Another Question for Heiwa : Amazing Fireproof Steel

[beachnut]

Hi Beachnut:
Thank you very much. Did Beachnut write the OP Thesis Paper? No. However, I did present a rebuttal to Architect here in Post #11. Right? Now Mr. Architect has every opportunity to begin writing his defending arguments IF indeed he has any. Beachnut is also invited to write advocating or opposing arguments to Architect’s Opening Post offering, if he can ever get over his fixation upon TERRAL. :0) If you really think for one minute that anything was proven by your apples to oranges “Wood is better than steel in fire.” (heh) nonsense in Post #12, then congratulations.
Keep up the good work, because their hands never get tired,
GL,Terral

HTTP Error 403 - Forbidden
Is this the best you got? Wrong. I have no fixation upon Terral, I am just pointing out failure to present facts. You have failed to use facts. Wood can do better than steel in fire. While steel fails, structural wood pieces can maintain their strength until they are burned through; I showed you an example; are you able to read carefully and see photos in your quest to post the most wrong in the minimum time?. But there is not enough strength in wood to build the WTC. Steel is strong. Fire destroys steel strength. Simple concept that you fail to understand. Why are you unable to learn?
Another fact filled post

 

[Lensman]

Lensman,

I have noticed in my adventures that there is tremendous confusion around the difference between melting steel and heat-weakening steel, and that the confusion is incredibly durable.

That significant heat-weakening can occur at a mere 1/3 the melting temperature of steel seems to make no difference.

Max

I can see that it IS durable, my question was WHY?
It's pointed out time after time & still they insist upon the steel melting.
I suggest they obtain a steel bar about 1 inch square (or round) by about 3 feet long & try bending it cold, then heating up the middle until it's just barely red hot & try bending it again - I'll allow the wearing of suitable gloves to protect their delicate hands - or, if they prefer, they can take a look at some pictures of "Shermans Neckties" - I'm in the UK & even I've heard of these.

 

[Myriad]

I think you have a bad link there Myriad (at least I can't open it)

You're correct. The correct link is:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3417738#post3417738

It doesn't much matter, Max has not many any attempt to respond to it anyhow. But here's another chance. How 'bout it, Max?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Max Photon]

Pssst...thermite...got a light?

Max,

Still waiting on a proposal of how to heat-weaken steel with thermite. Any thoughts yet?

Well, after much thought, and number crunching that turned engineers' heads and left digit dust everywhere, I struck on the idea of lighting it.

Now I'm just trying to figger out how to light it.

(Zippo.)

 

[peteweaver]

Terral, materials comparison for you:

Steel Vs Wood.

First of all the underdog, wood:

When heavy timber members are exposed to a fire, the temperature of the fire exposed surface of the members is close to fire temperature. When the outer layer of wood reaches its burning point (about 300°C), the wood ignites and burns rapidly. The burned wood becomes a layer of char which loses all strength but retains a role as an insulating layer preventing excessive temperature rise in the core.
The low conductivity of char will cause a steep thermal gradient across the char layer. Underneath the char layer, there is a layer of heated wood with a temperature of above 200°C, which is known as the pyrolysis zone. This part of wood is undergoing irreversible chemical decomposition caused solely by a rise in temperature, accompanied by loss of weight and discolouration.
The inner core wood is slightly temperature affected with some loss of strength and stiffness properties, mainly due to the moisture evaporation in the wood. The charring rate is more or less constant and depends on the density and moisture content of the wood and heat exposure. Figure 1 shows the typical cross section of a timber beam subjected to fire (Buchanan 2001; Purkiss 1996) (source)

Now steel:

Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The small residual strength then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C (Lawson & Newman 1990). In addition to the reduction of material strength and stiffness, steel displays a significant creep phenomena at temperatures over 450°C. The phenomena of creep results in an increase of deformation (strain) with time, even if the temperature and applied stress remain unchanged (Twilt 1988). High temperature creep is dependent on the stress level and heating rate. The occurrence of creep indicates that the stress and the temperature history have to be taken into account in estimating the strength and deformation behaviour of steel structures in fire. Including creep explicitly within analytical models, is complex. For simple design methods, it is widely accepted that the effect of creep is implicitly considered in the stress-strain-temperature relationships.
The thermal properties of steel at elevated temperatures are found to be dependent on temperature and are less influenced by the stress level and heating rate. This simplified the consideration of the thermal properties of steel in design methods (source).

 

[Terral]

Please Answer This One Question. GL.

Hi Lefty:

Lefty >> Thanks for those pics of steel damaged by fire, Beachnut . . .

I asked you to please answer one question in this post, which hopefully you are not trying to avoid.

GL,

Terral

 

[DGM]

Hi Lefty:




I asked you to please answer one question in this post, which hopefully you are not trying to avoid.

GL,

Terral

Gravity!

 

[Architect]

Terry,

Nice to see you avoiding responding to my posts. Keep up the good work.

 

[Terral]

The Melting Point Of Red-Iron Structural Steel Is Very Imporant To The WTC CD Cases

Hi Lensman:

Lensman >> Why do you keep insisting on quoting the the melting point of steel?

Why do you keep insisting that building fires caused the WTC-7 collapse in just a few cotton picking hours? Since typical building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees for only 20 minutes in any single location ‘and’ the melting point of structural steel is about 2800 degrees, then these readers can already see the futility of your ‘Building Fires Did It’ nonsense. The melting point of structural red-iron steel is a very important piece of evidence for this WTC case, because of what THE EVIDENCE shows everywhere starting right here in a little four minute video. How do ‘you’ get molten metal pools from 1000 degree building fires? :0)

We have perhaps the most comprehensive evidence of “molten metal” pools under all three WTC skyscrapers here for your careful inspection where Rudy Giuliani said, "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days." Other sources said, “The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials.” And yet, Lensman comes back to say, “Why do you keep insisting on quoting the melting point of steel?” Ahhh, because we have tons and tons and tons and tons of molten metal under ‘all three’ WTC collapsed skyscrapers.

How do you get 2000 degree molten metal pools from 1000 degree building fires? How do you get gigantic molten metal WTC biscuits like this and this from building fires? The answer is that YOU CANNOT. Period. We require 2800 degree temperatures for extended periods to create all of THIS EVIDENCE for which you want to turn a blind “Official Cover Story” eye. The question becomes about ‘why’ Lensman wants to point his lens in the “Building Fires Did It” direction in the first place . . .

Lensman >> Can't you get it through your thick skull that melting isn't necessary?

Oh. So Lensman thinks all of the molten metal is normal for typical 1000 degree building fires? No sir. You are one of the chiefs of the ‘thick skull’ department . . .

Lensman >> All that's required is that the steel softens & loses some of its strength!

Bullony! Heat energy never sits still inside any steel-framed network. The energy is transported ‘away’ from the hot spots into the cooler areas of the network automatically and without the supervision of Architect, Lensman, Par or any of the Official Cover Story cronies running around this JREF Board. The reason we have all of these molten metal pools is because WTC-7 was a 47-story skyscraper with supporting columns, beams and girders standing one atop the other on every single floor that ‘required’ cutting during the Controlled Demolition process. That means you had 2500-degree Thermate charges releasing molten metal simultaneously on every single floor, which fell straight down to form 2500-degree molten pools along all the column lines. You cannot ‘soften’ any structural steel columns within the steel-framed network from building fires, because the heat is transported AWAY from that location to adjacent supports more quickly than 1000-degree fires can introduce new energy. The unaffected members in that area work together to support any weakened member, until the remaining heat energy can be dispersed to ‘all’ the cooler areas within the steel-framed network itself.

Lensman >> This has been pointed out numerous times - to the point that it seems that you can't actually see the words "loses strength" but automatically insert the words "molten steel" or "steel melts" or some such.

Yes and your side of this debate has been wrong numerous times, because your attempts to support the Official Cover Story LIE has no basis in Architectural or Engineering reality whatsoever. None! You are pointing to these Larry Silverstein WTC collapses like this kind of thing has one historical precedent ANYWHERE, when nothing like this has happened before or after 9/11 anywhere on earth. Why? The answer is really very simple: Steel-framed skyscrapers are inherently ‘fireproof’ by design, because 1000 degree fires cannot possibly melt 2800 degree structural steel. Period.

GL,

Terral

 

[pomeroo]

Hi Lensman:




Why do you keep insisting that building fires caused the WTC-7 collapse in just a few cotton picking hours? Since typical building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees for only 20 minutes in any single location ‘and’ the melting point of structural steel is about 2800 degrees, then these readers can already see the futility of your ‘Building Fires Did It’ nonsense. The melting point of structural red-iron steel is a very important piece of evidence for this WTC case, because of what THE EVIDENCE shows everywhere starting right here in a little four minute video. How do ‘you’ get molten metal pools from 1000 degree building fires? :0)

We have perhaps the most comprehensive evidence of “molten metal” pools under all three WTC skyscrapers here for your careful inspection where Rudy Giuliani said, "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days." Other sources said, “The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials.” And yet, Lensman comes back to say, “Why do you keep insisting on quoting the melting point of steel?” Ahhh, because we have tons and tons and tons and tons of molten metal under ‘all three’ WTC collapsed skyscrapers.

How do you get 2000 degree molten metal pools from 1000 degree building fires? How do you get gigantic molten metal WTC biscuits like this and this from building fires? The answer is that YOU CANNOT. Period. We require 2800 degree temperatures for extended periods to create all of THIS EVIDENCE for which you want to turn a blind “Official Cover Story” eye. The question becomes about ‘why’ Lensman wants to point his lens in the “Building Fires Did It” direction in the first place . . .




Oh. So Lensman thinks all of the molten metal is normal for typical 1000 degree building fires? No sir. You are one of the chiefs of the ‘thick skull’ department . . .




Bullony! Heat energy never sits still inside any steel-framed network. The energy is transported ‘away’ from the hot spots into the cooler areas of the network automatically and without the supervision of Architect, Lensman, Par or any of the Official Cover Story cronies running around this JREF Board. The reason we have all of these molten metal pools is because WTC-7 was a 47-story skyscraper with supporting columns, beams and girders standing one atop the other on every single floor that ‘required’ cutting during the Controlled Demolition process. That means you had 2500-degree Thermate charges releasing molten metal simultaneously on every single floor, which fell straight down to form 2500-degree molten pools along all the column lines. You cannot ‘soften’ any structural steel columns within the steel-framed network from building fires, because the heat is transported AWAY from that location to adjacent supports more quickly than 1000-degree fires can introduce new energy. The unaffected members in that area work together to support any weakened member, until the remaining heat energy can be dispersed to ‘all’ the cooler areas within the steel-framed network itself.




Yes and your side of this debate has been wrong numerous times, because your attempts to support the Official Cover Story LIE has no basis in Architectural or Engineering reality whatsoever. None! You are pointing to these Larry Silverstein WTC collapses like this kind of thing has one historical precedent ANYWHERE, when nothing like this has happened before or after 9/11 anywhere on earth. Why? The answer is really very simple: Steel-framed skyscrapers are inherently ‘fireproof’ by design, because 1000 degree fires cannot possibly melt 2800 degree structural steel. Period.

GL,

Terral

You've been caught lying again. No steel was melted.

When will you stop lying?

 

[peteweaver]

Terral stuff the melting point, what about annealing ?

Steel begins to lose tensile strength at 300 degrees C (572 degrees F), and has lost half its tensile strength by 600 degrees C (1112 degrees F).

Add to that that its traditionally been assumed by engineers that a steel structure would fail at just 550 degrees C (1022 degrees F).
This is of course dependant on load, however the load distribution in WTC 7 was extremely wide.

These are facts you've not considered in your argument Terral.

 

[funk de fino]

Terral

If I can show you photos of a steel framed building that has mostly collapsed due to normal office/household fires will you admitthis point?

I would need to do it tomorrow because I need my camera to take the photos of the building right across the street from me.

Deal?

 

[DGM]

BOLOGNA

Please try to at least correct this. Then you will have one thing right.

 

[Terral]

Architect Is Waffling Back And Forth In Denial Of The Controlled Demolition 911Truth

Hi Architect:

Terral Original >> If this represents your “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” Case, then these readers have been severely short changed. Where is Architect’s precedent for Building Fires causing ANY modern day steel-framed skyscraper to collapse demolition-style into its own footprint like this? The fact is that you have no case for anything like that in the history of this planet. Right? :0) Of course. My WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Thread is here.

Architect >> An auspiscious [auspicious = one ‘s’] start to your rebuttal. This thread was started some time ago in response to the rapidly departed Heiwa's incredible (in the litteral [literal = one ‘t’] sense) claim that stail [stale = no ‘i’] was inherrently [inherently = one ‘r’] fire resistant. You will note that there is no mention of WTC-7 anywhere, indeed I don't think I've ever debated that particular building.

In other words, Architect quoted from my Post #11 rebuttal to his steel ‘testing’ nonsense to begin rambling aimlessly about Heiwa’s incredible claim, when his boasting about this guy helped me locate this thread in the first place here.

Architect’s Boasting On The Richard Gage-bashing Thread:

Architect >> I seem to recall that the last proponent of amazing fireproof steel here was Heiwa, who ran away when I put technical issues to him.

Terry, do you want a technical lesson...(cough)...debate as to why steel is susceptible to normal fire conditions?

Or do you withdraw your frankly ludicrous suggestion?

Now that I have gone to the very thread this Mr. Architect is boating about, he quotes from my rebuttal to begin playing his diversionary trickery straight out of the gate. What is wrong with this picture? First off, Architect has already boasted about the very Opening Post presentation in this very thread saying ‘this’ is a ‘technical lesson’ about “why steel is so susceptible to normal fire conditions.” WTC-7 was a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that ‘he says’ collapsed from ‘normal fire conditions.’ We know he is boasting about making a WTC-7 case against me (Terry = heh), because he is answering my post in the same Richard Gage-bashing thread where I just told him,

My Previous Post:

Terral Original >> Dry up already! The only person impressed by your nonsense is you. My WTC-7 CD Presentation has been posted and you have been challenged to make your “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” Presentation. Now it is your turn to put up or shut up. If you cannot put up anything, then I certainly understand the reason why. You have Richard Gage’s CD work here, but where is your work? :0)

Here is the deal for all of you Richard-hecklers, because I know him: If Richard came to this Board to debate anything, then he would sign up as "Richard Gage," because he has more credibility in his little finger than Gravy, Calcus, AMT, Par and Architect combined. We use our real names on every Board and we simply call them like we see them. Period.

Did I make any bones either way about my statements being unrelated to this WTC-7 Case? No. Everyone here knows very good and well that I have only two thesis papers currently active on this JREF Board and the WTC-7 thesis paper is linked in these two posts that Architect is attempting to feebly answer with boasts and now nonsense about this thesis paper has “no mention of WTC-7 anywhere.” What nonsense! I suppose WTC-7 steel does NOT fall under his description of “structural steelwork” and “load-bearing elements of structure” and “load-bearing elements of construction” from his Opening Post Hypothesis or the references to “load-bearing elements of construction, such as steel beams, columns or walls.” The sad fact is that I looked up every Topic started by this guy and he has no “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” Topic anywhere, because the evidence clearly shows “Controlled Demolition Signatures” from the very bottom to the very top of this case ‘and’ everywhere in between; just like Richard Gage proves here, which again just happens to be the same guy this Architect fellow is bashing on the other thread. These readers now have the opportunity to see if Architect’s OP offering has any merit for explaining how Building Fires took down the WTC skyscrapers, OR if Controlled Demolition is the ONLY answer to all the questions without creating a single contradiction.

GL,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Architect Is Asking Questions Rather Than Offering Defending Arguments With Answers

Hi Architect:

Terral Original >> In that case, then Heiwa would be 100 percent correct, because typical building fires burn between 800 and 1000 degrees and structural steel melts at 2795 degrees. If structural steel was susceptible catastrophic collapse from typical building fires, then men would have started erecting structures from a much better material. The fact that you have no case for any steel-framed skyscraper suffering catastrophic failure from typical building fires anywhere in history means the architects and engineers have been doing a very good job of selecting the best available building materials possible.

Architect’s Reply >> How peculiar. You seem to be suggesting that steel retains its integrity up to 2795 degrees. Are you sure about that? Really sure?

What I ‘seem’ to be suggesting in ‘your’ opinion has nothing to do with one thing you quoted from me, OR one thing presented in the OP of this thread. What is wrong with this picture and why is Architect quoting me to ask stupid questions? My two references above include the testing results of Underwriters Laboratories from Schawcorp.com saying,

Answer: A typical fire burns at around 800°F. As it passes through the building, the fire's intensity changes as flammable items are consumed. Fires usually average only 20 minutes in any location. This intense burn is comparable to the burn portion of the UL test. After the flammable items are consumed in the fire, the overall temperature decreases, leaving items inside the fire to absorb the radiant heat. This part of the fire is comparable to the cool down portion of the UL test . . .

This expert testimony has NOTHING to do with Terral suggesting that steel retains integrity up to 2795 degrees, which should have NOTHING to do with this debate. Why? Remember that Architect’s assertion is taken from his boasting on the Richard Gage thread that started my investigation into Architect’s claims:

Architect’s Own Claims Again:

Architect >> I seem to recall that the last proponent of amazing fireproof steel here was Heiwa, who ran away when I put technical issues to him.

Terry, do you want a technical lesson...(cough)...debate as to why steel is susceptible to normal fire conditions?

Or do you withdraw your frankly ludicrous suggestion?

Architect is the laughing stock in this case that made the connection between ‘this’ Heiwa Thread and ‘why steel is susceptible to NORMAL BUILDING FIRES,’ which he can now defend OR he simply cannot. Period. His question above about 2795 degree steel is diversionary trickery, because no such conditions should even be present at all in these WTC cases, IF his “steel is susceptible to normal fire conditions” hypothesis is correct. After all, we already have the SchwabCorp and UL testing data saying building fires burn around 800 degrees ‘and’ for only 20 minutes in any given location. Why? Because fires ‘start’ in areas and consume the available fuel in a pattern, until all the available components are burned up and the fire goes out. This is the very place where WTC-7 fireproofing countermeasures come into the equation, which is not even part of Architect’s OP hypothesis, claims or conclusions AT ALL. What does the evidence show for this WTC-7 case? Some of the very best information is found here:

911Research.WTC7.Net:

5.1 Introduction

World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. On the contrary, it appears the collapse was due primarily due to a controlled demolition. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings. Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire.

While there is ‘tons’ of evidence pointing directly to the Controlled Demolition Explanation, my rebuttal to Architect’s OP claims includes the absolute and undeniable fact that WTC-7 was designed and built using “Compartmentalization Of All Supporting Columns And Beams” (see section 5.3.3 Compartmentalization and this diagram).

5.3.3 Compartmentalization

Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was to be filled with fire-stopping material.

Any real Architect (like Richard Gage) knows the importance of “Compartmentalization” to this WTC-7 case, because this means the skyscraper (like all modern day skyscrapers) enjoy the protect of ‘separating’ all steel supports into different ‘sub-compartments’ that divide the building into a myriad of different ‘zones.’ We have 3-hour ‘spray-on’ insulation protecting all the column support in the entire WTC-7 structure ‘and’ gypsum wallboard through which no 20-minute fire burning at 800 degrees can possibly penetrate to even begin ‘softening’ any structural steel. Architect’s OP ‘testing’ drivel in Heiwa’s direction does not even begin to address the topic of ‘steel’ part of a massive steel-framed network, OR the many fireproofing countermeasures built into the WTC-7 structure itself. Remember that you have no sign of building fires through any of the unbroken windows, even while WTC-7 is falling at freefall speed ‘during’ the collapse.

The idea that this 47-story overbuilt skyscraper could fall from susceptibility to “normal fire conditions” is not only improbable, but very much IMPOSSIBLE. You could continually throw office furniture against the wall containing a massive WTC-7 steel column (like one of these) for three hours straight and never soften a single component of WTC-7 steel anywhere in the entire steel-framed network. Even if you could penetrate the fireproofing and gypsum wallboard, then building fires are simply not hot enough or intense enough to introduce 2800 degree temps ‘faster’ than the energy can be absorbed and dispersed throughout the entire steel-framed network. That is the very reason that this skyscraper burned out of control for over a day (story) and still remained standing to be renovated back to its original condition.

If Architect had answers to my Post #11 rebuttal, then he would not be asking such ridiculous questions . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[funk de fino]

Terral

Post # 52 please. It should not take too long, you need not give me one of your rambling posts with hyperlinks.

A quick yes or no will suffice.

I will take the pictures tomorrow if required.

 

[Terral]

The NIST And 911Commission Report Travesties Point Directly To A WTC-7 CD Implosion

Hi Architect:

Terral Original >> No sir. The purpose of this thread is for Architect to make his own thesis, claims and conclusions from whatever he calls credible evidence. Heiwa then has the opportunity to post his rebuttals or counterproposals the very same way.

Architect’s Reply >> If you're not happy with the evidence cited, then explain where the likes of the BSI go wrong. Incidentally, Heiwa ran away from this argument (see above).

BSI? The BS I see is Architect attempting to throw “Fireproofing Steel” Bullony in Heiwa’s direction to say,

Architect OP >> On the debunkers thread, Heiwa has suggested that one of the underlying flaws in the NIST collapse report is the steelwork would be inherrently resistant to heat-induced failure under typical fire conditions.

The purpose of this thread is to provide Heiwa with an opportunity to post the evidence for this quite remarkable claim.

Architect has offered up the OP evidence as proof of a “NIST collapse” from their report, where Heiwa suggested that the “steelwork would be inherently resistant to heat-induced failure under typical fire conditions.” Right or wrong? The fact is that Heiwa’s suggestion is ‘correct’ and your BS is the product of a “Building Fires Did It” Cover Story. BTW, I am very happy with the OP BS cited, because you have made my task of writing rebuttals that much easier . . .

Terral Original >> The concept of how steelwork responds to fire has nothing to do with the WTC-7 steel-framed network that suffered catastrophic failure in just a few hours. In fact, a good look at the building in freefall mode (from this website) shows no signs of fire through the unbroken windows at all. However, this Madrid skyscraper burned like a Roman Candle (story) for over a day and did NOT suffer any collapse. Mr. Architect here is getting ready to razzle dazzle you with statistical bullony rather than apply any of that to WTC-7 or anything else.

Architect’s Reply >> Can you tell me what the Windsor Tower in Madrid was constructed of, perhaps? In detail? Then revise your conclusions on comparable construction types?

My distinguished debating adversary has no answers to A SINGLE WORD of my Post #11 rebuttal, so he stammers around asking one pathetic question after another to reveal his embarrassment and shame. All of that is covered in the Infowars.com report here, which anyone interested in knowing ‘the’ 911Truth can see for themselves. Architect is the one being challenged to change ‘his’ OP hypothesis and conclusions with his ridiculous boasting from the Richard Gage-bashing Thread here and here.

Architect >> Does statistical balloney mean test results and the like? Because that seems to me like awfully solid material.

Please forgive, but what ‘seems to be’ to Architect (“Cough”) is exactly what is being judged by all these readers coming to realize that you are sitting your behind over there across the ocean somewhere, but my children and grandchildren are right here in the USA very much ‘susceptible’ to the next series of 9/11-like attacks from these same inside-job bad guys YOU are working every day to defend. Yes. I have build the Inside-Job Terrorist Model from a mountain available of data ‘and’ have determined with a 95 percent degree of accuracy that the next 9/11-like attack will take place in the state of California and in proximity to the Oakland Metropolitan Area. Your bullony characterized as “awfully solid material” does NOT take the WTC-7 Compartmentalization and Fireproofing variables into account, or anything else pertaining to these WTC Controlled Demolition Inside-Jobs. Do you guys really believe Terral [ yes, I referred to myself in the third person :0) ] is all alone in knowing for A FACT that WTC-7 was taken down by Controlled Demolition? What does the evidence say concerning this bogus NIST Report?

TeamLiberty.Net

“When asked by the Muckraker Report on March 20, 2006 if the federal government would be forthcoming if investigation conclusions regarding the collapse of World Trade Center Building Seven indicated that it collapsed at freefall speed onto its footprint as the direct result of a controlled demolition, Michael E. Newman, Public and Business Affairs spokesman for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) said, “If that is the conclusion reached, that’s what we will release to the public.” When asked if the government’s previous conclusions reached to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC-1, WTC-2) prohibited a “controlled demolition” conclusion regarding WTC-7, Newman said, “They do not.”

For those of you new to the 9/11 Truth Movement, a movement that by most accounts originated with Mr. Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com, and has expanded to organizations such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Physics 911 with millions of other Americans now convinced that there is a government cover-up pertaining to the actual events of September 11, 2001, the collapse of World Trade Center Building Seven will prove to be the government’s weakest link in its official account of how 9/11 unfolded. This viewpoint is shared by millions of people and demonstrated by the fact that as of today, the U.S government has yet to provide an official, public explanation of how WTC-7, a forty-seven story steel superstructure that was not struck by an airplane, was the furthest distance from the Twin Towers, experienced minimal debris damage when the towers collapsed, and only had miniscule office fires burning in it between the 6th and 12th floors, suddenly collapsed at freefall speed onto its footprint at 5:20p.m. EST on September 11, 2001. The reason why the government has not yet released an official account of how WTC-7 collapsed is because there is no plausible explanation other than controlled demolition.

Now, you guys can sit there in the stench of your ignorance and arrogance to pretend the ‘government’ has a solid “Building Fires Did It” alibi, when the 911Truth is that WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition and millions of people already know that for AN ABSOLUTE FACT. What was the 911Commission Report conclusion about WTC-7? Does anyone here have one clue?

AE911Truth On 9-11 Commission Report:

9-11 Commission Report Implicitly Discredited by More Than 100 Architects and Engineers

The 9-11 Commission Report did not deal with the evidence that supports the conclusion that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 (WTC 7) were destroyed by controlled demolition. (See the list on the right column of our homepage.) Indeed, the Report avoided even mentioning the complete, symmetrical, and rapid collapse of WTC 7, although that collapse was unprecedented in the 100-plus-year history of steel-framed skyscrapers. Our members call for a serious 9-11 investigation that looks squarely at all the relevant evidence. Join us!

The 9-11 Commission Report As Whitewash

Like the NIST Report after it, the 9-11 Commission Report was clearly a political document rather than a scientific one. The 9-11 Commission was laden with conflicts of interest. Most of the Commission's members either themselves had motive, or had documented connections to people with motive, to plan and execute the 9-11 attack. They were also connected to people with the means and opportunity to rig the WTC towers for controlled demolition -- means and opportunity that al Qa'eda lacked. Hence, the 9-11 Commission Report was nothing more than a sophisticated whitewash. Its flaws, evasions, and outright lies are well documented at The 9-11 Commission Report: An Elaborate Fiction and in Prof. David Ray Griffin's 339-page book The 9-11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (my link inserted).

Those of you holding up the NIST and 911Commission Reports are standing in defense of the Official “Building Fires Did It” Government Explanation that ‘they’ cannot even defend. The idea that you want to prove “Building Fires Did It” from steel testing nonsense in your OP is appalling to say the very least. Then to attack Richard Gage a ‘real’ Architect and the leader of over 200 other concerned architects and engineers reveals distinct underhanded trickery like on display from the NIST and 911Commission Report cronies LYING like heck to We The People. For you to THEN continue asking me foolish questions in light of ALL the WTC Controlled Demolition evidence is throwing gasoline on an already ridiculous ‘one-sides’ debate situation. The fact that you “Official Cover Story” guys continue to come here every day to support and defend the real ‘inside-job’ bad guys is the icing on the cake these readers should be looking at with more and more scrutiny in judging the merits of all sides in these 911Truth debates.

GL,

Terral

 

[Terral]

To Switch Topic Subtitles Or Not To Switch Them, The Question . . .

Hi Architect:

Terral Original >> Take all of this Part 20 Method of determination bullony and toss everything into the garbage can, because none of this drivel means anything.

Architect >> I see. When considering technical issues surrounding fire performance of steel, detailed technical papers are.....balloney. How very interesting.

No sir. I said “Bullony,” but a picture is worth more than everything posted in your OP combined. Steel in a laboratory given heat in controlled conditions does NOT behave like massive steel components within a steel-framed network protected inside Compartmentalized zones and 3-hour Spray-on Fireproofing Countermeasures. We not talking about what heat ‘can’ do to a piece of steel in controlled situations, but about the role that office fires played in the WTC-7 Controlled Demolition-like collapse. This is the Conspiracies Forum of the respected JREF Board. Right? Of course. Therefore, this ‘debate’ is about much more than just steel in your laboratory . . .

Terral Original >> What is the problem with this picture? You can put a pot on the burner (watch this short video) and cook all day long and never cause the thing to soften, melt or suffer catastrophic failure, but WTC-7 collapsed demolition-style into its own footprint like any typical building implosion.

Architect’s feeble reply >> I see. What temperature does the burner run at?

That would depend on the operator . . . The temperature setting on my oven goes up to 500 degrees. However, these kinds of questions are presented to professionals in the field all the time. Here is just one example:

Temperature of a Home Oven

Natural gas ovens and propane gas ovens work in a similar matter, i.e. by converting gas energy into heat energy that can be channeled via the burner or the inside of an oven. For this reason, they reach around the same maximum temperatures. The maximum temperature of a home gas oven is 537.7 degrees Celsius (which the heat reached by self-cleaning ovens during the self-cleaning process). For ordinary cooking, the maximum temperature used is 287.7 degrees Celsius.

How many of these readers realized their propane gas ovens reach a temperature of 537.7 degrees Celsius, during the self-cleaning process? Anyone? And yet, what is the OP claim above?

Opening Post >> Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C.

Should these readers begin worrying that the steel in their home ovens is going to begin losing strength at 300 degrees Celsius like Architect here is suggesting for ‘all’ steel? No. The 537.7 degree Celsius temperature is derived from 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, which is still 200 degrees higher than the SchwabCorp and UL 800 degree building fire temps. The reason such a low 300 degree temperature is used in Architect’s OP statements, is because he took the time to ‘alter’ the title of the report here from Chapter 6 of “Thermal and Mechanical Properties of Materials” under their “6.2 Steel” section. Architect altered the subtitle to read “Performance of Steel in Fires” for his OP proposal, when that is NOT the intention or motivation of these writers at all. The low 300 degree temperature is used in ‘this case,’ because their paper includes “guidance on the material properties of hot-finished carbon steel, stainless steel, light gauged steel, normal-weight siliceous concrete, lightweight concrete, reinforcing steels, bolts and welds.” Therefore, if 300 degrees is the maximum temperature allowed for ‘welds,’ then these authors are required to include a temperature ‘much’ lower than even your home oven can easily handle. These people are writing on the “properties of materials” and NOT about structural red-iron steel part of a massive WTC-7 steel-framed network protected from the very ‘fire’ these tests require to produce results.

Terral Original >> Testing a piece of metal in a laboratory has NOTHING to do with the characteristics of structural steel part of a steel-framed network where heat is transferred readily and very easily between columns, beams, girders and bar-joists. We are not talking about what ‘can’ be accomplished in ‘testing’ anything, but what building fires did to massive WTC-7 steel columns and beams to transform this massive skyscraper into this little pile of debris in a collapse that lasted about 6.5 seconds. This skyscraper was not hit by any Jetliner and as you can see no windows are even broken on this entire side of the building, even at the time of collapse.

Architect’s Reply >> Uh-hu. Laboratory fire testing of steel assemblies typically used in building construction is of no relevance to the consideration of how steel assemblies perform in fires. I see.....

More nonsense . . . The UL testing is of typical building fires:

SchwabCorp.com

Answer: A typical fire burns at around 800°F. As it passes through the building, the fire's intensity changes as flammable items are consumed. Fires usually average only 20 minutes in any location.

“Your” OP testing is of “properties of materials,” while this UL data pertains to building fires that ‘you’ say caused the WTC-7 Collapse. My debating adversary is hoping these readers are as inattentive to the details of this debate as he is pretending to be. That was a nice ‘switch’ of Topic Subtitles BTW during ‘your’ Opening Post ploy of deception . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[rwguinn]

Terral is a hopeless troll.
1. Yes, steel heated under laboratory conditions behaves exactly like steel heated to the same temperature in the field.
2. Your oven (or rather, the hot parts of it) is not carrying any load when it is heated to 537C. (nor at any other time) Stress levels within the oven are at nearly 0 (zero) at room temperature, and are somehat higher at 537C due to thermal expansion and physical restraintconditions.
Enginers are clever that way---they design for the expected load.

Go take a look at the charcoal grate in your barbque. Notice how, after a few times, it is no longer flat? Heat did that, under no load other than the weight of the grate and the charcoal piled on it.

 

[Terral]

And That Means Every Last One Of Them . . .

Hi Architect:

Terral Original >> Architect's statement (pasted from here) is very misleading in many ways. First of all, this “Thermal and mechanical properties of materials” documentation relates to “6.2. Steel” and NOT “Performance of Steel in Fires.” This paper was created to demonstrate the properties of ‘hot-finished carbon steel, stainless steel, light gauged steel and related concrete rebar reinforcing, bolts and welds.’ Testing of any metal in any laboratory means the introduction of controlled temperatures for controlled durations, but this WTC-7 case is about how burning office furniture transfers heat energy to massive steel columns and beams protected by 3-hour spray-on insulation and gypsum wallboard designed specifically to keep heat OUT.

Architect’s Reply >> The purpose of fire protection is to retain the structural work at a temperature whereby it retains it's integrity. This may take the form of gypsum based plasterboards, where 2 layers of broken bond material will provide between 30 and 60 minutes resistance, right up to high-end applied intumescent materials. Generally speaking, the required fire resistance for a building of this type will be between 2 and 4 hours, depending upon regulatory codes.

Of course the fire protection is only as good as its weakest link. And as long as it's intact.

How Architect’s statements here represent a ‘defending argument’ to my Post #11 rebuttal I haven’t the slightest clue. I supposed when you are so heavily outgunned in any serious WTC-7 debate, then you just agree with your debating adversary, sit back and enjoy the ride. Of course the purpose of fire protection is to protect something from a cotton picking fire. How much ‘fire protection’ did any of the ‘steel’ in your OP tests receive? Oh. None. How much of your OP steel was contained within a massive overbuilt steel-framed network like we see in the WTC-7 Case? Oh. None. How many of these readers realized that some of the massive steel components of the WTC-7 steel-framed network include beams some 9 feet tall? And yet ‘all’ of them were surgically ‘cut’ to collapse into one little pile of debris like this in one single CD-like fluid motion. This guy is talking just like a ‘Building Fires Did It’ Cover Story crony with the “weakest link” bullony, because again, this picture shows WTC-7 in full ‘freefall’ mode without a single window revealing a single sign of building fires ANYWHERE. How did the 3-hour spray-on insulation get knocked off any of these beams by any falling debris or anything else, when the windows standing directly outside the columns are not even broken? The fact is that starting this “steel testing” thread to ‘debunk’ (heh) Heiwa’s “the steelwork would be inherrently resistant to heat-induced failure under typical fire conditions” claims was a bad idea from the beginning.

Terral Original >> The problem with Architect’s methodology is that building fires typically burn in a single location for only about 20 minutes. Therefore, his ‘testing’ gibberish has nothing to do with how building fires took down WTC-7 any more than the man on the moon. His next problem is that WTC-7 was built using Compartmentalization (see 5.3.3 Compartmentalization) of all supporting steel members ‘away’ from one another in sub-compartments designed also to eliminate the possibility of ‘building fire collapse’ from the equation. That means primary steel supports were separated horizontally by solid concrete slabs and vertically by curtain walls to ‘stop’ fire penetration BEFORE the fuel source could be extinguished.

Architect’s Reply >> Fires burn for 20 minutes? Then magically the heat dissapates and the fire goes off somewhere else? Great conspiracy by the fire protection manufacturers going on here then, eh?

For a guy supposedly defending his OP nonsense, this Architect sure asks many silly questions. There is noting magic about building fires burning in a single location for 20 minutes, because during that time the available fuel is extinguished to move into the adjacent areas of the building. The difference for Architect’s OP ‘testing’ is that those people sit there and continually add controlled burning temperatures in order to see what the heck happens. Architect becomes all defensive when the SchabCorp/UL testing data agrees with ‘my’ side of the debate, but that is just the way the old cookie crumbles . . .

Terral Original >> Think about this very carefully and the realization will dawn that the Official “Building Fires Did It” Cover Story has a ZERO probability of being ‘the’ 911Truth: Even if you had fifty fires in different areas of WTC-7 (and you had very few), then those fires would burn at around 800 to 1000 degrees for twenty minutes ‘inside’ their own compartments for the fuel source to be extinguished LONG before any structural steel could become softened by anything. And yet ‘all’ the primary supports were ‘severed’ (cut) for WTC-7 to collapse demolition-style in a very short time.

Architect’s One-liner Drivel >> If I think carefully, alll I see is a lot of ill-informed bluster Terry. Try harder.

You are my debating ‘adversary,’ so what ‘you’ see has very little to do with anything. Building fires had NOTHING to do with the WTC-7 Collapse and millions of people already know 9/11 was DEFINITELY an “Inside-Job.” You guys can continue to bash Richard Gage’s head in with your “Building Fires Did It” Stupidity if that makes you all warm and fuzzy inside, but your ‘claims’ have no basis in reality whatsoever. None! I will search the JREF archives for more evidence of Official Cover Story Cronies LIKE YOU and ask them to defend their Bullony the very same way. As yet I cannot find a single “WTC-7 Collapsed Due to Building Fires” thread supported by any real evidence, but God knows I will keep on looking. :0)

Terral Post #11 Closing Statement >> What I hope to see from Architect is a real “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” Thesis Paper with whatever he calls ‘credible evidence,’ which hopefully is much more than his pitiful ‘testing’ information.

Architect’s Reply >> Last I heard, we were still waiting for the NIST final draft. I don't really think that an architect, sitting in his office, is going to match thousands of man-days of in depth analysis and evidence gathering from a multi-disciplinary team. Not that that seems to have stopped you.

The NIST and 911Commission Reports are a JOKE presented for the benefit of the same Inside-Job bad guys that carried out these 9/11 attacks ‘and’ the same Inside-Job bad guys that have been carrying out the 9/11 Investigation from the beginning from inside our government. The 911Truth Train is coming down the tracks and going to run all the bad guys over and right into the gas chamber, just before they dive headlong into the lake of fire. What ‘they’ did to innocent victims like this will be done back to them a billion-billion-fold and more; and that goes for all their little helpers too - down to the very last one . . .

GL,

Terral