• 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

bofors said:
Does this help?

[qimg]http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/2323/bacheloriw9.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4853/um1usnewsbg7.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Odd that you went to a web site to post an image of a lambskin. Don't you have a scanner?
 
bofors said:
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.
Click to expand...
Who (with any credibility whatsoever) on Ed's green earth ever said the "Steal" melted?
at 800C, Steel (note spelling) of any type has a reduction in yield strength of 50%, and at 1000C, 60% (40%of original) (MIL-HDBK-5J, fig 2.3.1.1.1)
Amasingly enough, if the structure had remained intact, at 1000C, the building yields (fails) even if the original design was at a SF of 2.5

Of course, you probably figure the ends failed in "Sheer"
 
bofors said:
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.
Click to expand...
I see. They're not good analogs to prove your point, they're just good examples to prove your point.

That's Stundie #2 for the evening.

Not to mention that your point is absolute nonsense. You honestly don't understand the difference between the roles, properties and requirements of stoves/frying pans and structural steel? Honest? If you do, then please briefly state them.

Next since you FINALLY raised a specific point,

bofors, please point me to the portion of the NIST reports, or any official report that states that fire melted structural steel in the WTC buildings, or that melting steel contributed to the buildings' collapses.

If you cannot do that, then retract your statement and learn from it. Fair enough?

Mark, you seem to focus on irrelevant minutia while completely missing (or ignoring) the obvious big picture.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant? Your lack of understanding of basic physical processes, and of the investigations into the WTC collapses, is as fundamental as it gets, chief.

I said it would be the last time, but I'll give you one more chance: are you prepared to to discuss your detailed objections to the specific conclusions made by NIST?

Please answer yes or no.
 
Gravy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have got a better idea, let's talk about the obvious and frankly more important details of the WTC collapses first. Again, you are getting in details that are frankly irrelevant in face of the "smoking gun" evidence.

To understand the WTC collapses, here is what primarily matters:

(1) The collapses were symmetric, straight-down and the buildings did not otherwise tip over.

(2) The collapses occur at near free-fall speed.

Although there is a lot more data which prove the WTC building were downed with controlled demolitions, these two points which are indisputable are all that is needed to make the case.

If after considering these two points, you do not that the controlled demolition theory is most likely explanation for WTC building collapses, you either have a very poor understanding of basic physics or have some other conflicting agenda.

Mark, your case, I think the answer is both. You seem to be in chronic denial of the obvious, so I think you lack a basic, intuitive understanding of how things work and also you have had apparently no serious education in physics or engineering. Furthermore, since you have go so far out of your way to try to "debunk" the only credible theories of the WTC collapses, for social and psychological reasons, I really doubt that you will be able to admit that you are wrong at this point.

Unfortunately, you continue to mislead others to the wrong conclusion in this very serious matter.
 
bofors said:
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.
Click to expand...
I see. So why are you here?
 
bofors said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are not very smart on steel. Steel fails in fire quickly.

Even mentioning the steel as melting means you are just full of junk and your degree is worthless since you resort to BS about the WTC. Millions of engineers can see how the WTC fell due to impact, fire and failure. You and 0.00067 percent of engineers are not able to use your education to come up with rational ideas on 9/11. You are with a few nuts in the 9/11 truth movement; bet you don't go around talking this up at the office. Better get use to being a failure after coming up with the kind of ideas you have on 9/11.

Failure comes to mind when I see your ideas on 9/11. No engineer ever said the WTC had melted steel. So when you say it; you prove you are making up BS about 9/11.

Thanks for posting your school stuff; This is free beer at the next Michigan Game. Your poor school. Your ideas on 9/11 are not very knowledgeable and can not be used to support your education claims. You are really not a good example for engineer. How can you dishonor engineering by being so full of junk on 9/11?

You did not even bring facts.
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
(1) The collapses were symmetric,
Click to expand...

You must mean "symetrical".

straight-down
Click to expand...

yyyeah?...

and the buildings did not otherwise tip over.
Click to expand...

What would have caused them to tip over?

(2) The collapses occur at near free-fall speed.
Click to expand...

Sure, so?

Although there is a lot more data which prove the WTC building were downed with controlled demolitions, these two points which are indisputable are all that is needed to make the case.
Click to expand...

Please do make your case.
 
bofors said:
I have got a better idea, let's talk about the obvious and frankly more important details of the WTC collapses first. Again, you are getting in details that are frankly irrelevant in face of the "smoking gun" evidence.
Click to expand...
YOU brought up the Triangle fire as an example of why the towers shouldn't have collapsed. YOU. How soon you forget!
bofors said:
The "Triangle" fire is yet more evidence that steal buildings do not globally collapse.
Click to expand...

Now answer the questions I asked about it. They are exceedingly simple. I even gave you a big hint. Here it is again:

"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."

Can you do it? Are you the Little Engineer that Could, unlike the hideously incompetent Richard Gage and his AE911Truth flunkies?

Then do it. YOU raised the issue, and YOU need to understand why it's so fundamentally important.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
I see. So why are you here?
Click to expand...

I am here to explain to people what happend at the WTC buildings. Furthermore, since you are here, I want to try to stop you from continuing to mislead others on this very serious issue. I mean, you seem to be the primary reason why people here are so confused and you are misinforming are large of people on the Internet.
 
bofors said:
I am here to explain to people what happend at the WTC buildings.
Click to expand...
Without any knowledge of the investigations? You 9/11 deniers sure do fascinate me. Does it not concern you that your questions and objections may have been answered already, and that you're just wasting other peoples' time?

Ah, well. After you answer the Triangle questions, start a new thread and lay out your case. Fair enough?

Furthermore, since you are here, I want to try to stop you from continuing to mislead others on this very serious issue. I mean, you seem to be the primary reason why people here are so confused and you are misinforming are large of people on the Internet.
Click to expand...
I'll gladly accept corrections to things I've gotten wrong. You can start another thread for that. Fair enough?

Then proceed. You've got work to do.
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
(1) The collapses were symmetric, straight-down and the buildings did not otherwise tip over.
Click to expand...

Dr. Frank Greening has authored a paper analyzing the "tip-over" scenario, located here:

http://911myths.com/WTC2TIP.pdf

What appears to happen is that the tilting upper section was continuously crushed near the 80th floor by its own momentum so that the rotation was no longer that of a rigid body. Eventually the "hinge" at the northeast corner failed and the descending block took on a more vertical motion. Interestingly, once the hinge failed, and the pivot became frictionless, the motion of the center of gravity is predicted to become vertical, causing a shift in the rotational axis. Unfortunately, however, details of this stage of the WTC 2 collapse were obscured by smoke, dust and flying debris. ​
Click to expand...

On top of that, a significant amount of the towers did indeed not "go straight down". The damage to buildings blocks away, including 30 West Broadway and the Verizon buildlings demonstrate this point.

bofors said:
(2) The collapses occur at near free-fall speed.
Click to expand...

It's actually a fair bit slower. But, let's not get into numbers right now; we'd be talking single-digit seconds and fractions of seconds, and at that point, it's rather silly to discuss what is "slow" and "fast". Instead, let's take this route: To argue that the collapse happened faster than it was supposed to, you have to presume that the floors would stop a significant amount of time for each impact. Ignoring the fact that the global collapse scenario was more complex than that and involved the failure of the perimeter columns - which also happened to decrease the amount of per-floor support available - and therefore doesn't invoke the "pancake" scenario where the upper mass impacts on the masses below, pausing at each floor - that also implies that there's not enough potential energy in the top mass to overcome the resistance of the lower floors, or that the resistance of the lower floors is significant enough to "pause" the collapse at each floor until support structures fail. That scenario was addressed in several papers. One, by Bazant, Greening, et. al. is hosted here:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

... and Dr. Frank Greening has also authored another paper "ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE ", located here:

http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf

A further report by Bazant, Greening, Jia-Liang Lee, and David Benson, more generally dealing with overall questions of the collapse, can be seen here:

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/p... did & Did Not Cause It - Revised 6-22-07.pdf

I mention this because potential energy issues are addressed in this paper. Potential energy, after all, is at the base of the conspiracy claims that the towers could not have collapsed at the rate that they did without demolitions severing the supports, and this paper demonstrates that they weren't necessary.

If I may, I have a question for you: Steel loses a significant amount of it's strength at temperatures well within the range that can be found in common housefires, let alone in large-scale fires such as the ones found in the twin towers. Given the loss of load bearing capacity, why isn't global collapse possible for the WTCs? You're making a rather general statement, and for purposes of debate, it would be helpful to have more specificity. What about the WTC should have prevented the global collapse that was witnessed on 9/11?

Thank you.
 
Pardalis said:
What would have caused them to tip over?
Click to expand...

Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

The answer is entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

The idea that the WTC buildings fell straight down from asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires blatantly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

In short, it is not possible to get an ordered reaction (here: straight-down collapse) from a disordered stimulus (here: asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires).
 
bofors said:
I am here to explain to people what happend at the WTC buildings. Furthermore, since you are here, I want to try to stop you from continuing to mislead others on this very serious issue. I mean, you seem to be the primary reason why people here are so confused and you are misinforming are large of people on the Internet.
Click to expand...
You have zero facts and evidence to support your ideas on 9/11 ...
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
In short, it is not possible to get an ordered reaction (here: straight-down collapse) from a disordered stimulus (here: asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires).
Click to expand...

Are you seriously trying to say that the final state of the collapsed towers was highly ordered?
 
bofors said:
Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

The answer is entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

The idea that the WTC buildings fell straight down from asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires blatantly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

In short, it is not possible to get an ordered reaction (here: straight-down collapse) from a disordered stimulus (here: asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires).
Click to expand...

In reference to the papers I linked in my own post above:

http://911myths.com/WTC2TIP.pdf
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/p... did & Did Not Cause It - Revised 6-22-07.pdf

... how is it not possible? By invoking entropy, you suggest that there is not enough energy available in the towers to allow for such a collapse as what happened on 9/11. But the papers linked above suggest that there is.

Also, what is ordered about the collapse? Simple viewings of videos of the collapse suggest it was indeed a very chaotic event. Straight-down collapse in and of itself isn't indicative of an ordered event, especially considering that this is a gravity-driven collapse we're discussing here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom