Legge/Szamboti: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible

[Tony Szamboti]

Why should I have to research to support your claims? Isn't that what you supposedly are supposed to be doing? You do realize that Quintierre's complaint was regarding the role of the fire proofing, right? He does not in any way support controlled demolition nuttery, in fact his view is even more contrary to yours than NIST in general.

So don't do the research. However, if you don't you shouldn't be put off by my decision not to answer babble.

Quintierre said more than things about fireproofing. He has a big problem with the lack of physical evidence tested by NIST just as I do.

 

[A W Smith]

Yes, what you say above could occur under a certain set of circumstances, which I am not sure occurred in those towers. The 35 foot floor trusses only sagged 3 inches at midspan after an hour in the fire testing UL did for NIST. To be fair that would probably be equivalent to 15 to 20 inches on a 60 foot truss. This would still not be sufficient to inwardly bow the columns and cause an instability as NIST needed a 40 plus inch sag to cause it to happen in their computer model.

Additionally, we have nothing, besides photos, to show us the perimeter columns were inwardly bowed for long periods of time. There apparently are no videos which show inwardly bowed perimeter columns minutes before the collapses. However, it can be validated by testing that cut core columns would pull the perimeter columns inward in a violent way through the floor trusses.

please educate yourself

Professor Carl-Alexander Graubner of Darmstadt University of Technology in Germany, told SkyScrapers.com that, “had it not been for the jet fuel, the towers might have stood up to the planes... Buildings cannot be made to resist that intensity of fire, heat and burning. The World Trade Center did not collapse because of the crash, but rather as a result of the catastrophic effects of fire on this particular type of steel-tube construction, in which the outer walls carry the building loads while the core contains only service functions.”
The fuel-borne fire blazed as high as 2,000°F. When steel reaches a temperature of 800°F, says Masoud Sanayei, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Tufts University in Boston, it begins to weaken. “When it reaches 1,200°F, structural steel has only one-third of its capacity. And one-third of the capacity was not sufficient to carry all the stories above where the airplanes hit,” he continues. As a result, the steel melted and bent, giving way to floor upon floor falling in on each other, thousands of tons of weight collapsing and pancaking to the bottom.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Conspiracy liars are not permitted to invoke Dr. Quintiere. He is a serious researcher who totally rejects your nonsense.

Why would you call someone a liar when we simply don't have closure on this issue due to an incomplete NIST investigation, and some of the alternative theories are plausible. What happened to the core columns Ron?

 

[pomeroo]

So don't do the research. However, if you don't you shouldn't be put off by my decision not to answer babble.

Quintierre said more than things about fireproofing. He has a big problem with the lack of physical evidence tested by NIST just as I do.

You've ignored some important points. Quintiere is a serious researcher who believes that the impacts of the planes and the resultant fires would have caused the buildings to collapse irrespective of the amount of fireproofing. You are a conspiracy liar, i.e., you promote pernicious nonsense that is contradicted by all known evidence. You cannot invoke Quintiere to sell your snake oil.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

please educate yourself

Give us a break. The quote you use is essentially a gut reaction from just after the event when all of the information wasn't known such as how much fuel the aircraft had on them etc..

We now know the amount of jet fuel that would have been dispersed on each floor and that it was relatively sparse and only played a role in igniting the fires, as it would have burned off in minutes. Even NIST says this now.

We also now know that the cores did more than just support service functions and that they carried a significant portion of the gravity load of the buildings. We also now know that the steel temperatures of the core did not reach the temperatures this professor thought they might have.

 

[pomeroo]

Why would you call someone a liar when we simply don't have closure on this issue due to an incomplete NIST investigation, and some of the alternative theories are plausible. What happened to the core columns Ron?

A person is a liar when that person dishonestly pretends that an extremely thorough investigation was something less, that important issues were deliberately ignored. Some of the core columns remained standing after the buildings collapsed. You are aware of that fact. You have no point to make.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You've ignored some important points. Quintiere is a serious researcher who believes that the impacts of the planes and the resultant fires would have caused the buildings to collapse irrespective of the amount of fireproofing. You are a conspiracy liar, i.e., you promote pernicious nonsense that is contradicted by all known evidence. You cannot invoke Quintiere to sell your snake oil.

Quintierre would apparently like to see a new investigation himself, given the entire context of his remarks. Are you going to argue that?

 

[beachnut]

So why is the paper wrong?

Quintierre would apparently like to see a new investigation himself, given the entire context of his remarks. Are you going to argue that?

because Quintierre disagrees with your conclusion

( paper )- In contrast, all observations are in accord with the use of explosives in a timed sequence.

Name one sound, one sight, one piece of evidence you observed on 9/11. This statement is wrong! But then your whole paper is wrong. Like your last paper with the bit about

for 707 impact would have contained at least 1.4 times or 40% more kinetic energy than what the 767-200ER aircraft

Which is wrong the design impact was equal to 187 pounds of TNT, the impacts on 9/11 were 1300 and 2000 pounds of TNT, 7 to 11 times greater; making your error really BIG! So you messed up your new paper with errors, just like your old paper. No joy.

Your 1.4 times more becomes 7 to 11 times smaller! Wow, that is a BIG error. How can you publish this junk? You just make up stuff with no supporting evidence! You do not understand NIST because you ignore facts and make up your own.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

A person is a liar when that person dishonestly pretends that an extremely thorough investigation was something less, that important issues were deliberately ignored. Some of the core columns remained standing after the buildings collapsed. You are aware of that fact. You have no point to make.

Only some of the inner core columns of the lower fifty stories were left standing. A plausible demolition theory is that the outer core columns were cut. This would account for what was observed. Your arguments are quite weak for someone who is willing to call others liars.

 

[CHF]

Quintierre would apparently like to see a new investigation himself, given the entire context of his remarks. Are you going to argue that?

It's great to finally see a twoofer echo calls for a new investigation that might actually be worth taxpayer dollars!

I just wonder what you'd say if Quintierre got up in front of a panel and said the WTC towers would have collapsed even with fireproofing fully intact.

 

[A W Smith]

Give us a break. The quote you use is essentially a gut reaction from just after the event when all of the information wasn't known such as how much fuel the aircraft had on them etc..

We now know the amount of jet fuel that would have been dispersed on each floor and that it was relatively sparse and only played a role in igniting the fires, as it would have burned off in minutes. Even NIST says this now.

We also now know that the cores did more than just support service functions and that they carried a significant portion of the gravity load of the buildings. We also now know that the steel temperatures of the core did not reach the temperatures this professor thought they might have.

Your not learning

At the time of their design and construction, the World
Trade Center (WTC) towers and Pentagon were state-ofthe-
art buildings. Structural systems are quite often inherently
redundant and robust, with members and connections
that can provide alternate load paths should a limited number
of elements be compromised. However, the extreme
building exposures and combinations of events went far
beyond normal design criteria.
The catastrophic sequence consisted of extensive impact
damage to both the structural framing and the fire protection
and life safety systems, followed by immense and
extensive steady-state fires. At the present time, no civilian
building or system is designed to withstand such an extreme
combination of events, nor even the full consequences of
any one effect that occurred in New York City on September​

11, 2001

 

[TjW]

It would get a lot hotter. Office fires do not get nearly hot enough, even without the steel having fireproofing to overcome the factor of safety and cause the steel to yield. With the 3:00 to 1 core column factor of safety all of the core columns would have had to reach 650 degrees C or higher to even have a chance at a collapse initiation. Testing has showed these types of steel temperatures do not occur in office fires, without fireproofing on the steel.

On top of that the physical evidence we do have shows the core columns never got hotter than 250 degrees C. There were only three pieces out of 170 tested by NIST that even got to 600 degrees C and they were perimeter column pieces.

Additionally slow heating by fire would have had a problem causing a catastrophic collapse due to strain hardening.

Clearly, it did get hot enough to collapse, because it collapsed.

The NIST modelling showed temperatures high enough to cause collapse, and the distribution of temperatures in the model agreed with the identifiable physical evidence. That is, the model equivalents of the core columns that actually reached 250, and so did not have identification numbers burned off, also only reached 250. Other locations in the model reached much higher temperatures, for significant periods of time. No doubt there were sections of core column that didn't get much above room temperature before the collapse.

The fire modeling, then, was consistent with the building failing. To make the argument that the fires did not heat the steel enough is to argue that the fire modeling is wrong.

I have seen criticisms of the NIST fire modeling methodology from other organizations with expertise in fire modeling, but the criticisms that I have seen I interpreted as NIST being too conservative with the fuel loading in the models. Some seem to think that even had all the fireproofing stayed attached, the buildings would still have failed. NIST, as I understand it, concluded that it was a combination of removal of fireproofing and widespread fire that led to the collapse.

So, NIST conservatively models it as hot enough to fail the members that they think failed. Experts outside of NIST review the methodology, and complain not about overestimation of the heating of the steel in the hottest areas, but underestimating it.

Do you have some particular reason why you think the NIST modeling overestimated peak temperatures, and why other experts didn't catch it, instead arguing that the temperatures could have been even higher?

 

[LashL]

Legge and Szamboti are, obviously, idiots and the *cough* "paper" cited is a sham of a farce of a travesty... well, you get the idea. Come on, it's less than a page and a half of woo, unsupported by facts or evidence. Completely worthless, and completely stupid.

Still, I would love to see either of these two idiots on a witness stand purporting to be an "expert" on anything. That would be hilariously funny.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Clearly, it did get hot enough to collapse, because it collapsed.

The NIST modelling showed temperatures high enough to cause collapse, and the distribution of temperatures in the model agreed with the identifiable physical evidence. That is, the model equivalents of the core columns that actually reached 250, and so did not have identification numbers burned off, also only reached 250. Other locations in the model reached much higher temperatures, for significant periods of time. No doubt there were sections of core column that didn't get much above room temperature before the collapse.

The fire modeling, then, was consistent with the building failing. To make the argument that the fires did not heat the steel enough is to argue that the fire modeling is wrong.

I have seen criticisms of the NIST fire modeling methodology from other organizations with expertise in fire modeling, but the criticisms that I have seen I interpreted as NIST being too conservative with the fuel loading in the models. Some seem to think that even had all the fireproofing stayed attached, the buildings would still have failed. NIST, as I understand it, concluded that it was a combination of removal of fireproofing and widespread fire that led to the collapse.

So, NIST conservatively models it as hot enough to fail the members that they think failed. Experts outside of NIST review the methodology, and complain not about overestimation of the heating of the steel in the hottest areas, but underestimating it.

Do you have some particular reason why you think the NIST modeling overestimated peak temperatures, and why other experts didn't catch it, instead arguing that the temperatures could have been even higher?

How do you know for sure that fires were the cause of the collapse?

I have a problem with the extrapolations NIST uses to get the temperatures they need, in that they need a tremendous amount of fire proofing to be dislodged and their testing for this effect was poor at best. They do not consider the point made by Dr. Legge and myself about strain hardening due to initial yield. They also did not consider the actual collapse as I am sure you are aware. Their testing of the floor trusses also does not validate their inputs to their computer models. I am also not aware that they have made their computer simulations public. Did they or are you just talking about what they wrote in the report?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Legge and Szamboti are, obviously, idiots and the *cough* "paper" cited is a sham of a farce of a travesty... well, you get the idea. Come on, it's less than a page and a half of woo, unsupported by facts or evidence. Completely worthless, and completely stupid.

Still, I would love to see either of these two idiots on a witness stand purporting to be an "expert" on anything. That would be hilariously funny.

What is really funny is the obvious fact that you said nothing here. Did you take a course in ad hominem tactics?

 

[CHF]

Still, I would love to see either of these two idiots on a witness stand purporting to be an "expert" on anything. That would be hilariously funny.

I'd actually agree to such an investigation if the kooks paid for it.

 

[pomeroo]

Quintierre would apparently like to see a new investigation himself, given the entire context of his remarks. Are you going to argue that?

No, I'm going to argue with you. I've spoken with Quintiere: you haven't. He'd like to see certain points he's raised explored more deeply. He certainly doesn't want to start over from scratch.

The eternal question: What sort of investigation do conspiracy liars envision, given that it can't include any real scientists or engineers?

 

[beachnut]

how can you be so ignorant on NIST?

How do you know for sure that fires were the cause of the collapse?

I have a problem with the extrapolations NIST uses to get the temperatures they need, in that they need a tremendous amount of fire proofing to be dislodged and their testing for this effect was poor at best. They do not consider the point made by Dr. Legge and myself about strain hardening due to initial yield. They also did not consider the actual collapse as I am sure you are aware. Their testing of the floor trusses also does not validate their inputs to their computer models. I am also not aware that they have made their computer simulations public. Did they or are you just talking about what they wrote in the report?

You have no idea what you are talking about. Try again please and try using facts next time.

You just covered thousands of pages of NIST and misrepresented the NIST work all in one post of junk! You need to explain, and it will take more than 10 pages of real work, this pile of junk you just posted. You have failed to make a point and just post junk about things you have not explained and how they relate to the failed point you did not make.

 

[JamesB]

What is really funny is the obvious fact that you said nothing here. Did you take a course in ad hominem tactics?

That is ironic given the reliance of the troof movement on little other than ad hominem. Have you read Kevin Ryan's response to Ryan Mackey, published in your so-called journal? Not to mention the whole Benjamin Chertoff- Michael Chertoff thing (probably the most discussed issue by David Ray Griffin), the implications that all of the scientists involved with NIST are bought off by government contracts, that the FBI and NTSB are all bought off, hell even some of you claim the firemen were bought off. I can see very few ways to support your arguments other than to resort to ad hominem tactics.

 

[pomeroo]

Only some of the inner core columns of the lower fifty stories were left standing. A plausible demolition theory is that the outer core columns were cut. This would account for what was observed. Your arguments are quite weak for someone who is willing to call others liars.

There is no "plausible" demolition theory. That is why everyone in the demolition industry rejects the codswallop shoveled by you and your fellow liars. There isn't a shred of evidence that any columns were cut. The collapses proceeded--obviously--from the impact floors. When is it time to pull down the curtain on this truly rotten show?