I found the missing Jolt.

[tfk]

Dave, NIST did mud cracking of the paint and spheroidization tests to check the steel for temperatures experienced and the report says only three pieces were above 250 degrees C, and they weren't beyond 600 degrees C.

I think one can rightfully say they found no evidence of high temperatures on the steel with that information.

Your conclusion is wrong.
Perhaps a topic for the debate.

The inference in the fire simulation basis you are going on is extremely tenuous. The guy you are agreeing with here (Jaydeehess) also says they couldn't identify the steel, so how can you do inference?

Provably wrong.
And not technically astute, if you’re suggesting (as you seem to be) that the various temps any particular steel member depended in any way on the particular alloy or temper of that piece of steel.

I am sure you know they couldn't pull the south face of WTC 1 in with the floor trusses no matter how much they sagged in their model. There they had to add an artificial 5,000 lb. lateral load to the columns to get them to buckle.

There is a specific reason the NIST implemented the pull-in forces.

They describe the reasons for doing so in great detail, throughout the report. Especially in Sec 2.5.2 of NCSTAR1-6D. Their engineering logic & rationale for the values of pull-in forces used (NOT a constant 5,000 lab, as you state.!) are clearly explained,valid & backed up by independent analysis.

Your suggestion that it was fraud or deception on NIST’s part seems to me to be a willful deception on your part, not NIST’s.

Topic for the debate?

On top of this we are told NIST only got 236 pieces of steel from the towers and none from WTC 7. That is nothing short of amazing. NIST report author John Gross admits he was in the yards not long after the collapses to pick what to save. Why was so little saved?

For a very specific reason.
A debate topic.

There is speculation that much of the steel actually had experienced temperatures that were much too high to have come from fires.

Speculation from whom?
Amateurs or professionals?

Any evidence to back up this speculation?

This would match with the molten metal in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings. This also sounds like a reason the steel wouldn't be saved if you were going to use a pre-ordained conclusion that fire caused the collapses.

“molten metal”?
Again?

Typical office fire temps are 1100°C to 1300°C.

Eutectic solder melts at ~185°C.
There was certainly many tons of solder in each tower.
Solder is a metal alloy.

Aluminum is a metal.
It melts at ~660°C.
Various alloys melt between 460°C & 670°C.
There were hundreds of tons of it in each tower.

You need to provide a basis for your comments, especially when you want to say someone is not being honest, and you certainly are not doing that here.

This is a good, astute comment.
One DOES need to provide evidence for one’s assertions.

Other than the aircraft impacts, the NIST simulations are not trustworthy and were highly manipulated.

Now, VERY recently, someone wrote:

You need to provide a basis for your comments, especially when you want to say someone is not being honest …

… and you certainly are not doing that here.

They also do not explain the free fall of WTC 7

debate topic?

or the lack of deceleration in the descent of WTC 1.

debate topic?

Although that was brought up well after their report it is pertinent to their conclusions and since it would change them they should be revising the report.

debate topic?

I would understand not revising if it made no difference to the conclusions, but that is not the case here.

debate topic?

 

[NoahFence]

This debate is going to be a pointless exercise, given that you're debating someone who doesn't believe the North Tower struck WTC 7, analogous to denying the existence of birds.

 

[jaydeehess]

Your conclusion is wrong.
Perhaps a topic for the debate.

Earlier I responded to TSz on the subject of the proved heating of WTC tower steel samples.

WOW, that's a parsing of what NIST found that crosses the line into lie of omission.

NIST tested steel that it could identify precisely where it was in the original towers. For the steel in the heart of the fire areas, that identification was not possible due to damage to the ID markings. For steel that had had mechanical damage in the collapse that obliterated the markings used for that identification, it was again not possible.

Why did NIST test steel not directly within the highest temp areas? Because they could not positively identify steel that came from those areas AND because this testing was being used to check against the data from the fire spread/intensity predicted by the computer programs.

NIST did test steel, steel they knew exactly where it was during the fire, and compared the temp reached by that steel against the temp of steel, in those areas, predicted in the models
AND
found the computer model to sufficiently match the physical evidence generated by the steel testing.
THUS: the computer program is validated for its predictions in those areas.
THUS: the computer program can be expected to be valid for other, higher temp areas.

Tony ignored it and said it again. I pointed out that I had addressed it and again was ignored.

Now, if I am wrong about NIST's use of, and handling of, the physical sample testing, I invite correction.
Being ignored is another matter though.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This debate is going to be a pointless exercise, given that you're debating someone who doesn't believe the North Tower struck WTC 7, analogous to denying the existence of birds.

I welcome the debate, on the 9/11 free forum, it should be comedic gold, that said.

Given Tony's recent announcements that he supports Cole's flawed experiments.
PS, (this post is not an indorsement of ISF, ISFers, of elves , Santa Claus, and certainly not of golden tickle Fairies in tiny black dresses.)

 

[jaydeehess]

Questions for Tony Szamboti:
How would you positively identify steel heated to 600+C as having been in the upright structure and within the zone of the office fires?
How would you deduce the temps reached by this steel was not due to heating in the rubble fires?
In light of your comments about no samples above 600C, are you suggesting that the office fires did not raise any steel in the fire zones to that or greater temperatures?

 

[jaydeehess]

Bold/Hilites mine:https://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

Flame temperatures in room fires

There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.
The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature.

Temperatures of objects

It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones

http://www.steelconstruction.info/Fire_and_steel_construction

All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300°C and increases rapidly after 400°C. By 550°C the most common grades (S275 and S355) of hot rolled structural steel retain about 60% of its room temperature yield strength. This is usually considered to be the failure temperature for structural steel. However, in practice this is a very conservative assumption. Variations in loading and temperature profiles, the restraining effects of connections etc. mean that real failure temperatures can be much higher. Structural steels that are heated above 600°C will lose some of their properties on cooling. The extent of this loss is a function of the grade of steel, with the highest grades suffering most. Tests exist to check if any such loss of properties has taken place.
Fires can also cause distortion and yielding in bolts and connections due to thermal expansion and contraction. Checks should always be carried out to determine if this has led to weld cracking, bolt shearing etc.Detailed information is available on the reinstatement of steel after fire in the publication The Reinstatement of Fire Damaged Iron and Steel Framed Structures.

 

[skyeagle409]

The huge gash on the south wall of WTC 7 was caused by debris from WTC 1 as it collapsed. There is also a video where you can see WTC 7 tilt toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse.

 

[pgimeno]

There's one thing I don't like about that forum for the purpose of this debate.

It allows edition of posts even years after they have been written.

This forum only allows edition of posts for up to 2 hours. Then it's written in stone and you can't deny you said something that you said, or change the meaning of your words.

 

[skyeagle409]

Look how easy it is to bend a railroad track by hand after leaving the track over a burning pile of wood.

https://emergingcivilwardotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/bowtie.png

 

[jaydeehess]

There's one thing I don't like about that forum for the purpose of this debate.

It allows edition of posts even years after they have been written.

This forum only allows edition of posts for up to 2 hours. Then it's written in stone and you can't deny you said something that you said, or change the meaning of your words.

oooh that bugs me.
I left a forum because of that. I had taken the OP to task over both the title of his thread and first post, demonstrated how utterly wrong he was. He replied trying to defend his position which eventually he all but admitted was wrong. Then, several days later both title and original post are completely changed, his defensive posts are gone, and my posts look like I had posted in the wrong thread.

 

[Georgio]

And all of these “rulez” seem silly for 2 alleged adults …

+1

The only rules should be that the other poster isn't allowed to ignore any point that is brought up and that posts should be technical and not personal. Anything more than that is just providing potential 'get outs' and making it more likely that the debate will end up being about who has followed the rules and who hasn't.

@Tony Szamboti - my heart sank when I read your list of terms. We're not playing a sports match where there is a winner and a loser - it's about determining what is the truth.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

oooh that bugs me.
I left a forum because of that. I had taken the OP to task over both the title of his thread and first post, demonstrated how utterly wrong he was. He replied trying to defend his position which eventually he all but admitted was wrong. Then, several days later both title and original post are completely changed, his defensive posts are gone, and my posts look like I had posted in the wrong thread.

Icke forum by any chance? I saw several do that over there. And someone at Apollohoax once removed every post he had written.

 

[GlennB]

What is the "9/11 free forum" anyway? Google throws out all manner of suggestions but nothing with that exact name. Linky anyone?

 

[beachnut]

What is the "9/11 free forum" anyway? Google throws out all manner of suggestions but nothing with that exact name. Linky anyone?

Could be a place to back in CD, or what; is it a place for Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues?
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/tony-szamboti-errors-lies-and-distortions-t710.html
It is the best place to expose the fantasy of CD, or not. Where is the evidence for CD?

Or it could be the place for paranoid stuff, but claims to be, Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/jref-funded-by-military-contractors-t739.html

Top intellectual topics, because it is, Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/smart-idiots-t525-75.html

And super stuff, the best of Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/just-plain-idiots-split-from-smart-idiots-t576.html

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues - how do you have intelligent discussion for idiotic claims made by 9/11 truth?

 

[tfk]

I welcome the debate, on the 9/11 free forum, it should be comedic gold, that said.

Given Tony's recent announcements that he supports Cole's flawed experiments.
PS, (this post is not an indorsement of ISF, ISFers, of elves , Santa Claus, and certainly not of golden tickle Fairies in tiny black dresses.)

Hold on there, Cowboy, not so fast ...

Are the golden tickle Fairies also wearing little black stiletto heels, carrying little black riding crops & of the female persuasion??

If so, I would like to offer my ringing endorsement.

Or, at the very least, set up an appointment for a "recreational scolding" ...

 

[tfk]

This debate is going to be a pointless exercise, given that you're debating someone who doesn't believe the North Tower struck WTC 7, analogous to denying the existence of birds.

Tony, is this true?

 

[GlennB]

Could be a place to back in CD, or what; is it a place for Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues?
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/tony-szamboti-errors-lies-and-distortions-t710.html
It is the best place to expose the fantasy of CD, or not. Where is the evidence for CD?

Or it could be the place for paranoid stuff, but claims to be, Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/jref-funded-by-military-contractors-t739.html

Top intellectual topics, because it is, Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/smart-idiots-t525-75.html

And super stuff, the best of Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/just-plain-idiots-split-from-smart-idiots-t576.html

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues - how do you have intelligent discussion for idiotic claims made by 9/11 truth?

Cheers! It looks as dead as most Truther forums. Why would it be a good place for this debate? (not that there's any good place for it - knockabout stuff here can be somewhat amusing, I suppose)

 

[tfk]

There's one thing I don't like about that forum for the purpose of this debate.

It allows edition of posts even years after they have been written.

This forum only allows edition of posts for up to 2 hours. Then it's written in stone and you can't deny you said something that you said, or change the meaning of your words.

I agree with the Revisionist History problem.

That is one reason that I intend to mirror the debate here.

Open, transparent corrections welcome.
Surreptitious ones unwelcome, and rendered obvious.

 

[beachnut]

Cheers! It looks as dead as most Truther forums. Why would it be a good place for this debate? (not that there's any good place for it - knockabout stuff here can be somewhat amusing, I suppose)

I am too incompetent and a babbling donkey NIST bot to know why that forum is special.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/just-plain-idiots-split-from-smart-idiots-t576-330.html
Someone is upset with JREF/ISF. Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven; kind of sour grapes.

As for being neutral...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/p...-szamboti-working-thread-t711.html?hilit=tonyDoes someone get money for the ads there? Or is that the price of "free".

Remember, the goal of the free 911 forum is... Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/index.php
What is the goal, the prime directive?
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post16122.html?hilit= beachnut#p16198
Stalking people who figured out 19 terrorists did 9/11, or Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues ... that is why 9/11 issues from 9/11 truth are in a sub-forum of woo, aka 9/11 Conspiracy Theories... There is no intelligent evidence based 9/11 truth claims.

 

[jaydeehess]

What is the "9/11 free forum" anyway? Google throws out all manner of suggestions but nothing with that exact name. Linky anyone?

I don't actually remember. Perhaps Blackvault, or Pravda.ru (English)