Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[jaydeehess]

If he was writing a technical paper he has little more than the title. Plus the first sentence of the Abstract - except that the conditional "if you were to" puts that in doubt -..

Nor an explanation as to why the perpetrators, who cared not a whit about dozens of structures and thousands of lives, would compound the chances of being discovered in their plot by installing explosives in upper floors of WTC 7 just to, supposedly, ensure less collateral damage around #7.

 

[ozeco41]

Nor an explanation as to why the perpetrators, who cared not a whit about dozens of structures and thousands of lives, would compound the chances of being discovered in their plot by installing explosives in upper floors of WTC 7 just to, supposedly, ensure less collateral damage around #7.

Sure. And the list goes on.

But his claim is dead - no point wasting ammunition it won't make it deader.

 

[jay howard]

Yes the model and fire test
Basicly showed it was the loss of
Fireproofing that lead to.the collapses.

Please enlighten us, Chainsaw: when the STEEL itself reaches 800C, what function is the SFRM serving?

It seems it would serve the same function it did before it got hot: acting as an insulation layer. It doesn't care what side the heat is on--steel or air. So, in essence, once the steel reached 800C, the SFRM serves to keep that heat from dissipating as fast as it normally would.

Maybe you'd like to correct my misunderstanding.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Maybe you'd like to correct my misunderstanding.

Already done. The fire.tests were base line for as built fire rating, not an experiment made to replicate the events.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Please enlighten us, Chainsaw: when the STEEL itself reaches 800C, what function is the SFRM serving?

It seems it would serve the same function it did before it got hot: acting as an insulation layer. It doesn't care what side the heat is on--steel or air. So, in essence, once the steel reached 800C, the SFRM serves to keep that heat from dissipating as fast as it normally would.

Maybe you'd like to correct my misunderstanding.

The fire proofing got to 800c not the steel it
Self, which proves properlu protected steel
Will not fail.

 

[jay howard]

Your continued posting of irrational nonsense noted jay howard.

I understand the physics and can explain it - in fact I could also coach you in logic but let's stay with physics for now. I'll repeat my offer:

If you EVER decide to get serious either:
A) respond to my repeated reasoned explanations of why each and every column which failed in axial overload was "hot enough" to fail; OR
B) Respond to my just posted explanation of why load redistribution following a removal of a proportion of columns is always WORSE than the proportion of removed columns.

How are you defining "irrational"?

Do you think it's possible for the steel in the WTC towers to have gotten as hot as it did in the UL truss system burn tests?

If so, what energy source got them that hot? (We know it's impossible for the office materials to have done so in the towers. This was also confirmed by the UL office burn tests.)

If not, how can steel fail at lower temps for less time? (It can't.)

There is a definite lack of rationality around here, but it doesn't take much analysis to see where it's coming from. If you think NIST is correct and there's no reason to doubt the major claims of the report, then how do you account for the energy gap between what's necessary for the steel to fail and the amount of office material available for fuel?

These are NOT rhetorical questions.

 

[jay howard]

Already done. The fire.tests were base line for as built fire rating, not an experiment made to replicate the events.

What difference does it make? Does the intention change the fact that the steel got to 800C for about an hour?

Facts don't care what your intentions are.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

How are you defining "irrational"?

Do you think it's possible for the steel in the WTC towers to have gotten as hot as it did in the UL truss system burn tests?

If so, what energy source got them that hot? (We know it's impossible for the office materials to have done so in the towers. This was also confirmed by the UL office burn tests.)

If not, how can steel fail at lower temps for less time? (It can't.)

There is a definite lack of rationality around here, but it doesn't take much analysis to see where it's coming from. If you think NIST is correct and there's no reason to doubt the major claims of the report, then how do you account for the energy gap between what's necessary for the steel to fail and the amount of office material available for fuel?

These are NOT rhetorical questions.

It has more to do with gravitational loading, and how much steel
Got hot, than absolute temp.
Over 1150C I would suggest as the max,
By the evidence.
Smoke defuse carbon black dust.

 

[JayUtah]

How are you defining "irrational"?

Dragging up a ten-year-old claim that even most Truthers left behind long ago, and presenting it again unmodified as if having marinated in refuted obscurity for so long somehow gives it new scientific validity.

 

[jay howard]

The fire proofing got to 800c not the steel it
Self, which proves properlu protected steel
Will not fail.

This is a lie.

They didn't attach thermocouples to the SFRM. Is that really what you think they did?

 

[jay howard]

It has more to do with gravitational loading, and how much steel
Got hot, than absolute temp.
Over 1150C I would suggest as the max,
By the evidence.
Smoke defuse carbon black dust.

Ok. Gas temps of 1150C for how long? The whole time? In both towers? Half that time? 10 minutes in any given spot?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This is a lie.

They didn't attach thermocouples to the SFRM. Is that really what you think they did?

That is the usual procedure.
The temperature sensors measure surface temperature
of the assembly.
It does not state anywhere that I am fimiliar with,
That the sensors were placed under the insulating layer.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Ok. Gas temps of 1150C for how long? The whole time? In both towers? Half that time? 10 minutes in any given spot?

Close to an hour from observing the videos.
Smoke carbon soot and carbon momoxide
are highly flamible in a tall building like the towers.

 

[Animal]

How are you defining "irrational"?

Making the same claim time and again after being repeatedly shown how wrong you are.

Do you think it's possible for the steel in the WTC towers to have gotten as hot as it did in the UL truss system burn tests?

Insulated steel vs uninsulated steel....on;y a troofer would think it would not.

If so, what energy source got them that hot? (We know it's impossible for the office materials to have done so in the towers. This was also confirmed by the UL office burn tests.)

Personal incredulity and ignorance does not make your fantasy a reality.

If not, how can steel fail at lower temps for less time? (It can't.)

Of course it can......the test was not about real world condition......something you continuously hand wave away.

There is a definite lack of rationality around here, but it doesn't take much analysis to see where it's coming from.

You said that looking in a mirror I expect.

If you think NIST is correct and there's no reason to doubt the major claims of the report, then how do you account for the energy gap between what's necessary for the steel to fail and the amount of office material available for fuel?

These are NOT rhetorical questions.

There is no gap......your personal incredulity does not make your fantasy come true.

 

[jay howard]

That is the usual procedure.
The temperature sensors measure surface temperature
of the assembly.
It does not state anywhere that I am fimiliar with,
That the sensors were placed under the insulating layer.

Can everyone see how Chainsaw feels the need to insert ludicrous statements in order to keep from revising the NIST theory?

I know you're not familiar with this test, because if you read the time/temp curves you would clearly see they are measuring at various places on the steel itself.

For anyone keeping score, he's claiming that the UL scientists responsible for measuring heat at the surface of the steel decided instead to measure the air temperature in the insulation layer around the steel. So, the 800C STEEL temperature (for about an hour) I keep referring to, Chainsaw is saying that's the temps of the air in the insulation. Which of course, is not true. But it serves a purpose:

That keeps him from digesting the fact that the steel did not fail even after almost an hour at 800C. Now we all know that they weren't referring to SFRM temperatures, but the structure of these conversations is such that "debunkers" get to claim any crazy ******** they want in order to keep from making any corrections to the official narrative.

But because Chainsaw knows that these tests disconfirm any kind of heat-induced collapse theory, so he's playing defense as best he can.

And 20 seconds on el Google produces this from NCSTAR 1-5B:

The surface temperature of bare steel trusses that were subject to impingement or proximity of flames from fires with a nominal 3 MW heat release rate reached 600 °C within 15 min. In comparison, the insulated steel trusses with SFRM protection (1.91 cm nominal thickness) reached 100 °C to 200 °C and the truss with 3.81 cm SFRM reached 50 °C to 100 °C after 15 min of exposure to a 3 MW heat release rate fire. After 50 min of exposure to a 3 MW nominal heat release rate, the trusses with SFRM protection (1.91 cm nominal thickness) reached 550 °C to 680 °C and the truss with 3.81 cm SFRM protection reached 415 °C....

For insulated components, the highest temperatures reached at steel surfaces were significantly lower than the temperature at the outside face of the insulation material, even at locations of fiame impingement.

So, either you are unable to read or unwilling. Or you are perpetuating a purposeful misunderstanding. Any way you cut it, you are flat wrong. Maybe they did measure the temperature of the SFRM, but the temperatures I'm talking about were STEEL temps: 800C for about an hour. Loaded to the maximum psf. No failure modes. No way around it.

Stop protecting a bunk theory. If you're a "debunker", this would be a good time to start doing some debunking of the bunk theory in your back pocket.

 

[Spanx]

http://www.journalof911studies.com/index.html

There you go Jay

Just what you are looking for.

So does the above link help you out Jay ?

Or would you say it's a load of rubbish ?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Can everyone see how Chainsaw feels the need to insert ludicrous statements in order to keep from revising the NIST theory?

I know you're not familiar with this test, because if you read the time/temp curves you would clearly see they are measuring at various places on the steel itself.

For anyone keeping score, he's claiming that the UL scientists responsible for measuring heat at the surface of the steel decided instead to measure the air temperature in the insulation layer around the steel. So, the 800C STEEL temperature (for about an hour) I keep referring to, Chainsaw is saying that's the temps of the air in the insulation. Which of course, is not true. But it serves a purpose:

That keeps him from digesting the fact that the steel did not fail even after almost an hour at 800C. Now we all know that they weren't referring to SFRM temperatures, but the structure of these conversations is such that "debunkers" get to claim any crazy ******** they want in order to keep from making any corrections to the official narrative.

But because Chainsaw knows that these tests disconfirm any kind of heat-induced collapse theory, so he's playing defense as best he can.

And 20 seconds on el Google produces this from NCSTAR 1-5B:



So, either you are unable to read or unwilling. Or you are perpetuating a purposeful misunderstanding. Any way you cut it, you are flat wrong. Maybe they did measure the temperature of the SFRM, but the temperatures I'm talking about were STEEL temps: 800C for about an hour. Loaded to the maximum psf. No failure modes. No way around it.

Stop protecting a bunk theory. If you're a "debunker", this would be a good time to start doing some debunking of the bunk theory in your back pocket.

It has been years Jay since I read or cared about the NIST report.
The point is no other workable theory exists for
the collapse of these structures and you have not
Provided one.

 

[GlennB]

but the temperatures I'm talking about were STEEL temps: 800C for about an hour. Loaded to the maximum psf. No failure modes. No way around it.

You're still mixing up a standardised test with reality. I explained some days ago that actual building fires exceed 800c with ease. Detach yourself from the test and get in touch with reality.

 

[NoahFence]

Can everyone see how Chainsaw feels the need to insert ludicrous statements in order to keep from revising the NIST theory?

Actually no, it's just you inventing crap.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Do you think it's possible for the steel in the WTC towers to have gotten as hot as it did in the UL truss system burn tests?

This is really a rather stupid question. As the steel in the WTC towers wasn't protected by fireproofing and was subject to uncontrolled office fires which would have include - for example - plastics, which burn at significantly higher temperatures than wood and paper, then it's somewhere between possible and certain that it got a whole lot hotter. The NIST tests were never intended to simulate the maximum temperature the floor trusses attained during the real fires, so there's no reason to suppose that they did so.

Dave