Why do you still believe that a collapse due to fire wouldn't be possible?

[triforcharity]

I believe there is a reason why it has taken a while for everything to be published. The timing has to be right for a case as huge as this one.

So, you're waiting for 9 years because.............

 

[Grizzly Bear]

the speed issue is of obvious importance.

I'm afraid not... having a major structural failure where the loads are no longer axial or within the design parameters (such as when a large section of the building begins to collapse) will result in the same basic thing regardless of what initiates the failure.

 

[Bell]

Thank you. Interesting. It's 1:4 scale and I bet lunch that unlike WTC1/2, it is built to real fire codes.

The 1:4 scale means the floor spans are tiny amd stiffer, less subject to sag in a fire. The 1:4 scale means by the cube law that forces will be about 1/64th of those in WTC for similar damage.

[...]

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that the BOk tower would behave the same as the WTC towers, just that it's a tube in a tube design

 

[Patriots4Truth]

"your links are entirely lies!"
you should have that tattooed on your other knee

 

[uke2se]

"your links are entirely lies!"
you should have that tattooed on your other knee

Why?

 

[beachnut]

"your links are entirely lies!"
you should have that tattooed on your other knee

It is common knowledge for rational thinkers that your posted videos are idiotic delusions, made up by morons. The proof is the fact this post is all you can about it; you can't back up the lies you posted, you can only make up weak tattoo jokes.

Take your favorite moronic claim on 911 and defend it will all your "ample evidence".

I believe there is a reason why it has taken a while for everything to be published. The timing has to be right for a case as huge as this one.

This was funny, better tattoo this one on your forehead backward for future reference, along with 911 was an inside job, followed by all your evidence. 0


Fire did it, 911 truth can't grasp reality. 911 truth, evidence free, now include cute tattoo jokes; no charge.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

It is common knowledge for rational thinkers that your posted videos are idiotic delusions, made up by morons. The proof is the fact this post is all you can about it; you can't back up the lies you posted, you can only make up weak tattoo jokes.

Take your favorite moronic claim on 911 and defend it will all your "ample evidence".


This was funny, better tattoo this one on your forehead backward for future reference, along with 911 was an inside job, followed by all your evidence. 0


Fire did it, 911 truth can't grasp reality. 911 truth, evidence free, now include cute tattoo jokes; no charge.

English isn't your first language is it?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Just as a matter of record, I don't think the author of the videos patriots4truth cites is a liar. To be a liar, he would need to present his information knowing that it is false. I just found him to be incredibly ignorant and inexperienced at parroting lies he receives from others.

As fun as it is to point all this out however, I would be really interested in seeing the OP question answered. I've been curious about such a mindset of truthers for some time now.

 

[Bell]

English isn't your first language is it?

Remember the Membership Agreement I linked to earlier?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25744

Rule 12, "Address the argument, not the arguer."

 

[Nonpareil]

English isn't your first language is it?

Does it matter?

Patriots4Truth, can I ask you something? Have you accepted that any of your claims - or 9/11 truth's claims as a whole - are false? Not that all of them are. Just... some. Has anything anyone has posted here made you stop and go "Hm. I guess that was wrong after all"?

 

[beachnut]

English isn't your first language is it?

Evidence? You can't even get this one right. Wow, you don't understand 911, you post lies and can't defend them. Is this your best post to support your claims on 911?

You google lies and post them without thinking. Logic is not in your bag, no evidence, and your ESL identifier failed to do more than expose my poor grammar, and the fact I am watching the NFL, and baby sitting 2 grandkids, failing to take the time (could be infinite) to make my posts perfect.
... you don't waste time researching 911, you post lies, why should I correct my grammar and waste my time.

Robertson the chief structural engineer of the WTC said fire did it. You guys have some idiots who appear to be on meth in videos so stupid it hurts.

I wish I had an excuse for poor writing skills, and one day you will wish you had an excuse for pushing moronic delusions. It is sad people fall for the polite dolts in 911 truth like Jones and his lie of thermite, and fail to use their own critical thinking to discover Jones and all of 911 truth are liars, they don't care, they have to make up idiotic lies.

Fire did it, I cheated and used the #1 expert on the WTC towers. An engineer degree, a masters in engineers can't hurt, but is not needed to understand 911, and understand 911 truth only has lies.

 

[cantonear1968]

I have nothing to gain by pretending this is my own work

OK P4T. We've established that you copied and pasted something that wasn't your own and you made no attempt to establish this. I don't feel the need to beat up on you any longer about it.

So how about addressing the question of the thread? And let's see if you can do it on your own without stealing the work from others or a youtube video. Do you need the question repeated to you or are you ok?

 

[Patriots4Truth]

all the defense is here, and here, and here of http://911research.wtc7.net.

"Twin Towers' Rates of Fall Proves It Wasn't Fire (link)

Each of the Twin Towers fell completely in intervals of time similar to that taken for a block of wood dropped from a tower's roof to reach the ground. A block of wood has about the same average density as the main components of the towers near their tops.

In a vacuum, a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof. In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum. Fifteen seconds, a good estimate for the total time of collapse of the North Tower, is about the time it would take our block to fall from the roof. The rubble from the Tower probably had similar average density to our block of wood, since the floor slabs consisted of corrugated sheet metal and lightweight concrete, and the perimeter steel columns were hollow with walls only 1/4th inch thick at the Towers' tops. Air resistance alone could account for the slowing of the falls to the point where each Tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down.

The official story requires that more than air resistance was slowing the descents. The falling rubble would be having to crush every story below the crash zone -- ripping apart the steel grids of the outer walls and obliterating the steel lattice of the core structure. The resistance of the intact building itself would be thousands of times greater than air resistance.

If air resistance is able to increase total collapse times by even 20 percent, then shouldn't the addition of the resistance of the buildings themselves increase the time several thousand percent, to at least tens of minutes?"

Hopefully ^this isn't considered "a large amount of material"

In any case, at the exact time in which free-fall happened there should of been more resistance ie. no free-fall at that particular time.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

addressing the question of this thread, a fire collapse is possible, but not at all likely the way it went down for the WTC towers (see the first 3 links of my last post)

 

[cantonear1968]

In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum. .

Exactly how are you calculating that or would you like to check with Hoffman on this?

 

[cantonear1968]

And then please tell me how air resistance on a 10 inch cube of wood is similiar to a 50,000 ton mass.

 

[Architect]

fires.

* Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.
* Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.

My goodness. You really have no understanding of building fabric performance or fire engineering, do you?

 

[cantonear1968]

My goodness. You really have no understanding of building fabric performance or fire engineering, do you?

More accurately, he has no understanding the people he is quoting have no understanding of building fabric performance or fire engineering.

 

[Lenbrazil]

...
2)[/B] "comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses.

In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. The concrete pillars in the Windsor building are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed by the collapsed facade. The very light construction of the perimeter, described here, makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building."
...

I have nothing to gain by pretending this is my own work

From your own source:

"The portion of the building that collapsed consisted of the outer portions of floor slabs and perimeter walls throughout the upper third of the building (the 21st through 32nd floors). The outer walls consisted of steel box columns arranged on 1.8 meter centers and connected by narrow spandrel plates. The columns had square cross-sections 120mm on a side, and were fabricated of C-sections 7mm thick welded together. (these had a fraction of the dimensions, and were spaced about twice as far apart as the perimeter columns of the Twin Towers.) The perimeter columns lacked fireproofing throughout the upper third of the Windsor building."

His source did not support the claim the perimeter columns "were fabricated of C-sections 7mm thick" even if true they had much less load to support than the WTC columns and were more robust than the 60 foot long floor trusses which is where NIST believes the collapses initiated.

I already dealt with this on another forum years ago the columns started collaping after 2 - 3 hours:

Mitigating factors:
-The Windsor wasn’t by a plane
-The steel columns bore relatively little load and weren’t attached to horizontal steel structural elements presumably damaged by the fire

Aggravating factor:
-the columns had no vs. damaged / destroyed fireproofing.

So yes we have a case of steel in a high rise failing due to fire the building remained standing because the rest of the frame was reinforced concrete. As for the Meridan though it did not happen the FD and structural engineers they consulted feared the floors on fire would undergo progressive collapse that's why the firefighters were pulled. We also have several cases of low rise steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire

 

[Nonpareil]

"Twin Towers' Rates of Fall Proves It Wasn't Fire (link)

Each of the Twin Towers fell completely in intervals of time similar to that taken for a block of wood dropped from a tower's roof to reach the ground.

No calculation given.

A block of wood has about the same average density as the main components of the towers near their tops.

No source.

In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum.

Based on what?

Air resistance alone could account for the slowing of the falls to the point where each Tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down.

Incorrect. Please read this paper by Frank Greening, wherein he examines the effect of air resistance on the speed of the WTC collapse. The relevant section is entitled "An Assessment of the Time Delays Involved in the WTC Collapse Events". Air resistance was negligible.

Please do your research before posting things like this.