|
Post by turbonium on Oct 15, 2005 1:41:10 GMT -4
We actually do have a relevant comparison available - the WTC fire in 1975. The North Tower had a fire which burned for three hours, over half the 11th floor, and within a cable shaft from the 9th to 16th floors. This was before sprinkler systems were installed. Most important to note - despite burning three times longer than the 9/11 tower fires, and "flames could be seen pouring out 11th floor windows", the integrity of the building was never compromised. The steel did not weaken, warp, or expand in any way. The main damage was from water and smoke.. And there was no structural steel support damage.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 15, 2005 1:07:10 GMT -4
I agree, but I am not comparing furniture factory to WTC. I am citing it as a counterexample to the claim that fire has not failed steel construction by heat alone, therefore it is plausible to argue that heat from the fires could have failed the remainder of the already-compromised WTC structural system.
No - the claim is that no steel framed structure, specifically no steel framed high-rise building, has ever completely collapsed due to fire. That is the example for which you did not provide. No claim was made regarding a building collapsing that contained a single steel component, which is the example you did provide.
But if you agree that the comparison is invalid..
So are you then claiming your comparison is actually not a valid one?
...then you must concede that whether or not any other steel building before or since has failed due to thermal loading is irrelevant to whether WTC 1, 2, or 7 failed by thermal loading, because it would depend on the precise structural characteristics, materials, and the heat load -- all of which vary greatly from instance to instance.
There are of course many differences among the tens of thousands of currently existing steel framed buildings in the US, let alone throughout the world. WTC 7 was structurally different than WTC 1 and 2. And even the towers were not identical in construction. But despite these thousands of steel framed highrises, with their thousand variations, only three have ever collapsed completely from fire - on 9/11.
So, if we argue that every steel framed structure will react in their own unique way in a fire, we have to also say that fire caused three different steel framed structures to completely collapse on only one day in history.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 14, 2005 1:06:51 GMT -4
Why is that irrelevant to whether WTC steel structural members may have failed under similar circumstances?
I had only first pointed out that your example was not of a steel framed structure. But there are reasons why the comparison is also irrelevant......
Because we have two very different structures, with different materials used in each.
Because, as the Cardington Fire Tests (and others) have concluded, a steel structure has greater resistance to fire than any of its individual steel components, due to redundancy in the assembly, among other factors. To wit, your example had only a single steel component, the trusses, subjected to fire, whereas the towers had its trusses connected to other steel components, which would provide greater resistance to fire as a whole.
Even comparing steel truss to steel truss is problematic.. Just because the building you mentioned had steel trusses that failed due to fire does not mean that every steel truss in every building in the world will also fail if exposed to a similar fire. Each building had trusses of very different properties - grade of steel, weight, dimension, etc., and how each truss was fire protected.
The comparison does not hold weight (pardon the pun). There are far too many differences between the structures to be even remotely relevant. I had previously been criticzed for comparing the Meridien and Madrid fires to the towers, because of structural differences. Your example goes much further in its comparative differences.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 13, 2005 0:53:41 GMT -4
He said the walls were stone, not concrete, which is of course a composite material. In either case, I was making the point that it was not a steel framed building, which is what he first stated it was. At any rate, it's really a side issue to the main topic - I don't wish to belabor the point.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 12, 2005 21:47:38 GMT -4
And no steel-frame buildings before or after 9/11/2001 have collapsed due to fire.
I saw one.
The walls were stone, but the roof trusses were steel
Then it was not a steel framed building.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 12, 2005 0:58:49 GMT -4
Jones risks becoming a pariah in science not because he has spoken out against the mainstream, but because he has done so in a blatantly unscientific manner. He would lose credibility not because of what he believes, but because of how he has justified that belief.
Perhaps we should give Dr. Jones the benefit of the doubt at this point. He may only be speaking out in more general terms before he's had the time and opportunity to fully develop his theory. He may be seeking assistance from qualified colleagues for advice and/or corrections in his basic argument. I, at least, would like to find out in more detail where he is going with this, or if he feels he has provided enough material to to date to support his thesis.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 12, 2005 0:31:01 GMT -4
I would hope an investigation discovers the truth, whatever that is. If an investigation suggests that explosives were used, then we must root out the people who did it. If it simply collapsed, then we must seek to understand that behavior of the structure. The goal is not to hope for some particular conclusion, but to get it right. A "benign" conclusion that is wrong is simply a false sense of security.Agreed 100%. The truth must be the only goal. I would personally jump for joy if my opinion about 9/11 were proven to be wrong. Nobody with a modicum of sanity wishes for a nation's government which contains elements out to harm its own people. I don't want a witch hunt, I want the truth, through whatever is discovered and wherever the entirety of evidence leads us. I'm very pleased to see that you only want the same. Please excuse the 'cheesy' philosophizing here, but as a whole, I believe in the integrity of the vast majority of the nation's (and world's) citizens, and if there are negative (basically, evil) elements among us, that they will be rooted out through the will of the people. Whether the enemy exists outside the country, or within it. Apologies again for the 'preaching'...
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 11, 2005 23:44:14 GMT -4
If you found that a researcher had been rooting around the Weekly World News to study up on structural dynamics or the history of dentistry, wouldn't that cause you to question his motives and practices?
Agreed - but are you claiming Dr. Jones has a certain motive or agenda behind his argument? And if you think so, what would or could his motive possibly be? I don't see him having much to gain by supporting the controlled demolition argument for some sort of nefarious reason or ulterior motive. He seems to me to be at risk of becoming a pariah within the scientific community for speaking out against the common or official stance to stand up for what he truly believes or at least suspects happened on 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 11, 2005 23:31:50 GMT -4
Every full-scale failure is worthy of deep investigation.
Exactly - which WTC 7 has yet to be subjected to. There must be a great deal we can learn from a full scale investigation into the collapse of WTC 7.
I would hope such an investigation would prove conclusively that only fire caused the collapse, and that there was no conspiracy which included the use of explosives of some sort. But if not, and evidence of explosives were found, that it would spur further investigations into who was involved other than the official 19 hijackers.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 11, 2005 23:09:21 GMT -4
You missed my point - there have been ad hoc demonstrations by other scientists and engineers as well, such as "pancake" theorists (Dr. Eager, for one) who have used simple models to illustrate the basic process for their theory of the collapse. You can say that Eager ignored the standard models as well - but neither Dr. Jones nor Dr. Eager implied or intended their personal models to be an all-encompassing, definitive scientific model of the collapses.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 11, 2005 22:56:33 GMT -4
he's pointing out that it is unusual, which normally is something that would have to be decided by experts. Someone who doesn't have appropriate experience can't give an informed opinion that something is usual. Usuality must be decided by people who are familiar with the field. I don't care what physicists say or what mathematicians say. I want to know what engineers say -- the people who have actually studied buildings and the mechanics and dynamics that go into it.
Then, what do the people who would know think about WTC 7? That it was not an unprecendented engineering failure when WTC 7 collapsed? Which experts can you cite that make that claim? How many experts in the field actually claim it was not an unusual event? And further, that it was not worthy of deeper investigation?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 11, 2005 22:44:34 GMT -4
I reviewed Ryan's work extensively, and I found it to be a lot of bunk
Not to entirely re-post what you previously reviewed, but could you possibly provide a brief synopsis on what you argued against what Ryan said? Or perhaps provide a link to it, if it still exists online?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 11, 2005 22:37:09 GMT -4
I find no evidence in their reports that government researchers ... included Conservation of Momentum in their analyses.
Because it is incorrect to do so.
Why specifically is it incorrect to include Conservation of Momentum in the analyses?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 11, 2005 22:33:43 GMT -4
I am also dismayed to see that he cites one of the prevalent 9/11 conspiracy theory web sites as one of his references.
The references cited have to be judged on the merit of their specific findings and analysis. If The National Enquirer had an article from a highly regarded and validated source does not mean it should be dismissed offhand because of the dubious nature of the publication. The same holds true of a well respected publication posting an article from an unverified and dubious source, or a flimsy and purely speculative point of view.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 11, 2005 22:22:20 GMT -4
In other words, he ignored the standard models and made up his own.
Nothing wrong with creating a new model - the standard models that exist are not the only ones that should or must be used to analyse the collapses.
|
|