Steel failing in hydrocarbon fires.

[RedIbis]

,,, and to educate RedI about the towers,,,,,,
This is the first time that an all steel tube-in-tube, long span high rise has been hit by a fast, large airliner and also the first instance of a multifloor widespread office fire developing within seconds due to the presence of 10,000 gallons of liquid acellerant.

This is the first time for a lot of things, but in both cases, you're simply blaming hypothetical design considerations and overlooking the most obvious realities.

Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse.

In the case of the towers, there is zero physical evidence that core columns ever reached temps necessary to cause them to fail.

NIST has to rely on a series of undocumented design based failures to even suggest what has never even remotely happened in another steel frame high-rise.

 

[beachnut]

...
Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse.

In the case of the towers, there is zero physical evidence that core columns ever reached temps necessary to cause them to fail.

...

The fires were hot enough; proved by the collapses which are physical evidence last time I checked. Wrong on all counts your delusions remain based on failed ideas, lies, hearsay and a dash of fantasy.

You have an obsession with Gravy, get over it and try to cure your ignorance on 911 issues.

,,, and to educate RedI about the towers,,,,,,
This is the first time that an all steel tube-in-tube, long span high rise has been hit by a fast, large airliner and also the first instance of a multifloor widespread office fire developing within seconds due to the presence of 10,000 gallons of liquid acellerant.

That requires rational thinking based in reality; Why would someone with delusions about 911 use rational thinking or reality to guide their obsession with supporting idiots who lie?

 

[BigAl]

This is the first time for a lot of things, but in both cases, you're simply blaming hypothetical design considerations and overlooking the most obvious realities.

Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse.

So it was column 78 or 80. Not being sure which column was the first to fail doesn't mean that anything but a protracted unfought fire caused the structure to collapse.

 

[DGM]

This is the first time for a lot of things, but in both cases, you're simply blaming hypothetical design considerations and overlooking the most obvious realities.

Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse.

In the case of the towers, there is zero physical evidence that core columns ever reached temps necessary to cause them to fail.

NIST has to rely on a series of undocumented design based failures to even suggest what has never even remotely happened in another steel frame high-rise.

Do you have a theory that better fits the observed events of that day? Does anyone?

 

[Seymour Butz]

Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse.

In the case of the towers, there is zero physical evidence that core columns ever reached temps necessary to cause them to fail.

.

There IS physical evidence.

NIST documents the window breakage. That is physical evidence that verifies their temp estimate and fire spread models.

And for the towers, they DID collect some core columns. The temp that THEY saw verified the fire spread and temp models, since they agreed with the models.

 

[dtugg]

This is the first time for a lot of things, but in both cases, you're simply blaming hypothetical design considerations and overlooking the most obvious realities.

Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse.

In the case of the towers, there is zero physical evidence that core columns ever reached temps necessary to cause them to fail.

NIST has to rely on a series of undocumented design based failures to even suggest what has never even remotely happened in another steel frame high-rise.

What's your physical evidence that the NWO blew up the building?

 

[T.A.M.]

Do you have a theory that better fits the observed events of that day? Does anyone?

Well of course...controlled demolition using thermite/thermate/hushaboom.

TAM

 

[The Platypus]

From what I've seen, their alternative theory is basically something like this.

That it was done by the 'Jooooz', in a centuries old plan to bring about an NWO which has a weather control / natural disaster machine and is always busy creating all diseases, to make us take vaccines, and spraying chem-trails from planes as well as putting fluoride in the water which is all designed to imperceptibly dumb us all down and enslave our minds, helped by, completely scripted and constantly choreographed control of every TV, radio and newspaper company, to make us compliant and easy to round up in FEMA concentration camps where they will murder 80% of the population, enslaving the rest while they live forever and become immortal from super duper advanced technology secrets...

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse.

In the case of the towers, there is zero physical evidence that core columns ever reached temps necessary to cause them to fail.

NIST has to rely on a series of undocumented design based failures to even suggest what has never even remotely happened in another steel frame high-rise.

Are you a certified structural engineer/firefighter/fire investigator? No, you're not! You're just a person trying to act smart so it would make you look good on the internet. Well pal, noone ain't buying your paranoid garbage because everyone knows that in order to prove something you've got to have solid evidence. Without evidence you've got nothing! Googling Truther websites for stupid information, that doesn't have evidence, is so over-rated that they're only rated by the idiots who made them & idiots follow what they say.

 

[jaydeehess]

This is the first time for a lot of things, but in both cases, you're simply blaming hypothetical design considerations and overlooking the most obvious realities.

Hypothetical design? I'm pretty sure they have how the buildings were designed, correctly described in their report.

Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse

Well other than the century of fire engineering data, a close estimate of the fuel load in the building and, as was mentioned, the north side window breakage which indicates that the glass reached a certain temp which matches what their computer modelling agrees with. Beyond that you are correct there were no temp sensors mounted on the columns during the blaze. Another obvious design flaw

In the case of the towers, there is zero physical evidence that core columns ever reached temps necessary to cause them to fail.

Once again there is of course a century of fire engineering data and research to accompany the fact that of the positively identifiable columns from the outer edges of the fire floors the temps reached by them, as evidenced by the changes to paint and metal, also matches what the computer modelling indicates these columns would reach. Other than that there is also the pictures of sagging floor trusses and the fact that(I see you ignore this fact) this was amultifloor widespread fire within seconds of impact. That last part is a condition that simply has not occured and would result in an obviously much greater rate of temp rise in the columns.

NIST has to rely on a series of undocumented design based failures to even suggest what has never even remotely happened in another steel frame high-rise.

Like I said perhaps you consider the fact that structures are not built with temp sensors installed a design flaw.
As for other steel framed structures it seems you are trying to infer that all steel structures react to fire in exactly the same fashion. I assume you are not saying that and so you must agree that these structures should be compared to similar structures. The Windsor for instance is not a similar structure as it had a concrete core column system and was not long span either.
However the Kader toy factory, also not long span construction, was completely destroyed by fire despite the fact that its more conventional design would have aided its resistance to fire damage.

 

[RedIbis]

Hypothetical design? I'm pretty sure they have how the buildings were designed, correctly described in their report.

You're misreading what I said.

Well other than the century of fire engineering data, a close estimate of the fuel load in the building and, as was mentioned, the north side window breakage which indicates that the glass reached a certain temp which matches what their computer modelling agrees with. Beyond that you are correct there were no temp sensors mounted on the columns during the blaze. Another obvious design flaw

Odd that you would rely on everything but physical evidence. And what you call a "close estimate" of fuel loads was admittedly a "mild overestimate." NIST overestimated because more realistic fuel loads wouldn't get the WTC 7 to collapse. Therefore, computer models came in handy to tweak the data and arrive at the desired result. For some reason this doesn't bother the supposed skeptics around here.

However the Kader toy factory, also not long span construction, was completely destroyed by fire despite the fact that its more conventional design would have aided its resistance to fire damage.

Kader was not a high rise. Why even bother trying to make the comparison? Remember what NIST told us: WTC 7 was the first known instance of a steel framed high rise collapsing primarily from fire.

 

[RedIbis]

everyone knows that in order to prove something you've got to have solid evidence. Without evidence you've got nothing!

I agree and what physical evidence did NIST present to come up with their single column collapse hypothesis?

What physical evidence did NIST present to prove that core columns in the towers ever got hot enough to weaken and fail?

 

[Edx]

Kader was not a high rise. Why even bother trying to make the comparison?

Because truthers claim no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire because they act like steel is this indestructible building material.

And its ironic you should say that since truthers compare all manor of buildings the the WTC that are clearly significantly different.

Remember what NIST told us: WTC 7 was the first known instance of a steel framed high rise collapsing primarily from fire.

The point is that truthers act like steel doesn't fail in fires, if a steel frame building can collapse from fire then so can a steel frame high rise. Seriously, what do you imagine is stopping it? Do you imagine that building it higher makes it stronger?

 

[RedIbis]

Because truthers claim no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire because they act like steel is this indestructible building material.

And its ironic you should say that since truthers compare all manor of buildings the the WTC that are clearly significantly different.



The point is that truthers act like steel doesn't fail in fires, if a steel frame building can collapse from fire then so can a steel frame high rise. Seriously, what do you imagine is stopping it? Do you imagine that building it higher makes it stronger?

Why am I responsible for what this mythical band of Twoofies says?

 

[BenBurch]

Now might be a good time for this link to be re-used; http://www.quantumtour.com/entity/mcallister/video/1/

 

[Edx]

Why am I responsible for what this mythical band of Twoofies says?

1. Why mythical? Do you imply they dont exist? I am describing at least 99% of all truthers I've encountered.

2. You ignored my response.... "if a steel frame building can collapse from fire then so can a steel frame high rise. Seriously, what do you imagine is stopping it? Do you imagine that building it higher makes it stronger?"

 

[Dave Rogers]

And what you call a "close estimate" of fuel loads was admittedly a "mild overestimate." NIST overestimated because more realistic fuel loads wouldn't get the WTC 7 to collapse. Therefore, computer models came in handy to tweak the data and arrive at the desired result.

Apologies to Thunder for breaking the boycott, but I had to ask: RedIbis, is the above purely the product of your imagination, or do you believe you have a source for it? If the latter, could you post it please? If your source is NIST NCSTAR 1A, a page number would be much appreciated.

Dave

 

[BenBurch]

Wow am I glad I have certain people on ignore...

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I agree and what physical evidence did NIST present to come up with their single column collapse hypothesis?

What physical evidence did NIST present to prove that core columns in the towers ever got hot enough to weaken and fail?

The point is, if a buildings structural steel is comprimised in the slightest degree, it will fall/fail, reguardless of what you might think or say that gravity doesn't exist.

RedIbis, you're not a structural engineer, nor are you a firefighter or a fire investigator. The proof was in the debris pile with the steel supports & beams being warped by the intense heat from the fires.

I've gotta ask you a question: When was the last time you ever looked for pictures of steel beams that have been subjected to fire & caused it to fail?

Please tell me that you atleast Googled a picture or something?? Show me that you atleast have a brain in that skull of yours RedIbis!

 

[jaydeehess]

You're misreading what I said.

Nope, you worded your statement incorrectly.

Odd that you would rely on everything but physical evidence. And what you call a "close estimate" of fuel loads was admittedly a "mild overestimate." NIST overestimated because more realistic fuel loads wouldn't get the WTC 7 to collapse. Therefore, computer models came in handy to tweak the data and arrive at the desired result. For some reason this doesn't bother the supposed skeptics around here.

Really?? They said that did they? Perhaps you can show that a slightly lower fuel load would not have the building collapse or is it all just extrapolation from the term "mild overestimate" coupled with your politically motivated view of 'what really happened'?

Kader was not a high rise. Why even bother trying to make the comparison? Remember what NIST told us: WTC 7 was the first known instance of a steel framed high rise collapsing primarily from fire.

You are correct it is not a direct comparison to the towers. Neither is the Windsor or any other structure that others of similar mindset as you have brought up.
So, ok let's take it that you believe that only structures with similar characteristics should be compared to the 3 WTC structures that collapsed.

I believe that is what I said above. Glad you are coming around on this.
Fact is that never before in history of tall structures (which goes back barely 100 years) has there been multifloor unfought fires in long span all steel structures(a style that was not present until about 40 years ago) let alone conditions such as were present in the towers in which several thousand gallons of acellerant was spread out over half a dozen floors and ignited to create widespread multifloor fires within in seconds of having had significant structural damage done to them.


ONCE AGAIN RedI; Given that the steel in WTC 7 was unmarked and thus it would be impossible to tell where any specific floor beams of girders came from how would these structural elements be useful in a forensic investigation? Seems to me I asked you that about a year ago. I do not recall your reply.(at the time you were going on about the idea that they should have saved col 79 and I pointed out that all that would do is show that col 79 failed, not why. NIST's study has it failing due to damage done by having the girder pushed off its column seats so those are the pieces you would need)

I also pointed out that there were underground fires as well as collapse damage done to all structural elements and it would be quite problematic to determine what heat damage occured pre collapse versus post collapse so even if it were possible to positively identify the beams and girders you would still be unable to garner much usable data from them if they were located in an area of post collapse fires.

HOWEVER, NIST does give examples of the type of damage that is OFTEN done to steel in office fires. NIST does use the wealth of information available on steel expansion, strength of connections and other well docuemented technical data and research.

For the conjecture that explosives or some mythical form of thermite was used to deliberatly bring these structures down what do you have?
Squat!

Its entirely possible that I have you confused with another, Christopher 7 perhaps, but if I am and it was not you that I questioned before, here is your chance to address it.

YOU know what NIST should have done so let's hear it.