• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Steel failing in hydrocarbon fires.

So, to summarise; not one of our current Truthers has sought to argue against the position that steel is susceptible to failure under normal fire conditions.
 
Architect said:
So, to summarise; not one of our current Truthers has sought to argue against the position that steel is susceptible to failure under normal fire conditions.
Click to expand...
I believe that is because if something cannot happen for the first time because it's never happened before they can't stand the concept that steel at some point yielded for a first time, and subsequently happened multiple other times. If that came out weird... you're not alone... that line of argument is just weird that they push forth.
 
BenBurch said:
Some gratuitous steam engine photos I tool last summer;

http://www.whiterosesociety.org/RGNalbum/

More coming as soon as I make an album of the steam thresher show...
Click to expand...

"TOOL"!!elevnty!1!!

Don't try to claim its a typo just because the "L" and "K" are a little close together on the keyboard. Its obvioulsy a Freudian slip resulting from the fact that you photoshopped the picture!
 
Architect said:
Homeland Insurgency

Let's break this down. The first issue is whether you accept that structural steelwork is, in general, susceptible to fire induced failure. Set to one side the "complete structural failure" issue.

If you don't accept this, then can you please explain in some detail why this might be, including reference to the very specific points identified in the OP and my own subsequent post.


Homeland Insurgency

Can I press you for a response to this, please?
Click to expand...

It depends on the fire, the level of heat, and the duration.

Also the quality of steel and construction in said structure.

Yes steel is susceptible to fire. That's how it's made and molded isn't it? With heat?

So what?
 
Steel is not susceptible to explosives. A high explosive charge can only cut just over an inch and that's with the all the energy focused in one direction. Ramzi Yousef's 1500 lb. bomb blasted through six stories of concrete but didn't break one steel column. Implosion contractors must preweaken the steel using heat. It's a difficult task but it puts the "controlled" in "controlled demolition". This is what happens if you don't cut the steel with an oxy-torch.
charge.jpg
 
Last edited:
Homeland Insurgency said:
Originally Posted by Architect
Homeland Insurgency

Let's break this down. The first issue is whether you accept that structural steelwork is, in general, susceptible to fire induced failure. Set to one side the "complete structural failure" issue.

If you don't accept this, then can you please explain in some detail why this might be, including reference to the very specific points identified in the OP and my own subsequent post.


Homeland Insurgency

Can I press you for a response to this, please?
Click to expand...
It depends on the fire, the level of heat, and the duration.

Also the quality of steel and construction in said structure.

Yes steel is susceptible to fire. That's how it's made and molded isn't it? With heat?

So what?
Click to expand...

The question was, do "you accept that structural steelwork is, in general, susceptible to fire induced failure"?

Quite obviously the video posted earlier in this thread and myriad other examples illustrate that fire induced failure of steel structural members is not only possible but fairly commonplace. Yes, or no.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
Steel is not susceptible to explosives. A high explosive charge can only cut just over an inch and that's with the all the energy focused in one direction. Ramzi Yousef's 1500 lb. bomb blasted through six stories of concrete but didn't break one steel column.
Click to expand...
A minor correction: the bomb on the B2 parking garage level blew a large hole through that floor and the one above (B1), and a small hole in the concourse level two floors above. Part of B1 and B2 then fell to the B5 refrigeration plant, but there were no intervening floors: from B5 to B2 was a 3-story-tall open space.
 
Last edited:
Homeland Insurgency said:
(1) It depends on the fire, the level of heat, and the duration.

(2) Also the quality of steel and construction in said structure.

(3) Yes steel is susceptible to fire. That's how it's made and molded isn't it? With heat?

(4) So what?
Click to expand...

I've numbered your points for ease of reference. Now, taking each in turn:

1. The question is whether you accept that, in general, normal fire loadings can induce failure in structural steelwork. You may assume that de minimis conflagrations may be excluded from this, but - for example - a normal house or office fire can reach sufficient temperatures to cause failure. Do you agree with this?

2. Actually, it depends more upon passive fire protection. You will see that the linked pages in the OP set out a number of fairly simple means of providing up to 90 minutes protection. But if you want to go into different grades of steel, feel free to do so.

3. See item 1, above.

4. There are a number of posters here such as Bob the Analyst who claim otherwise, that's what.
 
Architect said:
...
4. There are a number of posters here such as Bob the Analyst who claim otherwise, that's what.
Click to expand...

Virtually every truther I have ever met claims otherwise. What was the name of that video they were selling copies of? That made the claim a number of times. Their spokeswoman Rosie O'Donnell has said this on national TV.

So, we prove this point to be at best ignorance and at worst a deliberate lie and they are quick to throw those people under the bus? Quick to say "Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with East Asia."
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
I've numbered your points for ease of reference. Now, taking each in turn:

1. The question is whether you accept that, in general, normal fire loadings can induce failure in structural steelwork. You may assume that de minimis conflagrations may be excluded from this, but - for example - a normal house or office fire can reach sufficient temperatures to cause failure. Do you agree with this?

2. Actually, it depends more upon passive fire protection. You will see that the linked pages in the OP set out a number of fairly simple means of providing up to 90 minutes protection. But if you want to go into different grades of steel, feel free to do so.

3. See item 1, above.

4. There are a number of posters here such as Bob the Analyst who claim otherwise, that's what.
Click to expand...

I said yes.

Now Mr. Architect?

Given unlimited funds and proper facilities could you recreate in a physical controlled test the amount of sag NIST input in their computer model to initiate collapse on a recreation of a WTC floor truss?

How much Jet Fuel and building contents would you need to make this happen in 1 hour or less?
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
I said yes.

Now Mr. Architect?

Given unlimited funds and proper facilities could you recreate in a physical controlled test the amount of sag NIST input in their computer model to initiate collapse on a recreation of a WTC floor truss?

How much Jet Fuel and building contents would you need to make this happen in 1 hour or less?
Click to expand...

You mean the sag they also saw in photos and videos?
 
Repeatability, physical controlled tests done on the same day

Homeland Insurgency said:
I said yes.

Now Mr. Architect?

Given unlimited funds and proper facilities could you recreate in a physical controlled test the amount of sag NIST input in their computer model to initiate collapse on a recreation of a WTC floor truss?

How much Jet Fuel and building contents would you need to make this happen in 1 hour or less?
Click to expand...

The terrorists already did repeat the experiment. I believe the date was 9/11/2001, They picked a building Identical to the first building they struck with flight 11, which failed to immediately collapse. So this time they took flight 175, but struck lower and to one side like an axeman felling a tree. That tower didn't collapse immediately either. The buildings were more robust than the terrorists thought. But their back up plan, the fuel load worked. You see HI. These terrorists in caves. They come from a land where civilization began and math was born. You can keep thinking they are foolish. Thats exactly what they want you to think.
 
So could any of you recreate it?

I mean AW hit the nail on the head when he claims the terrorists recreated it when he doesn't even know for a fact what happened the first time it's claimed to have happened.

I just want to know if any of you think you could and that you're basing that belief on something other than what NIST told you.

So why doesn't somebody do it?

Why couldn't NIST even do it? The one you all base your delusions on?
 
Last edited:
Homeland Insurgency said:
So could any of you recreate it?

I mean AW hit the nail on the head when he claims the terrorists recreated it when he doesn't even know for a fact what happened the first time it's claimed to have happened.

I just want to know if any of you think you could and that you're basing that belief on something other then what NIST told you.

So why doesn't somebody do it?

Why couldn't NIST even do it? The one you all base your delusions on?
Click to expand...

than
   /ðæn, ðɛn; unstressed ðən, ən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [than, then; unstressed thuhn, uhn] Show IPA
–conjunction
1. (used, as after comparative adjectives and adverbs, to introduce the second member of an unequal comparison): She's taller than I am.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/than
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom