Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[NoahFence]

I've seen none.

And you are.....?

Get yourself in charge of constructing a massive skyscraper. You'll find them.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

This was my hypothesis too. In my debate with Richard Gage, Tom Kiely (a 9/11 Truth activist with a radio show) was our moderator (he did a good job BTW). As it turns out, he got caught in the dust cloud on 9/11 and reported to the entire crowd that the dust cloud was warm, but not scalding, just as you hypothesized (and I believe for the same reason you mention).

Even then most of that warmth may simply have been due to the rapid compression of the air as the floors pancaked. That how a diesel engine works (the rapid compression of the air raises the temperature to the ignition point of the injected fuel. You can also see this effect if you use a bicycle pump.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_gas_law


One of the few laws I still remember from college

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Note to newbies: 9/11 "debunkers" lie. When they can't stretch the truth far enough, they simply resort to lying. Never believe what they have to say unless they provide a source for it. And then investigate the source.

 

[BasqueArch]

Heh.

So the excerpt below, cited by BasqueArch, contains the only relevant references to building code changes that seek to address this phenomenon of "progressive collapse", and the dangers of buildings plummeting to the ground from localized damage and one-hour office fires:


BasqueArch neglects to provide a source for this quote, but it's from a NIST press release. Now, the question is whether you'll be surprised to learn that he left a critical sentence out, the one immediately preceding the above quote:

Originally Posted by NIST
Nine additional code change proposals based on the NIST WTC recommendations were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes.

These proposals address areas such as designing structures to mitigate disproportionate progressive collapse, mandating the use of a nationally accepted standard...etc...

Wrong. The source for all the quotes is noted in my post, it’s not from NIST, it’s from Science Daily. Read it.
And I didn’t leave that sentence out of my post, it’s in there, take off your truther shades.

ergo:

Note to newbies: 9/11 "debunkers" lie. When they can't stretch the truth far enough, they simply resort to lying. Never believe what they have to say unless they provide a source for it. And then investigate the source.

Note to newbies: 9/11 “truthers” either lie, are idiots or don’t know what they’re talking about. The end result is the same, they’re wrong.

Hi Chris, Gage was likely talking about modest changes to fire safety and egress. One of the telling things about these code changes is that you don't really see much, if any literature as to how these code changes, implemented after the worst building "disasters" in history, are changing the industry. I've seen none.

As for BA's quotes, I've just shown that he was lying. The only changes that have been adopted so far relate to fire safety and evacuation. Changes which obviously address how unsafe the twin towers were in that regard.

Wrong, read my post. Most of the NIST recommended code changes have been adopted, including structural and fireproofing changes that reduce the chance of initial collapse and therefore subsequent progressive collapse. You don't read or comprehend good.

As for ergo's quotes I've just shown that 9/11 “truthers” either lie, are idiots or don’t know what they’re talking about.

 

[NoahFence]

Sometimes they're so stupid (truthers) that they can't even quote mine right.

Sometimes all you need to do to prove them wrong is read back only a few posts in the same thread!

 

[ergo]

BA, none of the changes adopted address the phenomenon of "progressive collapse" or the alleged dangers of steel-framed buildings collapsing to the ground from upper floor fires.

What part of that don't you understand?

And yes, the information is from a NIST press release. Where do you think Science Daily got it from??

And I didn’t leave that sentence out of my post, it’s in there

So it is. For some reason, you formatted it as a separate quote, even though it requires the paragraph that follows.

 

[NoahFence]

BA, none of the changes adopted address the phenomenon of "progressive collapse" or the alleged dangers of steel-framed buildings collapsing to the ground from upper floor fires.

They didn't address any specifc type of collapse. They addressed fireproofing and general building safety, which would obviously (to the honest people) include how and why the buildings collapsed on 9/11.

Yes, progressive collapse is included in the how.

First and foremost is safety of human beings. Just because YOU have never seen the words "progressive collapse" included in literature means absolutely nothing. Because YOU are a truther. And truthers mean absolutely nothing.
Now why not be a good little boy and explain to us riveted listeners how the explosives would have survived impact?

 

[Tezro]

Hi Chris, Gage was likely talking about modest changes to fire safety and egress. One of the telling things about these code changes is that you don't really see much, if any literature as to how these code changes, implemented after the worst building "disasters" in history, are changing the industry. I've seen none.

You might want to have a look at an article from "New Civil Engineer" magazine from the tenth anniversary of the collapses called "WTC ten years on: Learning from the unthinkable" . I'm new here and can't post links, but it's easy enough to find. Then you will have seen more than none.

 

[ergo]

You might want to have a look at an article from "New Civil Engineer" magazine from the tenth anniversary of the collapses called "WTC ten years on: Learning from the unthinkable" . I'm new here and can't post links, but it's easy enough to find. Then you will have seen more than none.

I think you're probably old enough here to provide quotes, even if you can't post links to the source. So I'll let you do that.

The quotes should pertain to specific code changes that incorporate structural design modifications to prevent progressive collapse.

 

[NoahFence]

I think you're probably old enough here to provide quotes, even if you can't post links to the source. So I'll let you do that.

The quotes should pertain to specific code changes that incorporate structural design modifications to prevent progressive collapse.

I first learned about "new civil engineer" magazine about 15 seconds ago.

I used that in-depth knowledge to find the link, and do the legwork for you, kiddo.

Maybe less time being uneducated and more time getting educated should be your goal?


Aw, who am I kidding? You won't go to that link, so I'll bring it to you:

Codes have changed — with a requirement for minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures through continuity and tie-force requirements.

But this code change is intended only to enhance overall structural integrity — and is not intended to prevent progressive collapse.
Price says that, nonetheless, much work has been done. “Before 9/11 the Americans didn’t even have the concept of progressive collapse. Now it is very much in the vocabulary,” he says.

“Codes have changed and clients have become much more attuned to the need to incorporate to some degree a certain amount of robustness,” adds Halcrow Yolles principal Pierre Desautels. “It is no longer seen as a luxury. The last 10 years have seen a lot of analysis and intellect applied to create redundancy, so that other parts of the structure can take loads if a section was removed.”

To think that we witnessed two 110 story buildings collapse in that manner, and to have architects and engineers (real ones) NOT address that is patently absurd. Par for the truther course.

 

[NoahFence]

You just know ergo is over there now, trying to find a quote that he can distort....

 

[Tezro]

This is a complete derail, and I apologize. This whole thing should probably be split off into a thread about building code changes since 9/11.

Regardless, ergo, the reference to the article was made in response to your comment to Chris which I quoted above. It is indeed an article about "how these code changes, implemented after the worst building "disasters" in history, are changing the industry." In fact, it is part of a series of articles pertaining to this exact question. I thought you might find it informative.

 

[ergo]

I guess to get back on topic, how would you go about giving evidence for the claim you just made? I also recall the fires not being localized, either. Sorry if you're speaking of the towers but wasn't WTC7 considered "fully involved"?

Why do you have to ask this question, with all the abundant visual evidence showing it was?

Why don't you simply look it up yourself, and while you're at it, let us know when you find something.

 

[DGM]

One of the telling things about these code changes is that you don't really see much, if any literature as to how these code changes, implemented after the worst building "disasters" in history, are changing the industry. I've seen none.

What code publications do you subscribe to? I'm in the building trade and I've seen tons. Are you in the industry? If not, why are you making stupid statements like this? If you are, why are you making stupid statements like this?

 

[NoahFence]

Why do you have to ask this question, with all the abundant visual evidence showing it was?

Why don't you simply look it up yourself, and while you're at it, let us know when you find something.

So instead of looking for a single sentence you can dishonestly discect, you're just going for the totally ignore it tactic.

Keeping us on our toes, eh?

 

[DGM]

Hey Ergo:

A "truther" with a brain would see all the design changes to the new WTC buildings and put two and two together. Are you that "truther"? If not, Why did you make that last stupid comment about codes?

 

[A W Smith]

I think you're probably old enough here to provide quotes, even if you can't post links to the source. So I'll let you do that.

The quotes should pertain to specific code changes that incorporate structural design modifications to prevent progressive collapse.

http://www.nce.co.uk/major-projects...learning-from-the-unthinkable/8619487.article

Consultant WSP director Bill Price, who is designer of the 310m tall Shard in London, believes the more technical Nist recommendations have been embraced.Improving active and passive fire protection, recognising the importance of structural redundancy and providing sufficient means to escape buildings are the three key areas of change, he says.

Fire protection was a major failing in the WTC towers, with the explosive shock of the impact of the fuel-laden planes damaging much of the brittle fire resistance attached to the steel columns.
Many changes have been implemented here with nine Nist recommendations focusing on structural fi re response. Most have been adopted, with US codes notably demanding a seven-fold increase in fireproofing bond strength.

There has also been an upping of standards worldwide. For example, non-shattering intumescent paint is bonded firmly to the steel members on the Shard.

A lot of work has also gone into understanding better how buildings respond to fire. The US has adopted the “structural frame” approach to fire resistance ratings that requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the higher fire resistance rating commonly required only for columns.

Professor Barbara Lane, leader of Arup’s fire engineering practice says this approach is being applied globally. “An enormous amount of work has been done with computational analysis to model what’s likely to happen in a fire,” she says, adding that things are totally different from 10 years ago.
“A lot of work was done to understand the collapse, and the knowledge gained from that analysis is being fed into tools that allow engineers to look at a new building or new structural concepts and say ‘this is what will happen’ and ‘this is the chance to improve your structural response’.

Now we have the tools down to the detail of what joints are being produced to look at how heat would affect those details”. That’s been done on structures that are being built now in London.

Codes have changed — with a requirement for minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures through continuity and tie-force requirements.
But this code change is intended only to enhance overall structural integrity — and is not intended to prevent progressive collapse.
Price says that, nonetheless, much work has been done. “Before 9/11 the Americans didn’t even have the concept of progressive collapse. Now it is very much in the vocabulary,” he says.
“Codes have changed and clients have become much more attuned to the need to incorporate to some degree a certain amount of robustness,” adds Halcrow Yolles principal Pierre Desautels. “It is no longer seen as a luxury. The last 10 years have seen a lot of analysis and intellect applied to create redundancy, so that other parts of the structure can take loads if a section was removed.

That should be specific enough for any jackass truther troll to accept. Having their trolling ass handed to them AGAIN just like in the "black smoke=incomplete combustion" thread

 

[LSSBB]

So instead of looking for a single sentence you can dishonestly discect, you're just going for the totally ignore it tactic.

Keeping us on our toes, eh?

Afraid of shooting off and looking bad again, I guess. The smart thing for him to do at this point would be to man up and admit he was wrong.

 

[leftysergeant]

Why do you have to ask this question, with all the abundant visual evidence showing it was?

Why don't you simply look it up yourself, and while you're at it, let us know when you find something.

To a fire fighter, the evidence is adequate. To the ignorant, it isn't.

Just take the word of fire fighters who were actually there, rather than that of rookies who were not there.

 

[Christopher7]

You put quote marks around the first paragraph. What is that quoted from?

The quote is from the May 2004 Signature Assessment report page 9.

Also, one wonder what temperatures, at minimum and expressed as a numerical value with the unit °F, °C or K, would "extremely high temperature" imply here? Then, given the fact that...

...and the implication that these non-structural building components were heated to such "extremely high temperature", what would that mean with regard to

1. the energy needed to reach such "extremely high temperature" throughout the office spaces
2. the amount of thermite to supply this much emnergy
3. the heat radiation that would have emenated from the offices if indeed they had heated up to such "extremely high temperature". I understand that objects at 1500°C or hotter glow white hot. Is there any evidence that office contents were glowing white hot?

In summary, I don't think C7 has thought through the implications of his oft repeated claims.

The implication is: The melted iron and the vaporized lead confirm temperatures far in excess of what office fires can attain.

Speculating on exactly how that occurred is a diversion and a waste of time. The only known source for those temperatures is some form of thermite - unless you know of another.

All: Please start another thread to discuss code changes.