Gage's next debate
- Thread starter grandmastershek
- Start date
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
No one changed their view until NIST said that that diesel fuel fires were not a factor. That's what I'm talking about.
This is a denial tactic, a subject shift to try and put me on the defensive and ignore the fact that the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end before 4 p.m.
There was only one fire on floor 12 and its progression is well documented by the photographs. As I have already pointed out, that fire burned thru the interior offices under the beams and girder in question between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m.
NCSTAR 1A pg 20
By 3:00 p.m., the fire had spread internally past the northeast corner and onto the north face. "Internally" is the offices under the beams and girder in question.
http://a.imageshack.us/img22/5810/fireoverlay4.jpg
Because they have a photograph showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45 p.m. - their statement, not mine.
You will continue to ignore the facts and repeat the same denial statements ad nauseam.
Chris Mohr has acknowledged that the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end by speculating that NIST "missed" thermal contraction. This is also an acknowledgement that NIST got it wrong and they have not explained the collapse although he will not admit it.
I never quite got what significance this had though, you make it sound as if a damaged and fire-weakened portion couldn't fail after the fires had lessened.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
The significance is that the NIST hypothesis REQUIRES the fire to be burning at 5:20 and heat the beams to the point where they expand lengthwise enough to PUSH THE GIRDER off its seat. Their hypothesis is thermal expansion triggered the collapse, not thermal contraction.
That's just one of many fatal flaws in their hypothesis but I will keep repeating this FACT until the denial stops, then I will move on to the next.
NIST has a photograph showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45. Photographs don't change.
Please study my complete analysis.
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/
The photographs and narrative in the final report show that the fire had burned out in the east end, where the collapse supposedly began, before 4 p.m. This is not rocket science, it only requires the ability to read and understand that to get from the east side to the north side the fire had to burn the interior offices under the beams and girder in question.
If for arguments sake this is indeed correct, do you disagree that thermal expansion could still contribute to sufficient destabilisation of the structure that it would collapse a while later, as opposed to be in direct response to when the expansion directly happend?
I mean the structure collapsed in model simply by the removal of a small section of column 79 inbetween floors 11-13, without damage from debris or fire.
Btw, are you certain you're not confusing north and south-face focus on the images of the fires?
Last edited:
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
You are trying to change the subject without acknowledging the point.
This proves that the model was set up to fail, just like the 9/11 Commission. The failure of a single column could not cause the total collapse of a modern skyscraper IMO. If you believe that, you will believe anything NIST says, no matter how absurd.
I am certain of the fire progression. Read my analysis. The photos are clearly labeled.
All this is just an attempt to sidestep the fact that the fire had burned out.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
What qualifications do you have to make such an analysis? Apart from being a carpenter.
No, rather I was evaluating it's hypothetical importance if you could see that the specific detail of the fire mostly burning out prior to collapse not necessarily being a fatal flaw.
A column of a notable associative stretch, structurally that is. Your assumption that NIST provided years of super-comp work into the matter simply to hoodwink most people who don't even bother is a lot more absurd.
I briefed the analysis and your pictures, Chris. I might have been mistaken but it looks reversed from the upper to the lower pictoral examples when looking at the structural layout and the thermal images, which was why I asked if you had the south-to-north ends turned for each example? The diagonals looks as if that was the case. Again, I just quickly browsed it, no worries either way.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
This is not a detail. The fire had burned out and therefore could not heat [thermally expand] the floor beams and trigger the collapse. This is a fatal flaw.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
And yet none of the highly qualified engineers who contributed to and reviewed the report caught this "fatal flaw".
Is there any chance at all that they simply understand the principles involved better than you do?
Animal
Master Poster
What is absurd is for a carpenter to believe he has the qualifications to form such an opinion.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Animal, What is absurd, is that people with relevant training accept this as fact, and a carpenter, who has next to no relevant training, claim it is wrong.
I brought this up in my fire science class. They laughed at his conclusions.
I brought this up in my fire science class. They laughed at his conclusions.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Part Three: No Tall Steel Framed Building Ever Collapsed
Hi all,
Thanks for your comments so far. Here is my draft of part three of my rebuttal of Blueprint for Truth. Corrections welcome:
In part three of my Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth rebuttal, we’ll talk about the fact that the World Trade Center buildings were the first of their kind ever to collapse. And yes, Richard Gage, the NIST Report and I agree that “there is No history of destruction by Fire in steel frame high-rises.” So Richard Gage asks, if there had never been a tall steel-framed building brought down by fire, why on September 11 were three such buildings brought down, for the first time? It’s an excellent question deserving of a serious answer. Richard’s answer is clear and simple: steel framed buildings can’t be brought down by regular fires, so this is one strong piece of evidence of a controlled demolition using 4500 degree thermitics. I already discussed the likely collapse sequence of the Twin Towers in part one of this video, so now let’s see if Richard’s assertion is true.
Slide Reasons (firsts): To hammer in his point, Richard shows many burning, tall steel frame buildings that didn’t collapse. But he doesn’t acknowledge some important differences between those buildings and the Twin Towers, and his assertion that steel frame buildings with fireproofing are “indestructible” is simply false. There are other important firsts that day: there has never been a tall building where a large jet with 98,500 liters of exploding fuel hit at over 500 mph creating massive fires where softened steel has had to hold up 180,000,000 pounds above it.
Steel has a high melting point: 2750 degrees, much hotter than regular fires which get up to 1800 or maybe 2000 degrees. Because steel begins to lose its structural strength starting at around 750 degrees, these steel structures have traditionally been reinforced with concrete and surrounded by chemically inert gypsum fire barriers. The World Trade Center Towers dispensed with the heavy concrete because its weight would have made a 110 story skyscraper with large open office spaces unsupportable. Instead the builders used a spray on fire retardant. This is another reason these buildings may have had less ability to resist the fires.
SLIDE: OTHER STEEL FRAME STRUCTURES HAVE COLLAPSED
And do not think for a minute that other steel frame structures besides skyscrapers never collapse. Occasionally they do. In 1997, the large Sound Theatre in Pennsylvania with steel structure, collapsed. In 1967, the very large steel-framed McCormick Center in Chicago collapsed in 30 minutes. Three four-story-high steel framed buildings at the Kadel Toy Factory in Singapore collapsed in 1997. Another prominent example is the Mumbai High North Oil Platform, constructed of steel and seven stories high, which completely collapsed after burning for two hours. The Interstate 580 overpass near San Francisco, supported only by steel beams, suffered no impact but collapsed due to the heat of a gasoline fire after nineteen minutes.
SLIDE: WTC 5 had a partial collapse of four floors on 911. Surely this wasn’t caused by a few thermites left only in the part of the building that collapsed... the part that burned the most. Steel frame buildings are not impervious to partial or total collapse.
SLIDE TEXT: The idea of the indestructibility of steel-framed buildings goes back to the era of the unsinkable ship Titanic. In 1900, the Post & McCord building ... “was supposed to be absolutely fireproof, being constructed of steel and cement in its entirety... to make its burning impossible." burmed to the ground. -The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, April 22, 1900
Remember, traditional steel framed high rises are steel-reinforced concrete. The steel bends away from the structure and the concrete holds up. Concrete was not used to support the WTC towers. Most steel frame buildings do survive fire, but some do not. SLIDE WITH BENT STEEL "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags, and the surrounding concrete cracks."
SLIDE WITH SAGGING STEEL
Richard Gage accuses NIST of fraudulent computer modeling, claiming that tests of steel beams sagged only 3 inches, and then NIST just plugged in a 42 inch sag figure to make their collapse model work. We can see that major steel sagging happens in regular fires. NIST’s fire test resulted in a 3 inch sag, but the directly observable evidence from 911 like the inward bowing of perimeter columns has been derived accurately from photographs and video. Instead of adjusting the pulling forces upward until it resulted in a computer-model collapse, NIST adjusted the pulling forces upward because in reality, the 42 inch figure of steel sagging matches the photographic evidence.
YouTube Video of hot steel rail wrapped around a tree Richard also stated that "Any 1800 degree fire would have been almost immediately conducted throughout this 100,000 ton heat sink." His heat sink is the entire steel structure of the 110 story building, where he claims all the heat almost immediately dissipated to so the fires never got the steel very hot. That’s incredibly high conductivity! Is it true? How fast does steel conduct heat away anyway?
Copper is 8 times more conductive of heat than steel. And with real heatsinks you have to use a thermal conducting paste to fill every microscopic gap.
Consider a blacksmith heating a thin metal rod. He can heat one end of it to a glowing orange, while the other end is cool enough to hold with no more than working gloves. Remove the rod from the heat and it would take several minutes for the heat to equilibriate. And these crazy guys in the woods were able to take a strong piece of railroad track, stoke it up with just a wood fire, and make it hot enough to bend it around a tree with their bare hands! Steel does NOT conduct heat away from fires almost immediately or these guys would have badly burned their hands. NIST studied this question in NCSTAR1-5B, where they show heat applied to representative individual columns, with and without fireproofing. The time to permeate single pieces -- NOT spreading out hundreds of feet, is several minutes to heat through.
Gage's analysis of heat transfer comprises a sweeping statement based, apparently, on no data, analysis or expertise. NIST's analysis of precisely the same scenario comprises extensive thermal modelling using known material properties, known structural dimensions, and proven numerical modelling software.
SLIDE: Robert Behring, UL Fire Protection Engineer, states unequivocally that “steel frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel.”
In my March 6 debate I asked Richard, “if steel frame structures stay strong in a conventional fire, as an architect why would you even want to bother including concrete reinforcement or fireproofing of the steel?”
BACK TO MY FACE: His answer was disturbing: "We do indeed put fireproofing in steel buildings because it makes them indestructible in fires."
Firefighters tell me “virtually nothing is fire proof. Not even concrete.” The technical term for the spray on fireproofing used at the World Trade Center instead of concrete is "Spray-Applied Fire RESISTANT material" a product called BlazeShield. It helps allow enough time for occupant evacuation, and to give firefighters enough time to safely extinguish the fire. Nothing can make a building indestructible in fires.
A lot of what Richard Gage is trying to do is to make the World Trade Center Buildings look as strong as possible. 80,000 tons of structural steel, fireproofing to make them indestructible in fires. Watch out for that word indestructible. When the Titanic sank, some people believed in its unsinkability too, and you can read books with long detailed explanations about why the Titanic never sank at all. Very few scientists are willing to even look at such a book.
When I began my research on 911, many scientists didn’t even want to talk with me until I explained that I didn’t believe in the Controlled Demolition Theory. They deeply resent someone who looks at thousands of hours of advanced mathematical calculation by a trained specialist and mocks and distorts their conclusions. They hate being told they are part of a government conspiracy. They detest anyone who is unschooled in scientific method but hails their own theory as superior to the one arrived at after painstaking work. They really really resent being quoted out of context with their words being twisted around to support a theory they consider unworthy of serious discussion. Richard Gage, Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin and their followers are disliked the way evolutionary scientists dislike creationists, the way Neil Armstrong dislikes the Moon Landing hoax theorists, the way Holocaust survivors dislike Holocaust deniers, the way astronomers dislike the Galileo Was Wrong people. There is hostility on both sides of the 911 argument. The scientists who support the main theories of the NIST report deserve more respect than I see them getting from the other side when they are called frauds and criminals. And for the people who believe in controlled demolition, I am taking seriously every scientific assertion they are making and respectfully asking if it is true.
On 911, three tall steel frame structures collapsed for the first time. So far I’ve offered up a total of 100000000000000 (code for I'll count them up at the end when they are all in there) reasons and counting why they were destructible by the huge fires and jet collisions that hit them, as almost any firefighter will tell you. In our next segment we’ll ask if gravity alone can bring down these towers at high speeds and nearly straight down once the collapse starts.
Hi all,
Thanks for your comments so far. Here is my draft of part three of my rebuttal of Blueprint for Truth. Corrections welcome:
In part three of my Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth rebuttal, we’ll talk about the fact that the World Trade Center buildings were the first of their kind ever to collapse. And yes, Richard Gage, the NIST Report and I agree that “there is No history of destruction by Fire in steel frame high-rises.” So Richard Gage asks, if there had never been a tall steel-framed building brought down by fire, why on September 11 were three such buildings brought down, for the first time? It’s an excellent question deserving of a serious answer. Richard’s answer is clear and simple: steel framed buildings can’t be brought down by regular fires, so this is one strong piece of evidence of a controlled demolition using 4500 degree thermitics. I already discussed the likely collapse sequence of the Twin Towers in part one of this video, so now let’s see if Richard’s assertion is true.
Slide Reasons (firsts): To hammer in his point, Richard shows many burning, tall steel frame buildings that didn’t collapse. But he doesn’t acknowledge some important differences between those buildings and the Twin Towers, and his assertion that steel frame buildings with fireproofing are “indestructible” is simply false. There are other important firsts that day: there has never been a tall building where a large jet with 98,500 liters of exploding fuel hit at over 500 mph creating massive fires where softened steel has had to hold up 180,000,000 pounds above it.
Steel has a high melting point: 2750 degrees, much hotter than regular fires which get up to 1800 or maybe 2000 degrees. Because steel begins to lose its structural strength starting at around 750 degrees, these steel structures have traditionally been reinforced with concrete and surrounded by chemically inert gypsum fire barriers. The World Trade Center Towers dispensed with the heavy concrete because its weight would have made a 110 story skyscraper with large open office spaces unsupportable. Instead the builders used a spray on fire retardant. This is another reason these buildings may have had less ability to resist the fires.
SLIDE: OTHER STEEL FRAME STRUCTURES HAVE COLLAPSED
And do not think for a minute that other steel frame structures besides skyscrapers never collapse. Occasionally they do. In 1997, the large Sound Theatre in Pennsylvania with steel structure, collapsed. In 1967, the very large steel-framed McCormick Center in Chicago collapsed in 30 minutes. Three four-story-high steel framed buildings at the Kadel Toy Factory in Singapore collapsed in 1997. Another prominent example is the Mumbai High North Oil Platform, constructed of steel and seven stories high, which completely collapsed after burning for two hours. The Interstate 580 overpass near San Francisco, supported only by steel beams, suffered no impact but collapsed due to the heat of a gasoline fire after nineteen minutes.
SLIDE: WTC 5 had a partial collapse of four floors on 911. Surely this wasn’t caused by a few thermites left only in the part of the building that collapsed... the part that burned the most. Steel frame buildings are not impervious to partial or total collapse.
SLIDE TEXT: The idea of the indestructibility of steel-framed buildings goes back to the era of the unsinkable ship Titanic. In 1900, the Post & McCord building ... “was supposed to be absolutely fireproof, being constructed of steel and cement in its entirety... to make its burning impossible." burmed to the ground. -The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, April 22, 1900
Remember, traditional steel framed high rises are steel-reinforced concrete. The steel bends away from the structure and the concrete holds up. Concrete was not used to support the WTC towers. Most steel frame buildings do survive fire, but some do not. SLIDE WITH BENT STEEL "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags, and the surrounding concrete cracks."
SLIDE WITH SAGGING STEEL
Richard Gage accuses NIST of fraudulent computer modeling, claiming that tests of steel beams sagged only 3 inches, and then NIST just plugged in a 42 inch sag figure to make their collapse model work. We can see that major steel sagging happens in regular fires. NIST’s fire test resulted in a 3 inch sag, but the directly observable evidence from 911 like the inward bowing of perimeter columns has been derived accurately from photographs and video. Instead of adjusting the pulling forces upward until it resulted in a computer-model collapse, NIST adjusted the pulling forces upward because in reality, the 42 inch figure of steel sagging matches the photographic evidence.
YouTube Video of hot steel rail wrapped around a tree Richard also stated that "Any 1800 degree fire would have been almost immediately conducted throughout this 100,000 ton heat sink." His heat sink is the entire steel structure of the 110 story building, where he claims all the heat almost immediately dissipated to so the fires never got the steel very hot. That’s incredibly high conductivity! Is it true? How fast does steel conduct heat away anyway?
Copper is 8 times more conductive of heat than steel. And with real heatsinks you have to use a thermal conducting paste to fill every microscopic gap.
Consider a blacksmith heating a thin metal rod. He can heat one end of it to a glowing orange, while the other end is cool enough to hold with no more than working gloves. Remove the rod from the heat and it would take several minutes for the heat to equilibriate. And these crazy guys in the woods were able to take a strong piece of railroad track, stoke it up with just a wood fire, and make it hot enough to bend it around a tree with their bare hands! Steel does NOT conduct heat away from fires almost immediately or these guys would have badly burned their hands. NIST studied this question in NCSTAR1-5B, where they show heat applied to representative individual columns, with and without fireproofing. The time to permeate single pieces -- NOT spreading out hundreds of feet, is several minutes to heat through.
Gage's analysis of heat transfer comprises a sweeping statement based, apparently, on no data, analysis or expertise. NIST's analysis of precisely the same scenario comprises extensive thermal modelling using known material properties, known structural dimensions, and proven numerical modelling software.
SLIDE: Robert Behring, UL Fire Protection Engineer, states unequivocally that “steel frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel.”
In my March 6 debate I asked Richard, “if steel frame structures stay strong in a conventional fire, as an architect why would you even want to bother including concrete reinforcement or fireproofing of the steel?”
BACK TO MY FACE: His answer was disturbing: "We do indeed put fireproofing in steel buildings because it makes them indestructible in fires."
Firefighters tell me “virtually nothing is fire proof. Not even concrete.” The technical term for the spray on fireproofing used at the World Trade Center instead of concrete is "Spray-Applied Fire RESISTANT material" a product called BlazeShield. It helps allow enough time for occupant evacuation, and to give firefighters enough time to safely extinguish the fire. Nothing can make a building indestructible in fires.
A lot of what Richard Gage is trying to do is to make the World Trade Center Buildings look as strong as possible. 80,000 tons of structural steel, fireproofing to make them indestructible in fires. Watch out for that word indestructible. When the Titanic sank, some people believed in its unsinkability too, and you can read books with long detailed explanations about why the Titanic never sank at all. Very few scientists are willing to even look at such a book.
When I began my research on 911, many scientists didn’t even want to talk with me until I explained that I didn’t believe in the Controlled Demolition Theory. They deeply resent someone who looks at thousands of hours of advanced mathematical calculation by a trained specialist and mocks and distorts their conclusions. They hate being told they are part of a government conspiracy. They detest anyone who is unschooled in scientific method but hails their own theory as superior to the one arrived at after painstaking work. They really really resent being quoted out of context with their words being twisted around to support a theory they consider unworthy of serious discussion. Richard Gage, Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin and their followers are disliked the way evolutionary scientists dislike creationists, the way Neil Armstrong dislikes the Moon Landing hoax theorists, the way Holocaust survivors dislike Holocaust deniers, the way astronomers dislike the Galileo Was Wrong people. There is hostility on both sides of the 911 argument. The scientists who support the main theories of the NIST report deserve more respect than I see them getting from the other side when they are called frauds and criminals. And for the people who believe in controlled demolition, I am taking seriously every scientific assertion they are making and respectfully asking if it is true.
On 911, three tall steel frame structures collapsed for the first time. So far I’ve offered up a total of 100000000000000 (code for I'll count them up at the end when they are all in there) reasons and counting why they were destructible by the huge fires and jet collisions that hit them, as almost any firefighter will tell you. In our next segment we’ll ask if gravity alone can bring down these towers at high speeds and nearly straight down once the collapse starts.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
You're a liar. You said debunker never change their position. This is one position many changed on. Also Russell Pickering caused a few people to change their views on the Pentagon collapse time.
No, really I want to know why you are calling him a liar? He is a witness inside the building to the fires. You are not.
One travelling fire which has many elements to it you cannot see. Agreed?
Plus or minus C7. Deal with it. Your maths are wrong.
Another lie.
I am not Chris Mohr and I do not know him from adam. OK?
Indeed, though isn't his name Berhinig? Not an important detail, just curious. I had this quote from before:
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
I'll correct the spelling of the UL guy, and the Charleston disaster is a VERY important addition to this. Thanks Tri!
Oh, and BTW C7 I never intended to agree with you on Floor 12. I only offered a possible alternative explanation (thermal contraction), IF the NIST expansion theory didn't pan out. No quote mining please.
Oh, and BTW C7 I never intended to agree with you on Floor 12. I only offered a possible alternative explanation (thermal contraction), IF the NIST expansion theory didn't pan out. No quote mining please.
NoahFence
Banned
All this FEMR and MT concentrating on the smallest possible aspects of an event have my head spinning.
What is your conclusion? That it was a "classic controlled demolition"?
I only ask because I'm not paying attention and I want to get caught up.
riptowtan
Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 186
Another building collapse worth adding is the 14 story Delft University of Technology Building which collapsed from fire alone. There's a even a video of it for the deniers. : )
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
- Messages
- 877
Splendid find! I found some more vids of this:
and
Both @ about 45-50 seconds. Big LOL on the "Age of Aquarius" muzak on vid #2.
Hey, it's the 22nd - no rapture?!?
P.S. Chris M: Knowing Gage, I think the reason he's not putting the video out is simple: in his mind, you won the debate.