Is she a CT's best friend, or worst enemy?

[Grand Lunar]

sts60 said:

Solid fuel fires also start (inevitable in a building with office supplies).
The fire rages for hours. The temperature difference leads to a deformation in the steel frame, which eventually causes structural failure.

Nit-picks:
- "solid fuel" generally means solid propellant (i.e., rocket fuel) in the engineering world. But given the very high thermal energy produced by modern synthetic materials when they burn, it's maybe apropos to describe office contents ;-)
- a temperature difference isn't required to deform a steel frame. If you heat a steel beam, it will expand to some degree. If you heat it enough, it can expand enough to apply damaging types and amounts of loads to other parts of the structure, as well as becoming weaker itself. Even if the whole beam was raised to the same temperature.

Yeah, I figured that my use of solid fuel would mean that of an SRB (or similarly fueled rocket). I simply used that term to simply the idea of fuel for a Class A fire.

For the second nitpick, I recalled what I read from something called "An Engineer's Analysis of 9/11" (I believe that's what the title was. I may be wrong). I don't remember the link. A web search might yield a result.
Anyway, it did mention that a deformation caused by uneven heating played a major role in the collapses of the WTCs (it was non-CT, BTW).

[Grand Lunar]

3onthetree said:

Good news everyone, Steven Jones has agreed to appear on the View with our hero Rosie to discuss building seven's collapse.

So because she endorses erroneous thinking, Rosie's a hero now?
And more misconceptions are going to be talked over with Steven Jones?

You call this good news?

Check out the Kader Toy Factory Fire in the mid 90's. Three Steel framed buildings all collapsed within 2 hours from what started as a small fire. No planes needed.

What an I supposed to see, besides the cage elevators that allowed the flamed to spread vertically unimpeded and the fact that this was a four story factory fire fanned by strong winds with the inability of firefighters to respond quickly due to the remoteness of the plant and the Bangkok traffic. Does a four story factory building qualify as a high rise office tower.

You miss the point.
This shows how a steel framed building can be brought down by fire alone.
I understand it. Why don't (or can't) you?

[LunarOrbit]

3onthetree said:

Good news everyone, Steven Jones has agreed to appear on the View with our hero Rosie to discuss building seven's collapse.

If that's true then I would say that ABC must be planning on competing with FOX for the "worst credibility on TV" award.

[3onthetree]

You miss the point.
This shows how a steel framed building can be brought down by fire alone.
I understand it. Why don't (or can't) you?
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged

Oh I get the point all right, the Kader toy factory fire had it's own little cover up. The factory was shoddily built had no sprinkler system, no insulation, no fire standards were in place on top of the fact that the buildings were full of combustibles and exploited Disney slaves.
Is the fact that steel was a component the only bloody thing you have here.?

[Retrograde]

grandlunar1980 said:

So because she endorses erroneous thinking, Rosie's a hero now?
And more misconceptions are going to be talked over with Steven Jones?

You call this good news?

It makes me want to fall down laughing now that these folks are likely to choose Rosie O'Donnell as their standard bearer. . .

[Grand Lunar]

3onthetree said:

You miss the point.
This shows how a steel framed building can be brought down by fire alone.
I understand it. Why don't (or can't) you?
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged

Oh I get the point all right, the Kader toy factory fire had it's own little cover up. The factory was shoddily built had no sprinkler system, no insulation, no fire standards were in place on top of the fact that the buildings were full of combustibles and exploited Disney slaves.
Is the fact that steel was a component the only bloody thing you have here.?

So now you're claiming cover up?
I suppose if a relatively new steel building with fire suppression systems that were up to code were to suffer a fire and collapse, you'd claim that being a result of a cover up too, huh?
Show me your evidence for your claims.

Oh yes, do you also consider the diesel fuel and office supplies that were in WTC 7 combustibles as well?

[Grand Lunar]

kos said:

grandlunar1980 said:

So because she endorses erroneous thinking, Rosie's a hero now?
And more misconceptions are going to be talked over with Steven Jones?

You call this good news?

It makes me want to fall down laughing now that these folks are likely to choose Rosie O'Donnell as their standard bearer. . .

Also makes one wonder who else will jump on the wagon.

[feelfree222]

spitfireix said:

John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.”

The 707 and the 767 do indeed have similar zero-fuel weights. However, the speed limit for aircraft operating near the World Trade Center was (and still is) 200 kts. Also, the 707 analysis presumed that the aircraft would only have had a few thousand pounds of fuel aboard. The 767s that struck the WTC 1 and WTC 2 were traveling at at least 400 kts, and had large quantities of fuel remaining. So they were traveling at least twice as fast, with a mass about 25% greater than expected, which means their kinetic energy was at least five times as great as planned for,

It is also well know that High Rise Skyscrapper are build to be 5 time more resistant than necessary.

spitfireix said:

and the fires were much worse.

You mean that the ball of fire was more bigger with a full tank.
The intensity of the fires is caused by
the amount of burning material initiated by the explosion and the spilling of the kerosene. -Thus the intensity of the fires is limited by the amount of office furnitures and the nature of the material used in that furnitures-. Right?

Edited for spelling and precision

[frenat]

feelfree222 said:

It is also well know that High Rise Skyscrapper are build to be 5 time more resistant than necessary.

Got any proof for this BS statement?

[feelfree222]

frenat said:

feelfree222 said:

It is also well know that High Rise Skyscrapper are build to be 5 time more resistant than necessary.

Got any proof for this BS statement?

ask Jay about the following statement...
"standard building design specifications require that structures be able tobear five times their maximum theoretical static load (20% = 1/5). This means that even if all the steelin a building reached an internal temp of 720˚C, the building would still be able to carry its maximumload"

911research.wtc7.net/materials/contrib/911_physics_v9a.htm
Excerpts:
The structures:

Structural steel has been used in the construction of buildings, bridges, towers, etc. for well over100 years and its characteristics and behavior under adverse conditions have been well tested andanalyzed over this long period of time. The greatest risks to any building (apart from military attacksand severe earthquakes) are fire, high winds and accidental airplane collisions. Consequently, muchresearch and engineering design testing have been done over the years to assure that buildings especially high-rises - can withstand these adversities. Based on this history, here are a few thingsthat are known:

1) In order for structural steel to literally melt and change state into a flowing liquid its internal temperature (as opposed to the surrounding temperature) must be raised to 1538˚C (2800˚F).

2) The strength of steel is correlated to its internal temperature at a given moment. While internaltemperature will gradually rise during prolonged exposure to constant high temperature, if thetemperature stabilizes the steel will not continue to weaken as a cumulative effect. As its temperaturechanges - either up or down - its strength also changes accordingly.

3) At high internal temperatures below the melting point, steel can lose its load bearing strengthand rigidity and become subject to bending, sagging, etc. Much well documented testing has been

done over the years to determine these temperatures in order to predict the behavior of steelstructures in intense fire scenarios. To summarize the significant consensus of these tests, thestrength of steel is reduced to 20% of normal when it reaches an internal temperature of around720˚C (1328˚F).

This is significant because standard building design specifications require that structures be able tobear five times their maximum theoretical static load (20% = 1/5). This means that even if all the steelin a building reached an internal temp of 720˚C, the building would still be able to carry its maximumload. Since maximum theoretical loads rarely occur, the temperature in a typical situation couldprobably go significantly higher before failure would occur.

For example, fire tests carried out in the 1990's at the Building Research Establishment test facilityat Cardington in Bedfordshire, UK showed that the performance of whole buildings can exceed theperformance of its parts. An 8-story closed test structure was subjected to atmospheric temperaturesof 1200˚C (2192˚F), causing unprotected steel beams to eventually reach internal temperatures over1100˚C (2012˚F). This caused deformations in some of the steel but no structural collapse took place.Keep in mind that real fires in closed spaces can't be sustained due to oxygen starvation.

4) One of steel's best qualities and a major reason it is used in building construction is its ability todissipate heat quickly and stand up unscathed in even the worst "towering inferno" conflagrationson record. Open test structures were subjected to prolonged and intense fires of up to 1200˚C(2192˚F) in an international study of structural steel car parks. Internal steel temperatures neverreached higher than 360˚C (680˚F). This is an important number to remember for later when we look at the various collapse theories.

5) The Towers were designed to withstand an impact from the largest commercial aircraft that were inuse at the time they were built. Contrary to initial reports, the airplanes on 9/11 were not significantlylarger than this, and the jet aircraft of those days carried jet fuel just like they do now. Buildingsurvival is accomplished through redundancy and dynamic redistribution of loads to the survivingparts of the structure.

[Grand Lunar]

feelfree222 said:

ask Jay about the following statement...
"standard building design specifications require that structures be able tobear five times their maximum theoretical static load (20% = 1/5). This means that even if all the steelin a building reached an internal temp of 720˚C, the building would still be able to carry its maximumload"

A static load refers to the weight baring capability of the building (or any other structure/device that is meant to hold a load), not its thermal characteristics.

1) In order for structural steel to literally melt and change state into a flowing liquid its internal temperature (as opposed to the surrounding temperature) must be raised to 1538˚C (2800˚F).

What is the relevance of this point?
Steel didn't melt at the WTCs.

5) The Towers were designed to withstand an impact from the largest commercial aircraft that were inuse at the time they were built. Contrary to initial reports, the airplanes on 9/11 were not significantlylarger than this, and the jet aircraft of those days carried jet fuel just like they do now. Buildingsurvival is accomplished through redundancy and dynamic redistribution of loads to the survivingparts of the structure.

Problem is the difference in the planned speeds and fuel levels.
The WTCs were planned to survive a 707 that's low on fuel, and finding a runway, likely lost in fog, going at about 200 knots.
The planes that struck the WTCs were going nearly full speed (about 500 knots) at had a full load of fuel on board.

Close, but no cigar this time.

[feelfree222]

grandlunar1980 said:

feelfree222 said:

ask Jay about the following statement...
"standard building design specifications require that structures be able tobear five times their maximum theoretical static load (20% = 1/5). This means that even if all the steelin a building reached an internal temp of 720˚C, the building would still be able to carry its maximumload"

A static load refers to the weight baring capability of the building (or any other structure/device that is meant to hold a load), not its thermal characteristics.

You miss point 3 and 4
3) At high internal temperatures below the melting point, steel can lose its load bearing strengthand rigidity and become subject to bending, sagging, etc. Much well documented testing has been

done over the years to determine these temperatures in order to predict the behavior of steelstructures in intense fire scenarios. To summarize the significant consensus of these tests, thestrength of steel is reduced to 20% of normal when it reaches an internal temperature of around720˚C (1328˚F).

This is significant because standard building design specifications require that structures be able tobear five times their maximum theoretical static load (20% = 1/5). This means that even if all the steelin a building reached an internal temp of 720˚C, the building would still be able to carry its maximumload. Since maximum theoretical loads rarely occur, the temperature in a typical situation couldprobably go significantly higher before failure would occur.

For example, fire tests carried out in the 1990's at the Building Research Establishment test facilityat Cardington in Bedfordshire, UK showed that the performance of whole buildings can exceed theperformance of its parts. An 8-story closed test structure was subjected to atmospheric temperaturesof 1200˚C (2192˚F), causing unprotected steel beams to eventually reach internal temperatures over1100˚C (2012˚F). This caused deformations in some of the steel but no structural collapse took place.Keep in mind that real fires in closed spaces can't be sustained due to oxygen starvation.

4) One of steel's best qualities and a major reason it is used in building construction is its ability todissipate heat quickly and stand up unscathed in even the worst "towering inferno" conflagrationson record. Open test structures were subjected to prolonged and intense fires of up to 1200˚C(2192˚F) in an international study of structural steel car parks. Internal steel temperatures neverreached higher than 360˚C (680˚F). This is an important number to remember for later when we look at the various collapse theories

grandlunar1980 said:

1) In order for structural steel to literally melt and change state into a flowing liquid its internal temperature (as opposed to the surrounding temperature) must be raised to 1538˚C (2800˚F).
What is the relevance of this point?
Steel didn't melt at the WTCs.

That was for -Gillian- who think that the steel used in WTC is comparable to the steel of a horse shoe.

Edited to fix a quote

[feelfree222]

grandlunar1980 said:

feelfree222 said:

5) The Towers were designed to withstand an impact from the largest commercial aircraft that were inuse at the time they were built. Contrary to initial reports, the airplanes on 9/11 were not significantlylarger than this, and the jet aircraft of those days carried jet fuel just like they do now. Buildingsurvival is accomplished through redundancy and dynamic redistribution of loads to the survivingparts of the structure.

Problem is the difference in the planned speeds and fuel levels.
The WTCs were planned to survive a 707 that's low on fuel, and finding a runway, likely lost in fog, going at about 200 knots.
The planes that struck the WTCs were going nearly full speed (about 500 knots) at had a full load of fuel on board.

Close, but no cigar this time.

The WTCs were planned to survive a 707 that's low on fuel, and finding a runway, likely lost in fog, going at about 200 knots.
I want to see the official reference made by the WTC leading engineers about that allegation.

[3onthetree]

Look it up yourself, I'm done with Phantoms factory fire in the jungle. While your at it sign this petition and stop that Evil Rosie.

www.stoprosieendamerica.com/

[LunarOrbit]

3onthetree said:

While your at it sign this petition and stop that Evil Rosie.

www.stoprosieendamerica.com/

Free speech is fine. I don't have a problem with it. But there's this little thing called "responsibility", maybe you've heard of it. Responsibility means verifying your facts before going on national TV and accusing people of crimes.

"I don't know who did it... <nudge> <nudge> <wink> <wink>"

Sure, Rosie. We believe you when you say you don't know who did it.

The responsible way of handling this, if she really has questions about 9/11, is to have a balanced discussion by presenting BOTH sides.