WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

[jaydeehess]

Based on my experience in fire fighting and some limited work in construction, I find any calculations based on the design of WTC7 as built to be at least somewhat unreliable. The building was randomly damaged during the barrage of debris from the collapse of the north tower. The fires broke out randomly and broke windows randomly.

The heat would be spread randomly, and the steel elements of the structure would sink it randomly.

Still, Tony and Chris expect everything to move in tight formation, dress-right-dress to the end.

Sometimes number-crunchers get a bit too obsessive.

The complexity of this is where the fire FEA comes in. I believe that NIST made adjustments to air supply that took into account missing windows on the south side as far as could be determined and checked their FEA results against observables such as east and north side window breakage and visible fire. This comparison indicated that the FEA was reasonably accurate for those areas and thus could be expected to be reasonably accurate for the interior as well.

Chris otoh seems to take the observed fires and somehow magically extrapolates this into what he wants expects knows, somehow, would be the conditions beyond the windows.

However I understand your point. Yes it is a hallmark of conspiracists to expect absolute precision in all such enterprises. One early point made elsewhere by conspiracists was that the FEMA report said the towers fell in ten seconds. Yes they said "ten seconds" , spelled out rather than in numerical (ie. technical) form, and to conspiracists this was tantamount to saying the towers collapsed in 10.00000 seconds. Now have we seen something similar in this thread?

 

[triforcharity]

A back draft occurs when fresh air hits built up unignited vapors in a closed space. There was a steady breeze blowing thru the 12th floor so there was no build up of unignited vapors.
I know more about fires than you do Mr. hose dragger.

Bull ****. That is the biggest lie I have EVER seen you post Sarns.



Proof that you're wrong is in the video.

 

[triforcharity]

Tri,

This is friggin' hilarious.

You couldn't possibly write comedy like this.



You can't argue with logic like that, Tri. The only course left to you is to cede the battlefield to Chris & his juggernaut logic, and slink away in defeat.

After all, he has DIAGRAMS. With ARROWS, for God's sake!!

If I may, can I give an example the irresistable force of Chris & his diagrams?

Over at (I giggle whenever I see this) TruthPhalanx.com, Chris has, in his own modest words, "disproved NIST's claims in four centrally important areas … [including] … in the extent and timing of fire on the 12th floor which NIST claimed caused the initial failure leading to collapse."

And how did one man pull of this fire-science tour de force?
WITH DIAGRAMS, of course.

Here is the unchallengable proof that NIST was incompetent or just plain fraudulent in their investigation of the fires.

NIST's diagrams, based on that silly old Fire Simulation Software that they've been developing since the 1980s. With all of its silly millions of lines of code, and requiring supercomputers and all that stuff that is clearly just meant to impress the sheeple & silence serious investigators.

NIST's diagram:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=638&pictureid=5862[/qimg]

Now compare this blatant fraud (everyone can see that, right?) to Chris' typical work.

Below is a diagram representing precisely the area in which Chris had suggestions about about fire in the building: the areas immediately adjacent to the windows. The blacked out zone is the area in the building for which he hadn't the SLIGHTEST clue about the fire situation.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=638&pictureid=5863[/qimg]

Would Chris be able to shine the light of knowledge into those dark areas of ignorance?
Does the Pope crap in the woods?
Is the bear Catholic?
Did the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=638&pictureid=5865[/qimg]

Bringing his penetrating intellect to bear on the problem, he was able to reach down to the genius residing within and to fill in the blanks as no mere supercomputer could.

Producing this masterpiece:

(are you ready? Can you handle the truth?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=638&pictureid=5864[/qimg]

See, Tri. Told ya.
Diagrams!
Not even any arrows on this one, but I bet NIST is quaking in their neocon boots, fearful that this will ever get out.

You can't argue with diagrams, Tri.

Oops, excuse me. I should have said "… with DIAGRAMS".

Because Chris' diagrams ain't just plain old small letter diagrams.

No, they are CAPITAL LETTER DIAGRAMS!!

Sometimes they wear colorful spandex suits. With masks. And capes.



Chris thinks that he knows more about fire in buildings than you do.
He thinks he knows more about mechanical engineering than I do.
He thinks he knows more about structural engineering than Zdenek Bazant, Shayam Sunder, John Gross, Terese McAllister et al.
He thinks he knows more about forensic chemical identification than James Millette, Sunstealer, or Oystein.

I could go on & on.
& on & on.
& on & on.
& on & on.

[No, really. I could.]

But I wouldn't want to embarrass him with praise. He is, after all, such a resolutely modest individual.

And what, you may ask, is the unshakable foundation for his self-image as the Renaissance Man of Engineering Knowledge of our Century?

Well, I am glad you asked.

Allow me to fill in the blanks for you and anyone else who doubts his authority in all matters related to science and engineering.

It is based upon his ability to state such momentous, paradigm-shifting sentences as:

"You know, we're running a 2 for 1 special on screwdrivers over on aisle 6. Would you like me to show you where they are?"

And the most remarkable thing is that he is able to say these things ON A DAILY BASIS ..!!! And WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY…!!

Such crushing responsibility & authority executed with calm, steely-eyed self-confidence. Especially under life-&-death emergency situations, when that call to action sounds ("Clean up on Aisle 4") & Chris and his Band of Brothers spring into action. Not an instant of concern for their own safety or the families they may never see again!!

Well, I don't mind telling you, Tri. Watching these quiet heroes go about their daily lives, sometime it just brings a tear to my eye in silent admiration.

[Takes bow. Exits stage right.]

Excellent post sir. Chris Sarn's education on fire is "it's hot" and "don't touch the stove, it'll burn you".

I especially like the part about the diagrams (sorry) DIAGRAMS.



I wonder how well he's doing on his homework that I asked him for.

 

[Justin39640]

As Tony has pointed out a few times, the opinions of anonymous internet posters claiming to be "engineers" are worth zero. It's a non-debate.

I would think that would apply to you too. Even more so since I can't ever recall you claiming to be an engineer.

 

[Justin39640]

Retarded is asking that question as if we didn't all know the answer.

Y'all are avoiding the point with your childish questions.

As the simple graphic above shows, the breeze blowing thru the NW corner of floor 12 was not mixing very much with the hot gasses from the fire and was much cooler than the 600^oC [or whatever temp the beams in question reached] reducing the temperature of the beams in question by 4 p.m.

The area above the office partition walls and dropped ceiling was open throughout the floor. The breeze was flowing thru that 3 to 4 foot space under the beams in question.

Burning buildings don't act like automotive radiators, dude.

 

[Justin39640]

Yes, in trooferland, using compress oxygen would cause a cooler flame in a welding torch

And never use oxy-acetylene outside in the dead of winter. It's completely useless!

 

[jaydeehess]

And never use oxy-acetylene outside in the dead of winter. It's completely useless!

You got that right. Here in Canada we have to do all our outdoor welding between May and October.

Back when I was younger I was a smoker. No way in ayech-ee-double toothpicks you could light up a smoke outside in January.

 

[Christopher7]

A back draft occurs when fresh air hits built up unignited vapors in a closed space. There was a steady breeze blowing thru the 12th floor so there was no build up of unignited vapors.

You can't argue with logic like that,

I should have said oxygen starved to be more inclusive but what I said was correct. There was no oxygen shortage or buildup of unignited vapors with a steady breeze blowing thru the building.

Chris has, in his own modest words, "disproved NIST's claims in four centrally important areas … [including] … in the extent and timing of fire on the 12th floor which NIST claimed caused the initial failure leading to collapse."

And how did one man pull of this fire-science tour de force?
WITH DIAGRAMS, of course.

Here is the unchallengable proof that NIST was incompetent or just plain fraudulent in their investigation of the fires.

NIST's diagrams, based on that silly old Fire Simulation Software that they've been developing since the 1980s. With all of its silly millions of lines of code, and requiring supercomputers and all that stuff that is clearly just meant to impress the sheeple & silence serious investigators.

NIST's diagram:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=638&pictureid=5862

Now compare this blatant fraud (everyone can see that, right?) to Chris' typical work.

Below is a diagram representing precisely the area in which Chris had suggestions about about fire in the building: the areas immediately adjacent to the windows. The blacked out zone is the area in the building for which he hadn't the SLIGHTEST clue about the fire situation.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=638&pictureid=5863
Would Chris be able to shine the light of knowledge into those dark areas of ignorance?

Yes.

NIST admits that they did not use the photo evidence of where the fires were, just the broken windows. They did it that way so they could claim there was fire in areas where it had burned out. Their simulation does not match the photos and it has fires burning in the same area for much longer than 20 to 30 minutes. Simulation software output is only as good as the input data. GIGO.

I have built offices with dropped ceilings like the ones in WTC 7 from plans so I have a visual picture of every aspect of the construction including what is above the dropped ceilings. The photos of where the fire was on the exterior, common sense knowledge of how fires spread, confirmed by the statement in the final report of how the fire spread in this case, and the floor plan, are all that is needed to determine how the fire moved thru the interior.

To get from the south side to the north side, the fire had to burn the area in between. That includes the interior offices under the beams and girder in question.

This graphic is a rough estimate of where the fire front was in the interior at the specified times.

The NE section had burned out by about 3:45 and the fire was burning about 100 feet away from the NE section by about 4 p.m.

 

[Christopher7]

Bull ****. That is the biggest lie I have EVER seen you post Sarns.



Proof that you're wrong is in the video.

Very impressive. The back draft no doubt occurred when they opened a door and allowed air to flow thru the upper floor.

You guys are grasping at straws. There was no mention of back draft in WTC 7 because there was none. This is something the firefighters would have noted if it had happened. The conditions for back draft did not exist because there was always plenty of ventilation.

 

[jaydeehess]

NIST admits that they did not use the photo evidence of where the fires were, just the broken windows. They did it that way so they could claim there was fire in areas where it had burned out

.

reference?

ETA: you see, if you use the phrasing and accusations such as what I hilited, no one will ever publish your paper in a real journal.


IS that what you want?

 

[jaydeehess]

Very impressive. The back draft no doubt occurred when they opened a door and allowed air to flow thru the upper floor.

You guys are grasping at straws. There was no mention of back draft in WTC 7 because there was none. This is something the firefighters would have noted if it had happened. The conditions for back draft did not exist because there was always plenty of ventilation.

Backdraft need not only occur upon a sudden influx of oxygen, backdraft can occur in areas with one main avenue of air supply. The fire burns in a room with three walls and air available through an opening on the fourth side. Oxygen is used up at the perimeter where air and fuel are available. Radiant heat causes objects not combusting to heat up further into the room thus releasing combustible gasses which build up until their pressure is greater than the pressure from gasses at the firefront, superheated combustible gasses push through the firefront and ignite immediately.

A telltale sign would be smoke that is alternately exiting then being pulled into, a room. (IIRC this is why its called backdraft.)

 

[Christopher7]

you see, if you use the phrasing and accusations such as what I hilited, no one will ever publish your paper in a real journal.

Point taken but this is not a scientific journal.

Rest assured I will be totally PC in a submission to a journal.

As for back draft, none was reported. Furthermore, after the fire had burned out the east end, the dropped ceilings were gone and the area above the offices was open [no walls]. There was nowhere for unignited vapors to build up.

 

[jaydeehess]

Point taken but this is not a scientific journal.

Rest assured I will be totally PC in a submission to a journal.

As for back draft, none was reported. Furthermore, after the fire had burned out the east end, the dropped ceilings were gone and there was nowhere for unignited vapors to build up.

In a building that is 100+ feet from south to north side and in which there are no witnesses, who exactlly would be there to report it?

Listen, I am not saying that backdrafts existed at 5:30pm in WTC 7. As always I take exception to your adamant contention and finality.

However you are assuming that you can tell what was burning well away from the windows and I cannot see how you can support that assumption. OTOH NIST uses a state of the art fire FEA which is seen to agree well with the observables and therefore one CAN assume that the FEA also is relatively accurate in predicting what is going on where observation is not possible.

NIST has the experienced and trained fire specialists while you have your unexperienced and untrained assumptions. Sorry Chris until you can do better the logical way to go is with NIST..









....... then there is the sticky point of even IF you did prove beyond a reasonable doubt that NIST is incorrect,,,,,,, how this makes CD more compelling.

 

[jaydeehess]

Point taken but this is not a scientific journal.

Rest assured I will be totally PC in a submission to a journal.

.

Well that's good to know.

When will it be ready for submission. You were the one complaining loudly that NIST took too long to get out a report with a lot more in it than you will have in yours. Hopefully we will see it published before 2015, you know, 7 years after NIST's.

 

[NoahFence]

....... then there is the sticky point of even IF you did prove beyond a reasonable doubt that NIST is incorrect,,,,,,, how this makes CD more compelling.

I'm confident when I say none of these truthers believes in controlled demo for real.

Its all about how smart they are and how dreadfully wrong everybody else is. But when you ask ” in what way am I wrong” or ” show me your evidence”, they chicken out. Its sad.

 

[MarkLindeman]

I'm confident when I say none of these truthers believes in controlled demo for real.

Its all about how smart they are and how dreadfully wrong everybody else is. But when you ask ” in what way am I wrong” or ” show me your evidence”, they chicken out. Its sad.

Oh, I am more convinced than ever -- which isn't to say positive, just more positive than I was -- that C7 thinks he is right. As far as he is concerned, he has shown his evidence that the NIST collapse model is impossible repeatedly on this thread, and no one has rebutted it.

I've argued at length with a similar kind of person, in my area of expertise; his arguments were at least as bad as C7's, and he was at least as convinced of their Seminal Importance. Every once in a while he managed to accept correction on a particularly egregious error. Usually, he was so sure that he was God's gift to democracy that factual criticisms just bounced off. It was damn strange, but I never thought that he was faking it. (I can't say that for everyone I've dealt with.)

Damn. I said earlier that I had used up my meta quota for April. Eh, consider this a head start on May. I'm not gonna drag you into a pointless argument about what goes on in other people's heads -- just offering a different perspective for what it may be worth.

 

[leftysergeant]

Now account for when the stuff in all those cubicles in the middle caught fire.

I would also refer you to another thread here somewhere of a NIST test fire showing the progression of an office fire in a test building.

There was a tremendous amount of smoke in the room as things caught fire, but it cleared a bit as the more volitile hydrocarbons were burned off, but remained hot and bright as slower-burning, but still energy-rich materials burned. You have no bloody clue what was burning or where at any time other than what you could see through the windows.

You have the fire just marching along the outer margins of the office space.

You are selling an institutional-size drum of weak sauce.

 

[NoahFence]

Oh I know he thinks he's got NIST beat, its the controlled demolition he doesn't actually believe.

 

[leftysergeant]

The conditions for back draft did not exist because there was always plenty of ventilation.

Once again, I mentioned back draft to point out that the smoke and vapors from a fire can, themselves, be fuel. That there was air coming in does not mean that any of the fires were being cooled down, but, rather, that they could be actually hotter now than they were before because they are better-ventilated and burning more than just the Class A fuels at the most active fire front.

 

[ozeco41]

...Damn. I said earlier that I had used up my meta quota for April. Eh, consider this a head start on May. I'm not gonna drag you into a pointless argument about what goes on in other people's heads -- just offering a different perspective for what it may be worth.

I have probably used up my meta comment quota also -- but this one is probably still relevant:

...Put more simply truthers in general seem to lack the thinking skills which are needed to form valid conclusions.

In a recent post I even went the step further and postulated that those who cannot think clearly are pre-disposed to become truthers.

Both claims would be suitable for further exploration. But I doubt that this sub-forum is the place to do that exploring.