• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fire and Steel

Bell said:
Just the same as they CAN'T be used to proof fire CAN'T bring down steel buildings because it has never happened before.
Click to expand...

No, it is not the same.

Arguing that no "fire-proofed" steel-frame structure has globally collapsed prior 9/11 due to fire, gives good reason to question that it happened on 9/11.

EDIT: added "due to fire"
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
By the way, I am not architect but an engineer with degrees in materials science.
Click to expand...

bofors said:
In general, fire does [sic] cause steal to "fail". A steal wood burning stove does not "fail" buy using it anymore than a frying pan "fails" on a gas stove.
Click to expand...

Please explain, as quantitatively as you can, using as much of your materials science knowledge as you need to, why you believe that the thermal response, loads and stresses that wood stoves and frying pans undergo are good analogs for the thermal response, loads, and stresses that structural steel in a skyscraper in a fully-involved fire undergoes.

I wait with bated breath. Thank you.
 
bofors said:
No, it is not the same.

Arguing that no "fire-proofed" steel-frame structure has globally collapsed prior 9/11, gives good reason to question that it happened on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Because NOTHING can happen for the first time, right? :rolleyes:
 
bofors said:
(A) - the steel framed building retains its strength longer than wood because wood does not dissipate (absorb or conduct) heat well (physics of heat conduction) and wood burns (chemical reaction with environmental oxygen) at a much lower temperature than steel melts.
Click to expand...
Would you like to reconsider that answer? (This is not a trick question.)
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
That's right, I said "disintegrate at free fall speed".
Click to expand...

I thought the free fall argument died with the release of Loose Change. Oh, that's right, recycle the same old debunked troofer crap again and again (and again etc.)
 
bofors said:
Arguing that no "fire-proofed" steel-frame structure has globally collapsed prior 9/11, gives good reason to question that it happened on 9/11.
Click to expand...

I'm going to ask this once more, and once more only:

bofors, will you NOW begin discussing your SPECIFIC objections to NIST's SPECIFIC conclusions about why the towers collapsed?

If you're not ready, that's fine. You came here prematurely. Go back and read up. We'll be here. But if you don't know the specifics about NIST's studies, I'm baffled as to how you arrived at the conspiracist position.

Which is it? Ready, or not?
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
(1) The "Triangle" fire is yet more evidence that steal buildings do not globally collapse.
Click to expand...
Please briefly explain the difference in the damage, fires, construction, and fireproofing between the Asch building, where the Triangle Shirtwaist company was located, and the three towers that collapsed on 9/11.

Big hint: 90 West Street.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
I can tell you what certainly would not happen. The building would not disintegrate at free fall speed like we observed in the WTC twin towers and building 7.
Click to expand...

Look bofors, people have taken an offensive stance towards you because it is relatively common in the 'truther' community to claim you have the qualifications or knowledge required and then make simple spelling mistakes or misuses of 'beams' vs 'columns' etc which show they may be lying.

If you are indeed as you say I cannot understand why you would argue in this manner. The WTC towers did not 'disintegrate' at freefall speed, they collapsed progressively at approximately 2/3 to 3/4 the acceleration of an object in freefall.

Lets start with what seems the most important question. I assume you are aware of the amount and quality of fireproofing in the twin towers, in your educated opinion what forces and/or damage would be required to remove this? You can find details on adhesive and cohesive strength in the NIST report.
 
beer, beer, and more beer

bofors said:
Sure.

I can tell you what certainly would not happen. The building would not disintegrate at free fall speed like we observed in the WTC twin towers and building 7.
Click to expand...
Too bad you are wrong as you talk.

Thanks for providing your school stuff; I will be getting free beer from the Michigan guys for the next 10 years. They will never live this down, a Michigan engineer is woo woo with idiot ideas on 9/11. WOW! Only 9/11 truth could earn me beers for years! Thanks again for being so truthy.

Oh this is great. I wonder what the professors will say when they see you failed to learn anything about engineering. Sad.
 
Last edited:
In dealing with bofors' incredible torrent of wrong, I forgot to address this one, which is the most basic.

bofors said:
Hypothesis: Steel-framed buildings can not globally collapsed under plausable building fire conditions.

Proof: No steel-framed buildings have globally collapsed from fire.
Click to expand...

I hope that during your time here you will come to understand what a serious error of reasoning this is.

I again impress on you to address the specific damage, fire conditions, and available fire suppression in the WTC buildings, not in hypothetical or actual buildings with grossly dissimilar conditions.

If you return here, you will be expected to adhere to that simple, logical condition. If you cannot, then you must reconsider your position.

The accusations you are making are incredibly serious. Please treat them as such.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Please explain, as quantitatively as you can, using as much of your materials science knowledge as you need to, why you believe that the thermal response, loads and stresses that wood stoves and frying pans undergo are good analogs for the thermal response, loads, and stresses that structural steel in a skyscraper in a fully-involved fire undergoes.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I do not think that frying pans and wood stoves are "good analogs for the thermal response, loads, and stresses that structural steel in a skyscraper in a fully-involved fire undergoes."

However, they are good examples to convince people that the WTC buidlings did not fall because fire melted the steal and also to give people a rough idea about steal's inherent fire-resistent capability.

Mark, you seem to focus on irrelevant minutia while completely missing (or ignoring) the obvious big picture.
 
But surely as a structural engineer, you know that steel's stiffness and yield strength are significanty reduced at quite low temperatures?
 
Bofors,

Oh My!

A wood stove is cast iron. Cast iron melts at around 1500 C. Steels melt at around 1350 C. A wood stove is designed to exchange heat with the room. Over many years the designs have evolved to make efficient use of the energy of the wood. This it does quite well. And that keeps the iron cool enough to retain enough strength to keep being a stove.

I shouldn't have to tell you this.

EDIT: Above numbers from memory, Cave Canem. [SIZE="-3"]woof![/SIZE]
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
(A) - the steel framed building retains its strength longer than wood because wood does not dissipate (absorb or conduct) heat well (physics of heat conduction) and wood burns (chemical reaction with environmental oxygen) at a much lower temperature than steel melts.
Click to expand...

Quick! Get out of here and pack your bags. You need to go tell this to the head of every fire service academy in the world. They have been teaching it the other way around for at least the last forty years, since I went through fire fighting training at Chanute AFB in 1966.

Steel begins to expand, and is thus subject to begin to warp and to break joints, FAR below the temperature at which wood catches fire.

You and Gage deserve each other.
 
bofors said:
Sure.



I can tell you what certainly would not happen. The building would not disintegrate at free fall speed like we observed in the WTC twin towers and building 7.
Click to expand...

Wow. that truely is a gem of insight there. A perfect example of an unqualified statement.
 
Gravy said:
bofors, will you NOW begin discussing your SPECIFIC objections to NIST's SPECIFIC conclusions about why the towers collapsed?
Click to expand...

I have not even bothered to look at one page of the 10,000 page NIST report because I believe that it is a complete waste of time and does almost nothing to explain the events of 9/11.

Richard Gage, Jim Hoffman and numerous other competent, credible people have looked at the NIST report determined that it is garbage. Jim Hoffman outlines his critique here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

Furthermore, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the NIST Fire Science Division has called for an independent review of the NIST World Trade Center study:
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/12

Moreover, NIST admitts that it is "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" of the WTC:
http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/508.html
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

Finally, NIST's John Gross is lying about existence of molten metal at the WTC site: www.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY When I asked to explain himself in face of numerous contradicting facts, he refused.


So, I am not sure what you mean by NIST's "specific" conclusions about why the towers collapsed, because as far as I know NIST has failed to propose any mechanism for the collapse of the tower. Instead, NIST merely created a computer model for a proposed collapse initiation and that fails to actually initated a collapse without severly tweaking the parameters.

If you want to debate NIST's "specific" conclusions, I suggest you start by listing them here. Otherwise, you can start an attack on my NIST position by criticizing Jim Hoffman's writing here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom