• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC dust

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm fine with that.

Who pays for it?

Who carries it out?

Where is it published?

Who makes sure the investigation has subpoena power?

Will a new investigation satisfy you if it comes to the same conclusion as the last?

I don't think we should wait for an official investigation.
 
Airplanes had NOTHING to do with the destruction of the WTC. If you haven't heard this before, you're at least hearing it now. It might take you a few years to come to this conclusion, as it did me, but you can get there.

No intelligence necessary!
 
Certain fires are hot enough to melt steel, just not office fires.

Yes, which is why the steel wasn't melted. Nobody says it was. Is it really that difficult to grasp the difference between "weaken" and "melt"?

Materials science anyone? The response curve has been posted here, oh I don't know, a million times. Do some research, Mr. Research Scientist.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm saying Mohammed Atta had nothing to do with it, but you think he's already dead, so why get upset?
Truthers keep claiming this, and have yet to produce a single living hijacker after more than 9 years. I know you guys are are as incompetent as they come, but don't you think it would be pretty easy to prove that someone is alive? This is low-hanging fruit, isn't it?
 
Certain fires are hot enough to melt steel, just not office fires.

Who says that steel was melted in the WTC on 9/11?

Steel doesn't need to melt to weaken. It can lose a significant amount of its strength in a regular office fire. This is a fact and is why fireproofing is used to protect steel in steel framed buildings.
 
No no no! You should invoke Galileo. That's the standard line by woos.

Nope. Semmelweis is closer. Can you imagine the thought process that must have caused all his detractors to slander him so much?

Many individuals spread the word that Semmelweis was crazy and wrong. He got fired. Etc.
 
You tell me why they do it.

So the building isn't ruined when there's a fire. But since you're asserting that fire can't damage steel, you're going to have to tell us the reason fireproofing is used. Come on Mr. Research Scientist.
 
I can't account for the actions of other people. You tell me why they do it.

I am completely unsurprised that you refused to answer that question. It does after all destroy your argument.

And the term fireproofing is pretty self explanatory, if you are actually so dumb as to not be able to figure out why they use it.
 
Like I said, crazy people usually don't know that they are crazy.

And I am calling you crazy because your ideas are so out of the world ridiculous that no sane person could possibly believe them

Well, I'm medically healthy and see a doctor every now and then. You'd think they'd have said something at some point along the lines of, "Ever considered getting that crazy looked at?" ;-)

Besides, there are plenty of people who are interested in my work. Apparently you are one of them. Why else would you spend so much time talking to me? You should ignore me or send me some cash out of pity, like I do to crazy people I meet. They aren't evil. Just crazy, and most of them are dirt poor because of it. Sad.
 
Well, I'm medically healthy and see a doctor every now and then. You'd think they'd have said something at some point along the lines of, "Ever considered getting that crazy looked at?" ;-)

Besides, there are plenty of people who are interested in my work. Apparently you are one of them. Why else would you spend so much time talking to me? You should ignore me or send me some cash out of pity, like I do to crazy people I meet. They aren't evil. Just crazy, and most of them are dirt poor because of it. Sad.

It wouldn't be that hard to hide a mental illness from a doctor who is not looking for it.

And I talk to you because you provide great entertainment for free. It is absolutely amazing that anybody with a brain functional enough to operate a computer could believe the things that you do.
 
I agree that scientific theories can be tested. Let's take the theory that a jet fuel office fire can destroy a steel building.

Here's a simple model: Take a steel cage, a plain and simple steel cage. The size doesn't matter, but let's say it's one foot cubed. Put this steel cage in a large bucket, one completely filled with kerosene. Light the kerosene and step away.

What is your expected result? Will the steel break apart into a zillion pieces?

My prediction: Not much will happen to the steel cage.
My reasoning: Such things already exist. They're called "propane grills".

No matter how much propane you have, your grill doesn't break apart like the steel of the WTC did. You might say, "But the steel broke because of gravity." But this would ignore the initiation event. You say the steel got weak. From ... an office fire? An office fire that is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the fire that had already taken place in the WTC in the mid '70s? You have to prove this to me, because I think it's a ridiculous theory.

(*Facepalm again*)

We've already known about Spooked911's experiment, and we've already discussed it into the ground. And comprehend that modeling an event or phenomena involves more than just providing the basic components without regard to scale issues.

On top of that, you know nothing of the fires in the Twin Towers; you're trusting an unsupported claim. If you had elected to study the actual evidence, you wouldn't be stating such a patently foolish thing. For starters, the 1975 North Tower fire was not set off across large horizontal portions of the affected floors at once like the 9/11 fires did, nor did it cover 8 floors. The '75 fire started on the 11th floor and propogated down to the 9th and up to the 14th, for a total of 6 floors. And again, it didn't engulf the entire floor areas on all or even some of those floors; on the contrary, the only floor that had significant area covered was the 11th one, which had around 25% of it's area engulfed. As NCSTAR 1-4 noted about the '75 event: "Fire damage on other floors was confined to the utility closets". So it was really a single story fire that didn't even cover the entire floor, with some spillover into commercial closet-sized spaces on 5 other floors. That's it. Compare that to the observations in NCSTAR 1-5A for the September 11th event, and note how widespread the fires were. Flames were visible on all four sides of the North Tower across multiple floors, and were visible on at least 2 sides on others.

It is the opposite of truth to state that the 9/11 fires were "at least an order of magnitude smaller than the fire that had already taken place in the WTC in the mid '70s". It is verifiably, patently untrue, and deliberately deceptive to boot. In any measurement you wish to use - number of floors involved, area of any single floor involved, etc. - the September 11th fires were larger. In fact, in terms of floor area, most individual floor's fires on 9/11 were larger than the entire 1975 one.

Read NCSTAR 1-5 and its sub reports for an accurate description of the fires. You have proven that you are working from abysmally inaccurate information, and you are also willing to misrepresent details of past events to minimize the magnitude of the September 11th disaster. You need to review basic facts about 9/11. And learning where you got the above claim wrong is a good starting point for you.
 
Okay, WTC Dust, I'll make this a bit simpler for you.

Let's look at how steelwork responds to fire. I'd like you to tell me if there are any errors that I make. And be specific.

Testing Criteria

Firstly, the lay reader may be interested to learn that there are, of course, formal standards to test the fire performance of structural steelwork.


The general procedures used for determining the fire resistance of load-bearing elements of structure are specified in BS476 series. In assessing the performance of fire protection materials the relevant parts are:


Part 20 Method of determination of the fire resistance of elements of construction (general principles)


Part 21 Method of determination of the fire resistance of load-bearing elements of construction


Whilst BS 476 Part 20 is concerned with general principles and covers requirements which are common to the other parts of BS 476, the BS 476 Part 21 fire resistance testing covers load-bearing elements of construction, such as steel beams, columns or walls, whilst BS 476 Part 22 fire resistance tests are intended for non load-bearing elements of construction.


European fire testing standards have also been published. In assessing the performance of fire protection materials the relevant part is presently ENV 13381-4 “Test methods for determining the contribution to the fire resistance of structural members Part 4: Applied protection to steel members”. This standard makes reference to the EN 1363 Series of standards which contain general information about conducting fire resistance tests. However, as all the procedures for assessing fire protection are currently specified in ENV13381-4, it is this standard which is generally referred to in this publication.


Performance of Steel in Fires

Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The small residual strength then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C (Lawson & Newman 1990). In addition to the reduction of material strength and stiffness, steel displays a significant creep phenomena at temperatures over 450°C. The phenomena of creep results in an increase of deformation (strain) with time, even if the temperature and applied stress remain unchanged (Twilt 1988).

High temperature creep is dependent on the stress level and heating rate. The occurrence of creep indicates that the stress and the temperature history have to be taken into account in estimating the strength and deformation behaviour of steel structures in fire. Including creep explicitly within analytical models, is complex. For simple design methods, it is widely accepted that the effect of creep is implicitly considered in the stress-strain-temperature relationships.

For those who require further information or, as the case may be, persuasion regarding the actual performance of steelwork under such conditions we are fortunate that a predictably large numbers of leading bodies have looked at the issue in depth.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/fire-research/..._meetings.html

http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_1416.htm

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/CIB_W14/workprog.htm

http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fi...rts/KLewis.pdf

Note in particular the strength/temperature/yield grading charts in the final link, which have obvious implications for the structure of any steel framed building exposed to fire conditions.

Practical Implications - Design Codes and Building Regulations


The fire design codes BS 5950-8, Eurocode 3 Part 1-2 and Eurocode 4 Part 1-2 provide the framework for designers to calculate the temperature at which a given steel member will fail in a fire situation. These design methods incorporate more realistic estimates of the applied load during a fire and include the effects of non-uniform heating through and along the member. The design methods are based on either fire resistance, which is a measure of an element to withstand given criteria in a standard furnace test, or natural fires where the size of the fire compartment, available combustible material, characteristics of the compartment boundaries and air supply are considered.

The requirements and calculations so arising are necessarily complex.

As the reader might anticipate, because structural steelwork is at risk of failure in a fire building regulations also introduce fireproofing requirements.

The Scottish Regs, section D, are a bit detailed - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/build_regs/sect-d.pdf - but you'll notice do flag up the need for fire protection in structural components and steelwork.

In England, Part B of the Regs flags up a similar position - its not available on-line free but Corus (who do know a thing about steel) have a useful and relatively non-technical summary at http://www.corusconstruction.com/leg...s_section1.pdf . Some of you will note on page 5 the admission that most unportected steel sections only have fire integrity for about 15 minutes.

The Canadian Regs aren't available on-line free either, but their national buildings institute flags up across all their documents the risk posed by fire and the need for protection - see, by way of example, http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd071e.html .

The New Zealand and Australian steel codes, (SNZ, 1997 and SAA 1990) are very similar to each other. The NZ regs section C4 requires....wait for it......structural protection of steel in fire ( http://www.building.govt.nz)

Summary

It is recognised through empirical analysis across a recognised series of standards that structural steelwork weakens significantly under normal fire conditions, and as a consequence codes require additional protection through (for example) the incorporation of passive fire protection systems.

There is no evidence that such tests are wrong, or that fire protection can be safely omitted due to (for example) the efects of heat conduction throughout the affected members.​


You've shown quite well that fire can weaken steel. Very nice. Have you shown that a fire can turn a steel building into dust? No, but I'm listening for more.
 
You haven't described any weapon, so it's impossible for us to say if it does or doesn't exist. What is absolutely certain is that a weapon able to dustify the WTC towers doesn't exist, as that would break the laws of physics.

Which ones?
 
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden are not dead. You wish to pretend that they had nothing to do with it (even though they proudly admit they did). There is your attempted gross miscarriage of justice.

They may not be American citizens, but they are still innocent before being proved guilty.

I love the Constitution of the United States.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom