Ask all firefighting and fire related questions here

Come on truthers, let's see how many other totally irrelevant and mind-numbingly tiresome minutiae you can bring up as things that make you go, "hmmmmm".
 
Senenmut said:
kinda like the leaning tower of pisa.....it could take centuries to fall!!
Click to expand...

Yes, it could. But it's relatively easy, given sufficiently precise measuring equipment - like, say, the transit that was put on the corner of WTC7 - to measure the rate at which the angle is increasing, to do a simple linear extrapolation, and then to guesstimate a maximum angle of tilt that could be sustained by a structure designed to remain upright. And it might well be simple coincidence that this estimate happened to agree closely enough with a collapse due to internal structural movement for the over-tuned pattern recognition system known as the human brain to think there was an unexplained coincidence.

Dave
 
Alferd_Packer said:
A bit of further research has indicated that Monokote was used in WTC 7 and Cafco Blaze Shield (two types) was used in the towers. Blaze shield is a mineral wool based product.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004ThermalInsulationMethodology.pdf

Mineral wool (AKA fiberglass) The melting point of mineral wool varies depending of it’s actual composition but it can range from 700 C to 1200 C.

So basically your claim that the fireproofing “melted” proves nothing.

Try again.
Click to expand...

are you trying to debunk a nasa scientist with your claim. the 1200C is pretty close.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yes, it could. But it's relatively easy, given sufficiently precise measuring equipment - like, say, the transit that was put on the corner of WTC7 - to measure the rate at which the angle is increasing, to do a simple linear extrapolation, and then to guesstimate a maximum angle of tilt that could be sustained by a structure designed to remain upright. And it might well be simple coincidence that this estimate happened to agree closely enough with a collapse due to internal structural movement for the over-tuned pattern recognition system known as the human brain to think there was an unexplained coincidence.

Dave
Click to expand...

do you have the data they collected or not? did you talk to that "particular engineer" or not.
 
Senenmut said:
it was fireproofing:
"The wreckage of the World Trade Center could also provide unique insight to what happens to building materials like concrete, steel and fireproofing insulation under extreme conditions that are not tested in the laboratory. Dr. Astaneh-Asl said that in some places, the fireproofing melted into a glassy residue."
Click to expand...

No, it was something that Dr. Astaneh-Asl believed to be fireproofing. It may have been something else that he misidentified, or alternatively it may have been fireproofing. We can't be sure from this account, because he hasn't stated how he determined that it was fireproofing.

Now, let's suppose you got the answer 'no' to your original question. You would then know that firefighters who had never worked on the site of an underground fire that had burned for several weeks, had also never seen a phenomenon which would not be expected to be seen elsewhere than on the site of an underground fire that had burned for several weeks. What conclusion would you draw from that particular absence of evidence?

Dave
 
Senenmut said:
it was fireproofing:
"The wreckage of the World Trade Center could also provide unique insight to what happens to building materials like concrete, steel and fireproofing insulation under extreme conditions that are not tested in the laboratory. Dr. Astaneh-Asl said that in some places, the fireproofing melted into a glassy residue."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/s...olds-clues-and-remedies.html?pagewanted=print

and mackey already stated fireproofing melts around 1300C. go check the msds contents of blazeshield and vermiculite and even asbestos.they dont melt under 1800F.

as for the steel that was "vaporized", elmondo has communicated with sisson and they could only remove "little metal" from A36 steel with their theory. they are shooting bb's at a problem where a 50 cal is needed.
have any of you firefighters seen 15.9 mm of A36 steel corrode/erode or just plain vaporize from a column either during or say up to 9 days in office material fire?

Dr. Astaneh-Asl's saw steel missing 15.9 mm and he relates it to before the column gave way and buckled.

from the article:
One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.
The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''



so i ask again, have any of you firefighters ever seen 15.9 mm of A36 steel burned up either during the fire like dr astaneh -asl suggested happened or even 9 days later from a fire consisting of office supplies?
Click to expand...


You are making a huge error. You are assuming that the reporter's story is an accurate reflection of what Asteneh-Asl said. Youu assume that the reporter understood what A-A told him.

I can assure you that, when reporters write stories, this is seldom the case. A classic example (and indicator here) is the reporter's use of the term "vaporized". A-A didn't say this. The reporter did. And it is 100% incorrect.

Oh they get many quotes and many details right. Rarely do they get most of the facts right. Never (in my experience) do they got them all right.

This is especially true for stories, like this one, that were written less than one month after the event.

Reporting is a business. In any business, time allocation of your personnel is critical. Reporters are under enormous time pressures to write this story, and get on to the next one. They write stories after anywhere from 5 minutes to (in this case) perhaps 20 minute interview. (I suspect that AA was pretty darn busy between Sept 28th & Oct 1, 2001. I suspect the reporter was too.)

NO reporter (unfortunately) gives their story back to the expert for a check to see if they quoted the expert correctly, if they understood the things that were hurriedly explained to them, if there are egregious errors in the story.

As a result, stories go out in the paper every single day that are loaded with simple factual errors.

Regarding the tilt of buildings: WTC7 was a tall, relatively narrow building. In the trivial, irrelevant case, WHEN INTACT & UNDAMAGED, it possibly could have withstood a lean of about 5°. It certainly would have collaped with a lean 30°. (My best guess is that it would have collapsed around 10° - 15°.)

Buildings are designed to remain straight upright, with a little sway for wind, earthquake, etc. They are not designed to lean. This is especially true for tall, narrow buildings. The fact is that, other than unstable ground below, a lean is always a sign of serious structural damage. And there is zero doubt that the building was seriously damaged & on fire. For all of the "small fires" nonsense, the fact is that it was possible to see only small sections of the south face of the building, and those only intermittantly, for all of the smoke pouring out of it.

It is possible that the engineer got his guesses all right, and nailed the time of collapse. It is IMHO more likely that he got most of his guesses wrong, and still came close with the time of collapse.

As my dad used to say, "It's better to be lucky than good."


Tom
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
No. Again, if you did get an answer, what would you do next?

Dave
Click to expand...


since an engineer with no name made a call "right on the money" about the collapse of wtc7, id like to see what the 1000+ architects engineers that at ae911 think about the data.

wouldnt you like to see that data they collected for an engineer to state that if the fire keeps burning, you will have about 5 hrs before the building collapses and be "right on the money?"
 
Senenmut said:
since an engineer with no name made a call "right on the money" about the collapse of wtc7, id like to see what the 1000+ architects engineers that at ae911 think about the data.
Click to expand...

Rather you than me. I have yet to see any evidence that the members of AE911T are capable of thinking at all.

Senenmut said:
wouldnt you like to see that data they collected for an engineer to state that if the fire keeps burning, you will have about 5 hrs before the building collapses and be "right on the money?"
Click to expand...

No, because lucky guesses happen all the time. And I suspect it wasn't as lucky as truthers so desperately want it to have been. What exactly did he say, and what time exactly did he say it? As I understand it, nobody seems to remember exactly. If it's simple recollection of hearsay, then there's a well-understood human tendency to improve the precision of predictions to make a better story. I wouldn't be surprised if the prediction was actually a couple of hours out, but was misremembered as being exactly correct. It wouldn't be the first time a nonexistent level of precision was used to bolster a truther argument.

Dave
 
Senenmut said:
thank you for this information. but i do have to ask to see a link where ya got this information.
please explain: "This is completely independent of the cause of the leaning." (sounds like you are wiggling your way out of this data being important to the nist).

what was this "rate of lean" from 11 to mid afternoon and how was it measured. what other studies have been conducted in the past that deal with the amount of "lean" in regards to total collapse? could a FOIA request get this information?
Click to expand...

The key concept is not "lean". It is "rate of lean".

I'm a mechanical engineer. I don't need to go elsewhere to find this information. Any more than an auto mechanic would need to consult "the literature" to figure out that a family car, driven straight into a bridge abutment at 90 mph is not likely to be functional after the event.

I doubt that there are quantitative studies that investigate the "quantification of vehicle serviceability after driving into bridge abutments at speeds over 80 mph".

And those two facts can be said with about the same level of assurance.

The rate of lean was sufficient to convince the engineer that the building was in serious danger of collapse.

As I stated before, if the leaning did not stop (i.e., the rate go to zero), then the building had a 100% chance of collapse. Apparently, the rate did not go to zero, and in fact, began to increase in the mid afternoon.

The first of these bits of info ("the rate of lean is not slowing down") is sufficient ON ITS OWN to conclude that the building has a very high probability of collapse. The second piece ("the rate is increasing") is sufficient to say that the collapse is highly likely to be "soon".

Tom
 
Senenmut said:
it was fireproofing:
"The wreckage of the World Trade Center could also provide unique insight to what happens to building materials like concrete, steel and fireproofing insulation under extreme conditions that are not tested in the laboratory. Dr. Astaneh-Asl said that in some places, the fireproofing melted into a glassy residue."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/s...olds-clues-and-remedies.html?pagewanted=print

and mackey already stated fireproofing melts around 1300C. go check the msds contents of blazeshield and vermiculite and even asbestos.they dont melt under 1800F.

as for the steel that was "vaporized", elmondo has communicated with sisson and they could only remove "little metal" from A36 steel with their theory. they are shooting bb's at a problem where a 50 cal is needed.
have any of you firefighters seen 15.9 mm of A36 steel corrode/erode or just plain vaporize from a column either during or say up to 9 days in office material fire?

Dr. Astaneh-Asl's saw steel missing 15.9 mm and he relates it to before the column gave way and buckled.

from the article:
One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.
The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''



so i ask again, have any of you firefighters ever seen 15.9 mm of A36 steel burned up either during the fire like dr astaneh -asl suggested happened or even 9 days later from a fire consisting of office supplies?
Click to expand...

I ask you very pointedly to please show me a DIRECT QUOTE from Dr A in which he states that it vaporized, or that the "glassy residue."

It has been pointed out repeatedly that those are the words of a non technical newspaper reporter, not direct quotes.

Why is that?

Oh, what does Dr A say about your silly obsession and that of 9/11 truthers again?
 
I don’t know if it is still available on-line (I couldn’t find it, perhaps it is in an archive somewhere) but Firehouse magazine ran a series of interviews called “This is Their Story” One of the firefighters, I believe it might have been Peter Hayden, stated that they could see the side of the building bulging through the transit.
 
Senenmut said:
since an engineer with no name made a call "right on the money" about the collapse of wtc7, id like to see what the 1000+ architects engineers that at ae911 think about the data.

wouldnt you like to see that data they collected for an engineer to state that if the fire keeps burning, you will have about 5 hrs before the building collapses and be "right on the money?"
Click to expand...

Why? I wouldn't trust the 600 licensed OR degreed architects at aetruth (they don't have 1000, don't even try with that lie.) design my dog house.

Feel free to FOIA it, because I'd be interested to see the data, but it still won't change the basic facts of the day.
 
Senenmut said:
since an engineer with no name made a call "right on the money" about the collapse of wtc7, id like to see what the 1000+ architects engineers that at ae911 think about the data.

wouldnt you like to see that data they collected for an engineer to state that if the fire keeps burning, you will have about 5 hrs before the building collapses and be "right on the money?"
Click to expand...

No possible answer to anything you wonder about will change the basic fact about WTC7; fire and the lack of firefighting caused the collapse.
 
Dave Rogers said:
This is getting a bit obsessive. You've had a reply to the effect that glassy deposits are common in buildings that have experienced severe fires. It's also been pointed out that it would be impossible to tell whether such glassy deposits were from melted fireproofing, or just from melted glass. Therefore, if somebody noticed glassy residues in the rubble pile, that would be unexceptional, and if they suggested they were melted fireproofing, that would be unverifiable speculation on their part. There would be nothing unusual about the observation, and nothing significant in the speculation.



Let me remind everyone that (a) this effect has been analysed by metallurgists and found to be due to long-term exposure to a corrosive atmosphere at high temperature, and that (b) there is no rational explanation being offered for this effect by the truth movement that involves either thermite or explosives.

Dave
Click to expand...

Just to be clear. Dr. Astaneh-Asl said specifically that it was the fireprooofing that had turned to a glassy residue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom