|
Post by turbonium on Nov 2, 2005 0:13:40 GMT -4
The Cardington tests resulted in no collapses of the steel framed structures tested. BHP of Australia has conducted many similar tests to steel framed buildings - such as the Collins Street fire tests and the William Street fire tests. No collapses resulted. A German fire test in 1985, was conducted on a four storey steel-framed demonstration building. No collapse resulted.
Fires in steel framed buildings such as Broadgate and Churchill Plaza in the UK, and the Meridien in Philadelphia, and all others on record, have never resulted in a single collapse.
No real world fire or test fire of steel framed buildings has ever resulted in the complete collapse that occurred three times on that single day of 9/11. Fires have shown various steel components to distort or deform in some of these examples, but the structure has never failed to result in a single complete collapse.
If NIST really wants to prove this actually happened 3 times on 9/111, why don't they conduct tests with actual steel framed models? If all these other tests have been done, why do they only resort to computer simulations? Prove the "CT's" wrong and build the real models to reproduce the complete and near free fall collapses from fire!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 19, 2005 2:20:26 GMT -4
It's easy to claim the the sulphur came from "high grade explosives" but he's not able to name one that has sulphur in it. At least our claims or when the sulphur and heat came from actually make sense, his claims just don't make any sense at all, yet he clings onto them for dear life. I really don't understand it. In fact instead of finally ndding and noting that he is likely wrong, his theories just keep getting wilder and have less supporting evidence."Wilder" theories? LOL! What claims of yours regarding the sulfur and heat (molten steel) make sense? Sulfur and sulfur compunds are used as components of explosives and as catalysts in explosives.This link www.crrel.usace.army.mil/techpub/CRREL_Reports/reports/TR-01-15.pdf is to a pdf file. Look at page 16 of the file (pg. 9 of the report). There is sulfur used in an M821E1 high energy explosive cartridge. The filler is RDX/TNT. Sulfur is also used with TNT as a catalyst. And TNT and RDX, in this report, are also cited as "the two most commonly used military explosives in projectiles, bombs, land mines, or other waepons". (see page 13 of pdf file, pg. 6 of report). Here's another link www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9704a/13negret.htm which details an investigation of residues consisting of both sulfur based explosives and RDX/HMX. Wild theories......
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 18, 2005 3:24:59 GMT -4
Just to clarify the PM article. I have said it is deliberately misleading, in my view. That is of course not something that can be proven without knowing the actual intent of the author. That is why I added that the intent to mislead was only my opinion. That it is misleading is also my view, and I stand by that as well. It is also open to personal opinion on whether the material is presented in such a context.
Thus it falls to the reporter to try to make a coherent summary of what many people said under many different assumptions and in many different contexts.
And, that is actually the main problem I have with this section of the article. I find it to be basically a collection of disjointed comments and scattered points which do not help to describe the actual fires nor the temperatures either in general or through specfic points.
As a major issue regarding the collapses, the PM author "debunking" of various points about the fires and temperatures only addressed the issue of melted steel, which was, as I mentioned earlier, first brought up by "official" experts as the cause of the collapses. There were no other points mentioned which are in dispute regarding the fires.
On the whole, the PM article chooses to focus on "out there" claims regarding 'pods' and such. The author did not address the many more relevant and solidly supported discrepancies about 9/11's official story. The article fails profoundly to live up to the claim of it's title.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 18, 2005 1:06:33 GMT -4
you categorically reject their findings suggesting higher temperatures at the building core and elsewhere, simply because the temperatures contemplated in the model could not be observed directly.
More important, these temperatures were also not found to have been reached from all the steel samples they collected. We previously discussed that these samples were sufficient, in NIST's view, to investigate and analyze the collapses.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 18, 2005 0:53:37 GMT -4
You have no evidence that the intention of the article was to mislead. The article does not claim that those were the temperatures reached by the WTC fires; the steel does not have to lose half its strength to have failed under the WTC conditions.
No, it does in fact make that claim - read the relevant section below. This is exactly how the section was posted in the article. The only temperature cited as occurring within the towers is that "pockets of fire hit 1832F".
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
The second last paragraph says that the jet fuel (800 to 1500F) "inferno" became "intensified" by the building contents, even up to 1832F in some "pockets of fire"! This is very misleading, in my view. The fires are described as a raging inferno with extremely high temperature fires throughout the affected sections of the buildings!
The 1832F "pockets" cited can also therefore appear to the reader to have made some of the steel to be "at 1800F...less than 10 percent" of its strength!
To remind us of what the actual NIST report stated...
Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC.
The PM article fails to mention these points. If the article was posted before the NIST report, it did not make an update to include these points, either. Well, no doubt - they hardly serve to strengthen the original misleading article!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 17, 2005 22:33:19 GMT -4
You said the 1975 fire damaged the WTC's core but the NYT article you posted only said that wiring there was damaged.
No, I never said the 1975 fire damaged the WTC's core - I said the fire spread among floors through a wiring shaft.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 17, 2005 22:24:27 GMT -4
You keep on insisting that the official story it that fire alone brought the towers down. That is not what that said. It was a combination of structural damage and the fire.
Not structural damage, but supposedly only dislodged fireproofing...... The NIST report specifically claims that the fires caused the collapses of the towers (as well as WTC 7, which no plane hit). See below how they explain the actual cause of the collapses - specifically through unprotected steel exposed to fire.
NIST’s Draft Summary Report stated (pp. 171-172):
The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, perimeter columns, and floors. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation and the subsequent multifloor fires. …
In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as the south wall buckled. The top section of the building titled to the south and began its descent. …
In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner …. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. …
The WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
There is no evidence, as I said earlier, of what, if any, or how much fireproofing was dislodged. Nor is there any evidence of fires being specifically in contact with unprotected steel, nor for what length of time. The Cardington Tests showed unprotected steel structures did not fail in fires that lasted as long as the WTC fires. All the steel in those tests was unprotected, as well. And the initial impact point fires did not last for very long - they were areas people could walk on well before the collapse.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 17, 2005 21:55:32 GMT -4
*guess*Removal of fire-proofing material from the steel as a result of natural decay over time and the blast effects of the plane's impact?*/guess*
But one hour of exposure to unprotected steel in the Cardington Tests did not cause structural failure. And, we don't have any evidence that any, or even to what degree, fireproofing was dislodged, nor if any theoretically unprotected steel was exposed to fires for any significant period of time. The fires burned and moved on to other areas, and even the initial impact area shows that the steel had cooled enough to walk on - as seen in a previous photo on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 17, 2005 21:43:42 GMT -4
The PM article cites experts as stating the fire burned as hot as 1800 degrees, the 1100 degree point would have been reached easily jet fuel burns at 1500. It you have any evidence to the contrary lets hear it.
First, since you are the one making this claim, you need to provide evidence to support it.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 17, 2005 21:35:59 GMT -4
how explosives lead to high temperatures over many days, pools of molten metal, burning people, and sulphation of the steel.Don't worry, PW - your question is not akin to the plague! I had thought this was covered in this thread previously, even by others mentioning the nature of various explosives, incendiaries, and their characteristics. But to re-address the issue... There are various high grade explosives and/or incendiaries which can result in the things you mention. C4, thermite, even mini hydrogen bombs, as proposed in this link www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htmSulfidation can be the result of explosives made of sulfur compounds, or with sulfur as an incendiary, in a high temperature interaction between sulfur and metals, such as steel. Molten steel can result from the use of thermite, and certain high grade explosives that produce temperatures high enough to cause steel to melt. The evidence - of both molten steel and long lasting high temperatures - has yet to be explained as possible through any means other than the use of explosives. But independent investigations, of the molten steel and other steel and material debris, are sorely needed to conclusively prove the use of explosives.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 17, 2005 20:28:59 GMT -4
I still can't tell from turbonium if he believes:
A) Steel doesn't weaken when heated.
B) Steel does weaken, but not enough in the temperatures of an ordinary fire to constitute a hazard to steel-framed structures.
C) Steel does weaken in ordinary fires and is capable of damaging structures, but those conditions did not exist in the WTC complex (a combination of a more complex/robust structure and the non-existance of a major fire).
Or;
D) A fire did rage in WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, weakening their structure, but insufficiently to account for the eventual collapse of one or more of those structures.
A) Of course steel can weaken when heated. B) This is where the Cardington Fire Tests can be cited - the fires did cause unprotected steel to eventually sag but no structural failures resulted. C) The 1975 WTC fires can be cited as a previous example of what happens during a 3 hour fire. There was indeed no structural steel damage to the building. The 9/11 fires were more widespread, but only lasted about 1 hour. The temperatures of each fire would not vary to any significant degree, as they both were fed by the contents of the building - furniture, rugs, etc. So a 1 hour fire would not weaken steel if a 3 hour fire in the same building did not. If it could, I would like an explanation as to how this would be possible. D) As would be deduced from my previous points, I do not agree this occurred as a result of the 9/11 fires. The structural damage to the steel in the towers was only what resulted from the initial plane impacts.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 17, 2005 20:16:41 GMT -4
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stmThe above link is to a BBC article which quotes "experts" regarding the WTC collapses. They claim that the steel melted, which led to the collapses! This claim was later retracted and modified by others who claimed the steel did not melt, but weakened enough to initiate the collapses. That claim is also without supporting evidence. " It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.
"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."
The buildings' construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved them from the inferno.
"The buildings would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said.
I would have given the order to get out - you would have thought someone with technical expertise would have been advising them
Professor John Knapton, Newcastle University "But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire." "Experts" can be wrong, no matter what side of the argument they are supporting. That's why I want to stick to the facts - what the actual claims being made are, and whether they are in fact supported by the evidence, and by the well known facts regarding properties of fires, steel, etc.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 17, 2005 20:05:03 GMT -4
Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." '
Again, the PM article cites this quote with the intention of misleading the reader about the actual temperatures reached by the WTC fires. These points are simply made without relating them to the WTC fires, because they do not relate to those fires.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 15, 2005 16:54:33 GMT -4
What utter nonsense.
You asked if there were any civil engineers and architects who agreed with my view, and so I posted some, You immediately tried to discredit them without even knowing who they are, what their entire reasoning is, or try innuendo tactics regarding where they went to college or where the source came from.
What a crock - I could do the same thing. Show me the names that support your argument - I'll be able to make the same irrelevant attack on all of them, too.
Stick to the facts. If there is a specific point they raise that you think you can disprove, then by all means try and do so. But as for the rest of it, don't even bother.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 15, 2005 3:03:47 GMT -4
|
|