'What about building 7'?

[cooperman]

I think it's far more likely that you have misunderstood the report than that a group of highly qualified engineers and scientists have overlooked such an elementary blunder as the one you're accusing them of.

Look at the simulation. It shows fire around column 79 at 5pm. NIST already said in Appendix L that the fires were out ther by 4:45pm and the photograph shows no fire at 4pm.

I have not misunderstood anything. Those are the facts. I have already posted the fire simulation frame at 5pm. The photograph from 4pm and the qoute from NIST Appendix L.

Instead of talking about likelihoods, perhaps you could actually address the evidence.

 

[Sabretooth]

The problem is that there were no fires there, by NISTs own previous admission and photographic evidence. The fires were out in that area over an hour before. NIST is claiming that fire at that time raised the temperature to 600 degrees but there was no fire there. Therefore, the beams could not have heated to those temperatures and caused the failure of the girder.

"No Fire" does not equal "No Heat".

 

[BigAl]

Look at the simulation. It shows fire around column 79 at 5pm. NIST already said in Appendix L that the fires were out ther by 4:45pm and the photograph shows no fire at 4pm.

I have not misunderstood anything. Those are the facts. I have already posted the fire simulation frame at 5pm. The photograph from 4pm and the qoute from NIST Appendix L.

Instead of talking about likelihoods, perhaps you could actually address the evidence.

Already done.

1. Heat on numerous floors, led to expansion of the steel in many locations, especially on floors 8-14.
2. This expansion (and contraction) lead to a combination of weakening and sheering forces, that caused BREAKAGE of the connections etc...
3. These breakages led to the internal collapsing of numerous floors, but in particular a stretch of floors from the 13th down until the 5th floor.
4. The loss of these floors left column 79 unsupported for a span of 8-9 floors, which led to the buckling of column 79, which was the initiating event of the total collapse.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6409136#post6409136

 

[beachnut]

Do you agree that the NIST fire simulation is wrong?


Their simulation at 2pm has no fires on the east side on floor 12 but a photograph of the east side shows copious flames coming out of the east windows of floor 12 at 2pm.

They then have fire around column 79 at 5pm, which contradicts a photograph that they admitted in Appendix L showed that the fires in the east side were out by 4:45pm. IN fact the photo shows no fire at 4pm.

If you cannot admit that the fire simulation is wrong then your game here is denial. The evidence is there. It is irrefutable. If you believe it is wrong then tell me why.

You got your junk from Gage? That is funny. You failed to understand One Meridian Plaza fire and lied about that; now you lie about NIST.

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf The fire in Philadelphia had thermal expansion too. The fire was fought the entire time, so it is not a WTC 7 comparison, it is what WTC 7 would be if they could have fought the fires.

WTC 7 fell due to fire, Gage is a liar and a fraud. You are gullible, very gullible if you have been lurking for years.

You have not shown anything except you are gullible and take BS that will never be published and use it to spread misinformation.

Lucky you are here where you can post nonsense and not be banned like you would at LC, or p4t. Albeit, here you post hearsay and lies, there you have to post the truth to be banned. Here you can post junk, copy and paste from Gage and be the kind of critical thinker who likes lies instead of what happened.

Going to explain why you made up lies about One Meridian Plaza?

 

[T.A.M.]

Cooperman,

I have readthe report. The last time i read in full was well over a year ago. I am honestly trying to get my head around the theory you are proposing....you should refrain from your caustic behavior. I am re-reading many of the important parts (to your theory) but i am at work on my ipad now, in between patients, so you will have to bare with me.

Now from what i have reread, your claim is based on photographic evidence of that corner of the exterior of the building, and the windows in that area. Correct?

Others here, more qualified then i have shown you that the temperatures in that area could have still been well hot enough to have caused the expansion and subsequent failure of that girder.

So either (a) you dont believe them, or (b) you are now arguing minutia that does not effect the overall collapse initiation.

TAM

 

[Sabretooth]

Look at the simulation. It shows fire around column 79 at 5pm. NIST already said in Appendix L that the fires were out ther by 4:45pm and the photograph shows no fire at 4pm.

I have not misunderstood anything. Those are the facts. I have already posted the fire simulation frame at 5pm. The photograph from 4pm and the qoute from NIST Appendix L.

Instead of talking about likelihoods, perhaps you could actually address the evidence.

Huh? Maybe I'm not reading what your reading...but this is text from Appendix L:

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

I see where they say fire on floor 12 was not visible by 4:45pm, but what part of "fires on 7, 8, 9, and 11" lead you to believe that the heat was not a factor on 12?

It is also rather disingenuous of you to ignore my findings in post# 636.

 

[GlennB]

I have not misunderstood anything. Those are the facts. I have already posted the fire simulation frame at 5pm. The photograph from 4pm and the qoute from NIST Appendix L.

My copy also has no Appendix L. It stops at E.

The simulation shows the region of highest gas temperature has moved away from the windows towards column 79.

And fig. 5-152 does show visible flame on floors 12 and 13 at approx 5:00 further to the west. With open office space the hot gases will still be heating the E side of the floor which, of course, still has large amounts of smouldering embers. And floor 11 was ablaze around the same time. Heat rises.

Meanwhile you continue to believe that absence of visible flames = "fire gone out" = cold. It takes many days for fires of that magnitude to cool down even to a temperature where spontaneous re-ignition can be ruled out. This is why fire crews damp down smouldering buildings for long periods. It remains damn hot even without flames.

 

[leftysergeant]

I find it a bit ironic that twoofers think that the building should start to cool as soon as the fire moves on to the next room, but they think that the pigs of cast iron created by thermite would be hot for a couple of months.

 

[T.A.M.]

I am looking at this as a misinterpretation. Those color temp diagrams are reflective of temperature and heat, not fire.

TAM

 

[Sabretooth]

My copy also has no Appendix L. It stops at E.

I Googled Appendix L. The only one that comes up is from 2004.

 

[Sabretooth]

I find it a bit ironic that twoofers think that the building should start to cool as soon as the fire moves on to the next room, but they think that the pigs of cast iron created by thermite would be hot for a couple of moths.

TWO MOTHRA'S!!!?!!?!11!!

 

[GlennB]

I Googled Appendix L. The only one that comes up is from 2004.

Cheers. So cooperman is lecturing people to read the report while his copy is several years old. M'kay.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I have to say that is absolutely too incredible to be believable!

Argument from personal incredulity.

If the NIST report and model is so wrong how come only people without relevant expertise or qualifications have noticed?

Why haven't the worlds engineers, architects and firefighters with relevant expertise, experience and qualifications objected to it?

It's like the Apollo Hoax. It is only obvious to people with no experience or expertise in the relevant fields.

 

[T.A.M.]

The diagrams and photos that christopher7 and he are arguing on, are from the 2004 report. It says so right on the images he has posted on page 13 or 14 of this very thread.

It is not based on the final report, from what i can see. As well, there is a reference to a page greater then 300, and my copy of the report is not that large.

TAM

Edit: sorry, you can find a quote of it on page 11 of this thread.

 

[triforcharity]

Perhaps it could have looked like the One Meridian Plaza fire

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

This was a 38 storey building that burned for 18 hours over several floors. There was no pressure to fight the fire and it only burned out when it reached the 30th floor and the sprinklers there put it out. It was described as the fire of the century and 3 fireman died trying to tackle it. Eventually they abandoned firefighting efforts and let it burn.

It didn't collapse. After EIGHTEEN hours of uncontrolled fire.

It also didn't have a steel frame construction, nor a jetliner crash into it, nor have uncontrolled fires on 5 floors instantly, not suffer severe structural damage. But yeah, I could see your point.....

 

[triforcharity]

They haven't explained it. I have already shown that their fire analysis does not match reality and the initiating event could not have happened. I also am unable to see their computer models because apparently that would be dangerous.

This is nothing to do with being a layman and giving an opinion. Travis suggested that a collapse would be inevitable and I simply posted facts proving it wasn't.

By the way, abandoning all doubt because a qualified person has explained something is the very antithesis of skepticism and critical thinking.

It would be inevitable. Absolutely. If the fire had continued to burn without any firefighting efforts whatsoever, the building would have collapsed.

When a QUALIFIED person that is an EXPERT tells you something, and shows you time and time again, that fire in steel building will cause collapse, you might want to listen. This has nothing to do with skepticism, this has everything to do with you being ignorant and not wanting to listen.

 

[triforcharity]

That isn't what travis said. Read his post, then try and understand why I posted what I did in reply.

I have no religious belief in any conspiracy. I am skeptical. You treat the NIST report as a bible. Can you explain why the nist fire simulation has fires at the area of column 79 on the 12th floor at 5pm when the photographs and NISTs previous statements show that it had burned out much earlier?

Yes, because the heat from the fire that has moved to a different part of the building, is STILL THERE!! Derpa.

 

[cooperman]

"No Fire" does not equal "No Heat".

So why did NIST pretend there was fire at the area of the initiating event?

 

[BigAl]

So why did NIST pretend there was fire at the area of the initiating event?

Do you read the responses to the stuff you post?

 

[triforcharity]

So why did NIST pretend there was fire at the area of the initiating event?

Because you're aparently reading the 2004 DRAFT report, and repeating Gage et al lies.

When will you be presenting all your information to a relevant Fire Science journal? Please list all your assumptions, and also show your math.

I can reccomend some respectable journals if you would like? I have had work published in many of them.