911 Jet Fuel and the WTC

[Darat]

[mod]We should not have allowed the name "SylviaBrown" to be registered as a Membership name, therefore I have changed it to SBrown, a PM and an email has been sent to the Member explaining this. This was entirely our fault and we apologise for any confusion or inconvenience our mistake has caused.[/mod]

 

[Dave_46]

The Cardington experiments may or may not have been at all relevant to the WTC situation.

I was working in the Cardington laboratory for part of the time these tests were done, and was present at at least one of them. The construction of the building was different from the WTC towers. The steel beams were substantial, not trusses as used in the WTC. The fire load was timber cribs. The steel beams, while not actually collapsing, were severely damaged, and access to the damaged area had to be restricted for safety reasons after the test.

A statement of the blindingly obvious - the structure of the Cardington building had not been compromised by being hit by an aircraft.

I note that in the material you quote the building is referred to as a "simulated, eight-story [sic] building". It wasn't "simulated", it was a full size eight storey building.

Dave

 

[Anacoluthon64]

[mod]We should not have allowed the name "SylviaBrown" to be registered as a Membership name, therefore I have changed it to SBrown, a PM and an email has been sent to the Member explaining this. This was entirely our fault and we apologise for any confusion or inconvenience our mistake has caused.[/mod]

See? A short, sharp, to-the-point and civil admission of error presented with an appropriate dose of humility. Not that difficult, really.

Now, back to matters of thermal capacities, coefficients of, and differential thermal expansions, and the misleading deductions of unwarranted oversimplification. Ever held a cigarette lighter flame under the bulb-end of an ordinary thermometer for more than a few seconds? Careful if you try this one: glass, like concrete, is brittle with a much lower coefficient of thermal expansion than alcohol (or mercury or steel for that matter). Ever seen a bi-metal strip being heated and cooled? That's differential thermal expansion and contraction in action.

'Luthon64

 

[R.Mackey]

I was working in the Cardington laboratory for part of the time these tests were done, and was present at at least one of them. The construction of the building was different from the WTC towers. The steel beams were substantial, not trusses as used in the WTC. The fire load was timber cribs. The steel beams, while not actually collapsing, were severely damaged, and access to the damaged area had to be restricted for safety reasons after the test.

A statement of the blindingly obvious - the structure of the Cardington building had not been compromised by being hit by an aircraft.

Excellent! I suspected something like this would prove to be the case, and explain why one fire could be consistent with another despite different outcomes.

But I never expected to find someone so close to the experiment so quickly. I am still amazed at the depth of experience and knowledge among the regulars here. Thanks for your insight.