing several miles per second.

Your initial claim wasn't that the falling debris struck compressed explosive materials

If I didn't write that, why bother implying that I did?

it was that falling debris striking building 7 at the speed of free-fall

"Free-fall" is a state, not a speed. (It must be hard to be reasonable without a reasonable mode of expression).

could well result in the ignition of fires without accelerant

Yes. Steel makes sparks, which are burning yellow-hot fragments of iron. They can easily set fire to soft furnishings. Padding and foam burns like gasoline. An office already has built-in "accelerants".

that the friction itself would produce flame enough for spreading fires

Yes.

That's not what's happening in the video you show in the slightest. That's a fuel-laden vehicle exploding.

It was an impact test. The aim was to produce a specific impact of the sort that might occur in a transport accident. The train would have had enough fuel to achieve impact speed, and no more. There wouldn't be any point.

​
A superheated bolt of steel being fired at incredible speeds at a thick concrete wall. Not so much as a spark upon impact.

1. It wasn't "superheated". A railgun uses a magnetic linear motor to accelerate any conductor. The bolt wasn't even made of iron. It certainly didn't start off superheated.
2. Pardon me, but there was a lot of "flame" about. Was it too quick for you?
3. An office isn't a "thick concrete wall".

The irony of the highly bullying attitudes while accusing others of rudeness is hopefully not lost on passive readers.

I'm contradicting, not bullying. I have accused no-one of rudeness, therefore there is no irony.

My original point remains that a heavy impact by seventy-ton section of steel creates fire with its impact energy, with the flask test to demonstrate a similar impact speed. The video shows flames generated everywhere in the vicinity, albeit briefly.

You take the time out to be critical of my post with the flimsiest of misdirection, and then the flimsiest of smears. You are obviously really determined not to be persuaded, as well as lacking the tools to persuade.

The reason why you find yourself contradicted, and feel yourself insulted, is that you are [...]. If you find yourself disagreeably dissonant, you should try being correct. You might like it.

 

[Jazzy]

The most comprehensive study yet on the destruction of the World Trade Center concludes that columns robbed of fireproofing failed first--not floor trusses--when the twin 110-story towers collapsed after being hit by terrorist plane attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The proof is in the smoke that emanated from the burning towers before the collapses. "There is no doubt left about the sequence of failure," says Matthys P. Levy, chairman of Weidlinger Associates Inc., the New York City-based engineer that led the study. "Failure of the floors...was shown not to have had any significant role in the initiation of the collapses," says the report. Levy describes the floor truss system as "not unsubstantial," acting more like a membrane than a one-way system. "There was nothing wrong with it," he says. If the floor trusses had collapsed first, there would have been a mass of smoke as opposed to differentiated smoke, floor by floor, he adds.

Content from External Source

Unsurprisingly, they disagree with Jazzy's theory and observations that the floors can be seen collapsing through the windows. Sorry, couldn't resist but Jazzy is cool with it, I know

They would, if I made them when I was talking about WTC 1 & 2. There are several things wrong with the above report. The NIST Report clearly shows photographs showing detached floors immediately before collapse. You can see their catenary shapes.

But I was talking about what letsrollforums said about WTC 7.



Must I point out that the only way light could be appearing through the east face windows would be if there were nothing behind them? Yes, I must, it seems.

I really want to keep with Mick's wish to stay focused on 7

Then you're not hacking it, are you?

So far all you have said that was on-topic was that WTC7's column 79 was big and insulated.

The rest was misdirection. Thanks.

 

[Oxymoron]

They would, if I made them when I was talking about WTC 1 & 2. There are several things wrong with the above report. The NIST Report clearly shows photographs showing detached floors immediately before collapse. You can see their catenary shapes.

You mean bowed from thermal expansion? melting...contraction ... which theory is it today.
And you resisted posting these wonderful pictures why?

But I was talking about what letsrollforums said about WTC 7.



Must I point out that the only way light could be appearing through the east face windows would be if there were nothing behind them? Yes, I must, it seems.

Excellent work Jazzy. We used to have '7 collapsed internally over an extended period and only the facade/skin was left so that's why it fell so uniformly and quickly'... but we have now moved on with the new and improved 'oh the back fell first whilst no one was looking and that's why the facade fell so quickly and straight'. NIST didn't test for that, which is presumably why they didn't find any evidence. When are you planning on revealing this to NIST... they will be sooooo pleased... ROFLMFAO.

But wait, do you have any evidence other than a few lightish pixels in a shitty pic and an Walter Mitty type imagination? I mean... they could be anything... disturbed owls flying out...explosions... fire...reflections... dust the list goes on... But no I forgot... you will simply tell them who you are and what you say is always right... blah blah... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Then you're not hacking it, are you?

Says the guy who keeps posting totally unrelated videos of balls clacking together, choo choo trains and bits of wood on springs... keep it up... all to your usual standard.... pure garbage.

So far all you have said that was on-topic was that WTC7's column 79 was big and insulated. Thanks.

Yep that's excellent.... really pleased you finally managed to learn something.... pictures really are a good teaching aid... hope the big arrows and the 79 helped... carry on learning this fast and who knows where you may end up