Steel failing in hydrocarbon fires.

[jaydeehess]

I asked a very straightforward question in Post #408. Take a shot at it.

I asked you a very straight forward question both recently (a few times now even) and waaay back in October.

Once again then consisely and with feeling;

YOU wail and moan about physical evidence but so far have not answered my question about exactly what physical evidence you would be speaking about and if its to be the beams and girder in question then the question was how you plan on positively identifying them and if that is managed then how you determine pre- vs. post collapse heat damage.

Take a shot at it.

Since I highly suspect that RedI will completely ignore my questions to him as he has in the past, I suppose I will deign to address his later question to me.

NIST assumed a similar fuel load for floor 13 as there was on floors 11 and 12.
they did this because they could not obtain much info about the east side of floor 13.

We DO KNOW that there was fire on floor 13 and thus it certainly was not empty.
We DO KNOW that when NIST tried a lower fuel load for floors 11 and 12 the simulation indicated a slower than observed fire spread.

1) unless there is reason to assume a lower fuel load on floor 13 it is entirely consistent with logic to assume a similar load as for the two lower floors
2) since the sim indicates that the fuel load used matches the fire spread observed it can be assumed that this fuel loading quantity is accurate.

Does Red Ibis have a valid reason for presuming that the fuel loading on floor 13 was significantly less than on the two floors below it? Probably not.

 

[BigAl]

Does Red Ibis have a valid reason for presuming that the fuel loading on floor 13 was significantly less than on the two floors below it? Probably not.

Isn't "floor 13" a mechanical space in a normal high-rise, not that WTC7 was a normal structure?

 

[Dog Town]

Isn't "floor 13" a mechanical space in a normal high-rise, not that WTC7 was a normal structure?

It certainly isn't popular on elevators. Odd that!

 

[Dave Rogers]

So this is a moral issue for you.

Yes, in part. Are you trying to suggest that morality isn't important?

But there's more to it than that. If you want to have a serious scientific discussion, as you keep telling us you want to, there are a few guidelines it's worth following. Firstly, understand the difference between a statement of opinion and a factual claim. Secondly, back up your factual claims with evidence-based arguments. Thirdly, confine the discussion to observables and measurables, and don't make unverifiable claims about personal motivations. You've shown yourself incapable of following any of these guidelines, yet you still complain that the discussion isn't scientific enough for you. Let me make this clear: it's your attitude that's preventing a reasonable debate, not anybody else's. I'd apologise for talking to you like a three-year-old if you didn't insist on behaving like one.

Understanding your subject matter is also a useful ability. Your idea of a scientific debate seems to involve picking an opinion that agrees with your prejudices, assuming it to be incontravertible fact, then repeating it ad nauseam, as you're currently doing with your Frank Greening quote. You'll be incapable of real scientific debate until you learn to think for yourself, instead of trying to get others to do it for you.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Incidentally, let's see how RedIbis's approach differs from the scientific approach of Frank Greening, which he'd like us all to emulate.

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.

Am I "accusing NIST of deliberately and fraudulently misrepresenting their own results?" NOT AT ALL! I am simply asking NIST to explain what I perceive to be a discrepancy in their Draft Report, because I have no idea how such contradictory results could be obtained.

My bolding.

RedIbis, can you see the subtle difference between these two quotes yet?

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

Incidentally, let's see how RedIbis's approach differs from the scientific approach of Frank Greening, which he'd like us all to emulate.

I don't claim to be a scientist.

 

[RedIbis]

Yes, in part. Are you trying to suggest that morality isn't important?

But there's more to it than that. If you want to have a serious scientific discussion, as you keep telling us you want to, there are a few guidelines it's worth following. Firstly, understand the difference between a statement of opinion and a factual claim. Secondly, back up your factual claims with evidence-based arguments. Thirdly, confine the discussion to observables and measurables, and don't make unverifiable claims about personal motivations. You've shown yourself incapable of following any of these guidelines, yet you still complain that the discussion isn't scientific enough for you. Let me make this clear: it's your attitude that's preventing a reasonable debate, not anybody else's. I'd apologise for talking to you like a three-year-old if you didn't insist on behaving like one.

Understanding your subject matter is also a useful ability. Your idea of a scientific debate seems to involve picking an opinion that agrees with your prejudices, assuming it to be incontravertible fact, then repeating it ad nauseam, as you're currently doing with your Frank Greening quote. You'll be incapable of real scientific debate until you learn to think for yourself, instead of trying to get others to do it for you.

Dave

It's kind of funny to read your harangue and see that instead of participating in a highly detailed, scientific debate on the 9/11 Forum, you took one pot shot and then high tailed it out of there.

 

[Seymour Butz]

There's nothing to be done at Greg's forum either. They're no less loony than the whole lot of truthers. They are of the particular delusion that putting window dressing - by way of gifs, etc - makes them seem more reasonable.

They think that if they seem more reasonable, then someone just might listen to them when they start to back in explosives, or nanu nanu thermxte.

What they don't realize is that having a crazy idea in the first place, and then dressing it up to make yourself seem more legit, makes you look even crazier.

Much better for people to think you're a loon, than to reach too high that for legitimacy while wearing a short skirt, and in doing so prove that what we thought was an ugly woman is really a man when we all see the hairy nut sack.....

 

[Dave Rogers]

It's kind of funny to read your harangue and see that instead of participating in a highly detailed, scientific debate on the 9/11 Forum, you took one pot shot and then high tailed it out of there.

After summarising Frank Greening's position in a single sentence, which he didn't appear to contest, I didn't have anything else to say. Asking NIST to check their working is an eminently reasonable stance. Accusing them of deliberate deception isn't.

And I note that, after I left that thread, there was very little further discussion of fuel loads, and the discussion turned to a classic piece of 9/11 Forum nitpicking on the hyperfine details of Einsteen's smearograms. I'm under no obligation to participate in a different discussion to the one I initially joined.

Incidnetally, are you registered on the 9/11 Forum? Since you seem to think there's something reprehensible about joining a discussion and then leaving it afterwards, how much worse is it not to join the discussion in the first place?

Dave

 

[triforcharity]

I know this is slightly off topic, but I thought this might be interesting considering the topic.

http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servl...NACE-06032&soc=NACE&speAppNameCookie=ONEPETRO

It is just the abstract, but I have read the rest of it (You have to pay for it, I think it's 10 bucks) but a VERY interesting read.

 

[BenBurch]

Back to the OP... How, Red Ibis, does this disprove that oil-fired steam locomotives suffer steel failure in their fireboxes at hydrocarbon fire temperatures?

 

[RedIbis]

After summarising Frank Greening's position in a single sentence, which he didn't appear to contest, I didn't have anything else to say.

Get over yourself. That's hardly what happened.

 

[Oystein]

I don't claim to be a scientist.

You most certainly learned about the scientific method in school, and if not, you surely have read about it during your time at JREF?

You don't have to be a scientist to think scientifically. It only takes a little education, and of course the will and character to do it.

I am not a professional runner, yet I run occasionally.
I am not a mathematician, yet I do mathematics now and then.
I am not an engineer, yet I read engineering papers and put my high school science to it to understand it.
And so can you.
Try it, don't dodge it.

 

[Oystein]

Since I highly suspect that RedI will completely ignore my questions to him as he has in the past, I suppose I will deign to address his later question to me.

NIST assumed a similar fuel load for floor 13 as there was on floors 11 and 12.
they did this because they could not obtain much info about the east side of floor 13.

We DO KNOW that there was fire on floor 13 and thus it certainly was not empty.
We DO KNOW that when NIST tried a lower fuel load for floors 11 and 12 the simulation indicated a slower than observed fire spread.

1) unless there is reason to assume a lower fuel load on floor 13 it is entirely consistent with logic to assume a similar load as for the two lower floors
2) since the sim indicates that the fuel load used matches the fire spread observed it can be assumed that this fuel loading quantity is accurate.

Does Red Ibis have a valid reason for presuming that the fuel loading on floor 13 was significantly less than on the two floors below it? Probably not.

You were right on target: Red DID indeed ignore you completely.

 

[DGM]

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/24054157/detail.html

FALSE FLAG!!!!!!!!!

Buildings don't collapse due to fires.

(the videos look just like a CD)

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You were right on target: Red DID indeed ignore you completely.

Foam damaging the insulation of a space craft can potentially lead to the destruction of the craft during reentry of the earth's atmosphere. We know this because previous space craft have suffered damage from the same phenomena, even though none had previously ever disintegrated on reentry.

A high rise building on the other hand can sustain significant structure damage, and a massive fire, and stand strong permanently with no worry because there is no precedent of fires doing damage to such buildings OR of them collapsing, or even beginning to collapse.

at least according to some people (will not mention names), buildings get "special treatment".

 

[Dave Rogers]

Get over yourself. That's hardly what happened.

Perhaps you'd like to post a link to where he said "No, that's not what I meant".

Dave

 

[Juniversal]

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/24054157/detail.html

FALSE FLAG!!!!!!!!!

Buildings don't collapse due to fires.

(the videos look just like a CD)

Inside job!!

 

[RedIbis]

Perhaps you'd like to post a link to where he said "No, that's not what I meant".

Dave

How would I do that since he never said that?

 

[Dave Rogers]

How would I do that since he never said that?

OK, so which bit were you contesting? I summarised Frank Greening's position as a request to NIST to check their working. He didn't appear to contest that because he didn't reply. I didn't have anything else to say so I left the thread. In what way is any of that "hardly what happened"?

When you want to tell somebody they've got something wrong, it's a good idea to wait till they actually get something wrong first.

Dave