'What about building 7'?

[Travis]

Obviously I didn't intend to use that word in the sense that a liquid is heated. I should have hyphened it. My bad.

But, to what degree do you think that "ordinary office fires" can heat steel? What do you think such a fire will do to a constrained steel truss?

 

[jaydeehess]

Do you think that NIST can revise reality in their final report?

NCSTAR 1-9
August 2008
page 245
Describes the observed fires on floors 12 and 13

col 79 was several dozen feet south of the north face windows. The fire on 12 began at the south end of the east face, skipped past rooms on its way to the north side and west along the north side, only to have some of them ignite later.
On 13 the fire did not skip past rooms in this fashion and instead followed the east side to the north and then west along the north side.
Intense fires also raged in the eastern end of the north side at floors 7 and 8.
All of this would contribute to heating the beams in question as would the especially intense fire around columns 47/48 that really took of at about 4 pm.

While the fires AT col 44 seem to have died down by 5 pm, (picture 5-150 on page 235, shows intense fire still burning east of col46 at 4:40 though) we cannot tell what is going on 50 feet south of the window where col 79 is but what we do know is that the fires on 12 did not move systematically from south to north and east to west.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

Firstly, I am not proposing a theory. I am simply demonstrating, with ample evidence, that the NIST fire simulation is a fabrication.

Let me just check here - you're still not accusing NIST of a cover up, and will be deeply offended if anyone makes any suggestion that you're accusing them of a cover-up, right?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ae911truth have noticed. The clue is in their name. They have engineers.

Since we've already established that their idea of "truth" is repeatedly telling lies, why would you expect the rest of their name to be any more reliable?

Dave

 

[T.A.M.]

What does Travis mean by "superheated"? It's his word. NIST said the fires were from ordinary office contents.

Well I doubt he meant to use the word as per its dictionary version. I am assuming he was using it as a simple descriptor, to emphasize the extraordinary (super) heat that the steel underwent.

They were fires from normal office content fires, but they were fires that were allowed to burn untreated for hours.

This has been discussed, ad nauseum.

TAM

 

[leftysergeant]

What does Travis mean by "superheated"? It's his word. NIST said the fires were from ordinary office contents.

In this sense, super-heated is a proper way to describe the exhaust gases from the fires in some areas of WTC 7.

In any fully or partially enclosed structural fire, one can expect a fire to produce a good amount of gasified hydrocarbons at or near combustion temperatures. If there is sufficient oxygen, this then burns at an extremely high temperature and produces even more flammable gas whgich can overwhelm a large area. This is called "flashover." Flames utillizing this gaseous fuel can travel an amazing distance. Thus, a fire burning in an office a hundred feet down the hall can cause the air (and surroundig building materials) to be heated to horrendous temperatures.

Sometimes, there is so much exhaust gas created at the location of a fire that it snuffs out the fire from which it originated. But it can still be hot enough to reignite the instant that air reaches it. If it is enclosed at all when the air does hit it, it will burst into flames again, sometimes with a gawdawful blast. This is called "backdraught."

This is super-heated gas at work.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I think many truthers try to employ the Socratic method when trying to debate or convince.

They feel if they can prove that the NIST WTC7 report was flawed, and get you to admit it, then the next step is convince you that it was INTENTIONALLY flawed. If they get you to admit that, then the next step is to get you to believe that it was intentionally flawed TO COVER UP something. If they get you accepting that, then the next step is that the cover up was to HIDE DEMOLITIONS. If they convince you of that, the next step is to get you to believe that members of the USG and corporate interests HAD THE MONEY AND MOTIVE to orchestrate such a plan...and so on.

In doing so one step at a time...trying ONLY at that time to convince you of the single step, they feel they can eventually lead you down the path that will eventually lead to you accepting the "inside job" theory.

Common MO in trutherville.

TAM

I've noticed that about truthers. I think they aren't being honest with themselves, though. They know intellectually that they have to take that first step in order to get to the conclusion they REALLY want, but they are terrified of moving past that first step. So, they keep the argument bogged down at step 1 and pretend there's no hidden agenda.

Intellectual dishonesty makes CT Panda sad.

ETA: Several times I've conceded the first point ("Let's say what you're saying is true. Now what?") just to see what the truthers would do. They always refuse to budge.

 

[aggle-rithm]

What does Travis mean by "superheated"? It's his word. NIST said the fires were from ordinary office contents.

This is the second thread I've been in this week in which an attempt is made to redefine the word "ordinary".

A new woo tactic to make miracles come true by twisting the semantics?

 

[willhaven]

Here is a better question.

"Why do we bother fireproofing steel frame buildings when they can completely collapse even when they have the fireproofing on?"

So people have time to get out. That's a pretty obvious answer.

So, why do you think they apply spray on fireproofing to steel buildings?

 

[RedIbis]

Well I doubt he meant to use the word as per its dictionary version. I am assuming he was using it as a simple descriptor, to emphasize the extraordinary (super) heat that the steel underwent.

They were fires from normal office content fires, but they were fires that were allowed to burn untreated for hours.

This has been discussed, ad nauseum.

TAM

The only thing that was extraordianary about this is that the failures occurred "below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness."

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
Ae911truth have noticed. The clue is in their name. They have engineers.

No they don't. They just have signatures on a petition, some of whom were Engineers. They have never produced a single technical paper showing how the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened as per the official story. Gage is just an architect and utterly unqualified to have an opinion on the subject.

Oh and seeing as how you are impressed by Engineers.....I'm a Mech Eng with 27 years experience

 

[T.A.M.]

The only thing that was extraordianary about this is that the failures occurred "below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness."

Well that would explain why the girders and beams did not react like they did in the other towers. What isnt surprising is that there was expansion and contraction of the steel. This occurs at much reduced temps from what others have said here, and from my memory of college physics. Of course, once the expansion occurs,the shearing and breakage of the connections makes sense,and then the internal collapse of 13 to 5, then the buckling of the unsupported column 79.

TAM

 

[twinstead]

It seems odd that cooperman would be so impressed at the mere hint that there may be some real engineers on Ae911truth, yet is totally and unabashedly disdainful and critical of the hundreds of engineer contributers to the NIST, as well as the myriad of professional engineers and scientists who find little problem with the commonly-held narrative of 9-11.

Hypocrisy much?

 

[T.A.M.]

0.07% of the length of the steel for every 100F, iirc, for structural steel. So for a 20 foot long beam, that would be 240 inches x 0.0007 x 8 = 1.3" expansion.

If i am doing the math correct.

TAM

 

[leftysergeant]

How about a lobby with charred bodies for a start.

The only verified "charred" bodies were in the towers, not WTC7, and are clearly attributable to jet fuel fires. Discuss it elsewhere.

Those firemen that told Barry Jennings and Hess not to look down
haven't been questioned under oath. Don't look down because ...........

Because it is standard operating procedure in rescue operations. There were probably gaps in the floor to the side of the route they had scouted out and you do not want a victim to panic or get distracted.
.

Barry Jennings is dead but mr Hess
isn't and he refuses to discuss the incident .

Jennigs was middle-aged, over-weight, probably diabetic or hypertensive. (Race and age make him statisticly more vulnerable to diabetes and hypertension and similar heart problems.) Hess is probably just tired of dealing with idiots and wants to deal with some form of PTSD in a more constructive and less stressful manner.

This is a murder investigation the citizens are conducting.
Put him under oath.

No. It's a pogrom. None of you are trained or competent to conduct the investigation. None of the twoofers here have a clue regarding fire science.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It seems odd that cooperman would be so impressed at the mere hint that there may be some real engineers on Ae911truth, yet is totally and unabashedly disdainful and critical of the hundreds of engineer contributers to the NIST, as well as the myriad of professional engineers and scientists who find little problem with the commonly-held narrative of 9-11.

Hypocrisy much?

No, confirmation bias. The government is covering things up, so obviously everyone who agrees with the government is part of the cover-up and can be ignored. Once you've ignored all the evidence in favour of the official story, all the evidence that's left contradicts the official story, therefore the official story must be wrong, thus proving that there's a cover-up.

Unfortunately, when you examine the evidence that contradicts the official story, it turns out that it actually doesn't. So that evidence has to be quietly ignored, and you have to point to the number of scientists and engineers on each side, and of course the scientists and engineers on the government's side are part of the cover-up, so they can be ignored. All the experts left contradict the official story, therefore the official story must be wrong, thus proving that there's a cover-up.

Unfurtunately, when you examine the experts, it turns out that they aren't actually experts in the fields they're commenting on. So the experts have to be quietly ignored and you have to point to uninformed {WARNING!!! Post terminated - infinite regression detected}

Dave

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes, i wonder why Mr.Hess would refuse to discuss things with a bunch of paranoid stalker truthers?

TAM

 

[leftysergeant]

Ae911truth have noticed. The clue is in their name. They have engineers.

Bloody gew, if any, actually. They have far more charlatans, whackadoodles, con men, students with far less mental candle power than they think they have, utter sociopaths and ranting lunatics.

They have also, from time to time had fictious members who signed on under gag names, like Dr Rotch, just to show box boy what an idiot he is.

They even have one utter nutter who thinks there were small nukes involved.

They really have no bloody clue. If you take little Dickie's box drop test to its logical end, verinage will never work. Whadda marooooon!

 

[BigAl]

The only thing that was extraordianary about this is that the failures occurred "below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness."

Still don't understand the physics of expansion, do you?

 

[Miragememories]

"The only thing that was extraordianary about this is that the failures occurred "below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness."

"Well that would explain why the girders and beams did not react like they did in the other towers. What isnt surprising is that there was expansion and contraction of the steel. This occurs at much reduced temps from what others have said here, and from my memory of college physics. Of course, once the expansion occurs,the shearing and breakage of the connections makes sense,and then the internal collapse of 13 to 5, then the buckling of the unsupported column 79."

Still waiting for an honest response to my my earlier thread-related replies
to your posts T.A.M.?

post 670
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6413200&postcount=670

and post 674
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6413324&postcount=674

Another related point about the NIST theoretical scenario for the WTC7 collapse has to do with
an additional effect from their simulated floor failures.

Perimeter column bowing.

In the NIST analysis of the WTC Twin Tower breakdowns, they proposed that
when the floors "sagged", that they pulled in on the perimeter columns and created visible bowing.

How is it that over the 7 seconds that floor-after-floor in WTC7 were supposedly failing, the torque created
by unsupported floors still connected to perimeter columns, was not causing any visible bowing and only a few broken windows?

MM