Steel failing in hydrocarbon fires.

[Grizzly Bear]

Concluding, Greening suggests that NIST’s collapse hypothesis is “not physically realistic and is not well supported by observations of the behavior of Building 7 during its collapse,” and he calls for an alternative hypothesis.

Sadly it seems he doesn't support what you think he supports.

 

[RedIbis]

Sadly it seems he doesn't support what you think he supports.

What do I think he supports? Except that the conclusions of the NIST report are not "realistic."

Is this off base? I don't pretend to speak for Greening. He's far more polite than I would be.

 

[funk de fino]

You're just mad because I don't fall your stupid debunker carousel tricks.

A certain poster here would have pulled this sentence apart for missing words and avoided addressing the subject. If refusing to answer direct questions is a debunker carousel then you are not interested in debate. Funny that eh?

Like your second question. Instead of just addressing Greening's point you use the debunker's last gasp, but you're so ill informed and didn't even bother to read through that thread to find out that his paper was published in the Comments section for the NIST WTC 7 report.

This is from the guy who did not even know the failure mode and asked someone if they were talking about WTC7 when they described it?

Does Greening think it was CD?

 

[funk de fino]

What do I think he supports? Except that the conclusions of the NIST report are not "realistic."

Conclusions of the paper. Fire caused building failure. Greening agrees, no?

Is this off base? I don't pretend to speak for Greening. He's far more polite than I would be.

The man who was banned for contacting members employers and who attacked people here, in seemingly drunken posting sessions at times? Don't make me laugh.

 

[BenBurch]

Conclusions of the paper. Fire caused building failure. Greening agrees, no?

The man who was banned for contacting members employers and who attacked people here, in seemingly drunken posting sessions at times? Don't make me laugh.

And that amazed me about the man, as I initially thought him to be quite reasonable.

And my reason for posting; Have we discussed this hydrocarbon fire yet?

http://www.floridatoday.com/article...110121023/Overpass-replaced-after-deadly-fire

The rebar was charred. That is something else we haven't discussed much; Fire oxidation as a means of weakening steel. In other words, scale formation.

 

[sylvan8798]

An hourlong barrage of heat

Don't be ridiculous. An HOUR?? You can't damage steel in AN HOUR! And look at all that black smoke - that means the fire was almost out. Obviously whatever contractor is getting the job to replace the bridge paid someone to say it needed replaced!

 

[jaydeehess]

Drop the nonsense and tell me what is wrong with Greening's assessment of the following:


Several aspects of NIST’s simulation “appear to be quite arbitrary and unphysical,” specifically, ignition time of the fire on floor 12; fire intensities and duration; overestimation of the heating of the structural steel; the low temps at which structural steel failures occur; the disparity between actual video images of the final moments of WTC 7 and Fig. 12-69 of NCSTAR 1-9, which, according to Greening, “look nothing like the video images of the real thing.”

Concluding, Greening suggests that NIST’s collapse hypothesis is “not physically realistic and is not well supported by observations of the behavior of Building 7 during its collapse,” and he calls for an alternative hypothesis.

Greening is voicing his opinion about these items and ASKING NIST to address them. He is therefore leaving open the idea that his assessment of these items is incorrect.

NIST used a century of fire engineering research to determine the factors that went into the computer FEA of the fires, their temperatures, the spread rate, and the heating of the steel structural members. What Greening is asking for is more detail about those parameters.

I can say "after falling for 1 second the billiard ball was moving at 32 ft/sec"


In this analogous situation, someone might state that it looked like this was an arbitrary number.


Asking others to point out what the questioner got wrong would be a nonsensical query.

However once informed that the acceleration of objects close to the surface of the earth is 32 ft/se/sec and that this rate was used in the computer program to determine the velocity of the billiard ball after one second of free fall then all is clear.

 

[jaydeehess]

What do I think he supports? Except that the conclusions of the NIST report are not "realistic."

Is this off base?

.

Yes, it is off base if you are attempting to use Greenings queries as a basis for saying that the buildings did not collapse due to heat weakening brought on by the office fires observed in them. If Greening himself does not support that contention then his queries about the NIST reports hardly can.

Clear??

 

[jaydeehess]

I wonder if Greening's alternative hypothesis would include an 'inside job'.

Hmmm, isn't that what several posters now have been asking RedI to address?

 

[triforcharity]

Have we discussed this hydrocarbon fire yet?

http://www.floridatoday.com/article...110121023/Overpass-replaced-after-deadly-fire

The rebar was charred. That is something else we haven't discussed much; Fire oxidation as a means of weakening steel. In other words, scale formation.

I believe that I posted and discussed that fire some time ago, very shortly after it happened. The discussion was very brief IIRC.

Yes, that is absolutely a concern. However, it's not a very common reason for failure in steel. At least not to my knowledge. But, it certainly is a concern in certain situations.

I suspect that a large amount of the steel in that bridge was exposed and rusting before that tragic accident. In fact, that bridge was scheduled for repairs that year. It's fairly close to the Indian River here in Brevard, and as such, exposed to the salt air regularly. If you know anything about living near a body of salt water, it's damn near impossible to keep anything rust-free without regular maintenance.

That is just my suspicions, but I of course, do not know if that's the case or not.

And since there was no collapse resulting from this fire, not advanced engineering studies were conducted that I am aware of. Just basic structural integrity inspections and testing would be my guess.

Anyway, that was a hell of a fire. In fact, I believe there was even some molten metal and explosions reported on that day.

Must'a been therm*te.


Cheers!

 

[Animal]

Don't be ridiculous. An HOUR?? You can't damage steel in AN HOUR! And look at all that black smoke - that means the fire was almost out. Obviously whatever contractor is getting the job to replace the bridge paid someone to say it needed replaced!

This is still my favorite "heat can't damage / weaken steel"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg

 

[BenBurch]

This is still my favorite "heat can't damage / weaken steel"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg

Long version;

 

[jaydeehess]

Long version;

One might notice as well that when they pick the rails up they have already bent under their own weight. Sherman made the bend even greater to ensure the distortion made it impossible to straighten it back out and re-use it.

Open air and relatively small, all wood fire, steel rails = structurally compromised and distorted steel. Why is that concept so difficult for truthers?

Note also how close to the fire the men manage to take ahold of the rails bare handed! Pretty much puts to rest that notion that steel conducts heat so well that fire couldn't affect it.

 

[cantonear1968]

One might notice as well that when they pick the rails up they have already bent under their own weight. Sherman made the bend even greater to ensure the distortion made it impossible to straighten it back out and re-use it.

Open air and relatively small, all wood fire, steel rails = structurally compromised and distorted steel. Why is that concept so difficult for truthers?

Note also how close to the fire the men manage to take ahold of the rails bare handed! Pretty much puts to rest that notion that steel conducts heat so well that fire couldn't affect it.

I think another observation from the video is the tree starting to catch fire when in contact with the heated steel. Much like the heated beams from WTC 1 entering WTC 7 and starting fires with whatever material it came in contact with.

Pretty much eliminating Tony Sz's theory that the fires from WTC 1 would be smothered from compression and dust.

Why is that concept so difficult for truthers?

This really needed to be repeated.

 

[SpitfireIX]

One might notice as well that when they pick the rails up they have already bent under their own weight. Sherman made the bend even greater to ensure the distortion made it impossible to straighten it back out and re-use it.

Open air and relatively small, all wood fire, steel rails = structurally compromised and distorted steel. Why is that concept so difficult for truthers?

Note also how close to the fire the men manage to take ahold of the rails bare handed! Pretty much puts to rest that notion that steel conducts heat so well that fire couldn't affect it.

Actually the best idea was to give the rails a spiral twist, so they had to be sent back to a rolling mill (of which the Confederates had very few) before they could be used again. In 1864 the Union started issuing special tools designed to facilitate this to their cavalry.

 

[jaydeehess]

Actually the best idea was to give the rails a spiral twist, so they had to be sent back to a rolling mill (of which the Confederates had very few) before they could be used again. In 1864 the Union started issuing special tools designed to facilitate this to their cavalry.

True, but this method could be employed with no requirement for special tools. All you need is manpower. Fuel is readily available as they used the rail ties.

 

[BenBurch]

Time to bump this thread since the topic has again come up.

 

[jaydeehess]

Time to bump this thread since the topic has again come up.

Indeed, and one point that has seen short shrift, IMHO, is that molten steel has been "reported" in many other fires not at all related to 9/11. Thus:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9308404&postcount=2736

 

[jaydeehess]

In the thread "So there was melted steel" the existence of molten steel was assumed to be a given and truthers were asked to supply a method by which steel was melted in order to bring the structures down in the fashion observed. Not a single taker as far as I can recall.

Instead we got
- repeated quotes of reports of molten steel. Not germane to a discussion that accepts it as fact.
- Complaints that the debunkers don't really believe it. Not germane to the question asking for an explanation of how it fits into a conspiracy demolition.

It is supposed to be molten steel = thermite = CD
However,there is no physical evidence of solidified 'blobs' of previously molten steel, there are numerous examples of reports of molten steel in other non-9/11 fires, and there is NO TRUTHER EXPLANATION of how thermite would be used to melt steel in order to bring down the structures in the fashion observed.

 

[BStrong]

Just my .02 from my little corner of the universe.

WRT beltfed machine guns, if the piece is fired at or near cyclic rate and the user does not moderate their fire or ceases fire, the barrel will fail, period.

Long before the barrel starts to go translucent from heat immediately before absolute failure, an observer will note what appears to be electrical sparks leaving the barrel surface - what is being observed is the "delamination" of the steel structure - the "sparks" are actually molecules breaking off from the barrel steel due to heat exposure, and at that point (even if fire is stopped) that barrel is no longer usable outside of whatever threat is present - I've had the opportunity to examine barrels that were exposed to that level of use and in checking the bore it's obvious that not only will there be significant wear on the lands and grooves, the internal bore structure on some examples is no longer the straight tube it once was - some look like material that went molten and then cooled in whatever shape they may have ended up in.

Please note, those failed barrels are made of steel much tougher than the iron and steel spec'd for construction use, and the barrels I've examined did not get exposed to heat for longer than a few minutes at most, and did not get close to being molten, but fail they did.

I've also seen barrels taken past the point as described above where the failure of the barrel was manifested as the projectile exiting out the side of the barrel according to the direction of twist of the barrels rifling - it's not something you want to actually witness first hand.