• 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.

Anomolies at ground zero

Garb said:
Seems pretty relevant to me.

If you have the credentials to support your claims it will help your case. Well?
Click to expand...

It would do no such thing, it will simply allow you to say I am lying. So I wont bother.

Are you prepared to reveal your myriad of relevant qualifications?
 
Docker said:
The fuel burned off in 20 minutes and reached temperatures nowhere near hot enough to weaken the steel.

NIST know this, which is why they have to make things up, like fireproofing being blown off and fiddling with parameters on the computer tests.
Click to expand...


Docker, IMHO the first statement is not really true. The second is a subjective blast at the NIST. Pls lets try and argue just the science. I will attach 2 photos of the N tower burning AS IT COLLAPSES! So the 1/2 hour ONLY fire theory is proven via video to be incorrect...they were burning the whole time. Remeber all that smoke? smoke=fire, usually, right? see photos. The one poto just before collapse shows FIRE! The second as the collapse occurs blows the fire outside the building. Pretty hrad to argue the fires were not burinig at the time of collapse.

lh
 

Attachments

  • cap006.jpg
    cap006.jpg
    24.3 KB · Views: 2
  • cap012.jpg
    cap012.jpg
    25.2 KB · Views: 2
Docker said:
Wrong. NIST claims that both together would not have done it, absent the fireproofing being removed which they have shown no evidence of.
Click to expand...

Are you asserting that NO FIREPROOFING was knocked off by the plane impact? If not, what percentage of fireproofing are you claiming was knocked off by the plane impact? Please be clear.

Asking again:
What was the internal temperature in the impacted floors IN YOUR ANALYSIS?

What parameters precisely did NIST "fiddle with"? How were the values wrong and what should they have been IN YOUR ANALYSIS?
 
Docker said:
How does my education back anything up?
Click to expand...
your questioning a bunch of scientistist and engineers and their tests which have been peer reviewed by other scientists and engineers. You implied knew better. What puts you in a postition to do so? If not you, who's opinion are you using ? Why am I to believe you over these scientific authorities?
 
Docker said:
It would do no such thing, it will simply allow you to say I am lying. So I wont bother.

Are you prepared to reveal your myriad of relevant qualifications?
Click to expand...

Well with the way you are acting I doubt you would have these credentials anyhow.

And either way you still haven't cited any sources or backed up your arguments with evidence. So it doesn't matter.

And I don't have to reveal anything because I haven't made any wild accusations.
 
luvhumility said:
Docker, IMHO the first statement is not really true. The second is a subjective blast at the NIST. Pls lets try and argue just the science. I will attach 2 photos of the N tower burning AS IT COLLAPSES! So the 1/2 hour ONLY fire theory is proven via video to be incorrect...they were burning the whole time. Remeber all that smoke? smoke=fire, usually, right? see photos. The one poto just before collapse shows FIRE! The second as the collapse occurs blows the fire outside the building. Pretty hrad to argue the fires were not burinig at the time of collapse.

lh
Click to expand...

Straw man. I said the fuel burned off, not the fires were out.

Firemen reached the impact zone and reported minor fires that they could put out.

I think I shall accept a professional firemans analysis over yours.
 
Docker said:
Straw man. I said the fuel burned off, not the fires were out.

Firemen reached the impact zone and reported minor fires that they could put out.

I think I shall accept a professional firemans analysis over yours.
Click to expand...

Source please...
 
Relevant NIST section regarding fire protection/suppression to the discussion at hand:
2.1.3 Fire Protection
The fire safety of a building is provided by a system of interdependent fire protection features, including suppression systems, detection systems, notification devices, smoke management systems, and passive systems such as compartmentation and structural protection. The failure of any of these fire protection systems will impact the effectiveness of the other systems in the building.

2.1.3.1 Passive Protection
In WTC 1, structural elements up to the 39th floor were originally protected from fire with a sprayapplied product containing asbestos (Nicholson, et al. 1980). These asbestos-containing materials were later abated inside the building, either through encapsulation or replacement. On all other floors and throughout WTC 2, a spray-applied, asbestos-free mineral fiber material was used. Each element of the steel floor trusses was protected with spray-applied material. The specific material used was a low-density, factory-mixed product consisting of manufactured inorganic fibers, proprietary cement-type binders, and other additives in low
concentrations to promote wetting, set, and dust control. Air setting, hydraulic setting, and ceramic setting binders were added in varying quantities and combinations or singly at the site, depending on the particular application and weather conditions. Finally, water was added at the nozzle of the spray gun as the material was sprayed onto the member to be protected. The average thickness of spray-applied fireproofing on the trusses was 3/4 inch. In the mid-1990s, a decision was made to upgrade the fire protection by applying additional material onto the trusses so as to increase fireproofing thickness to 1-1/2 inches. The fireproofing upgrade was applied to individual floors as they became vacant. By September 11, 2001, a total of 31 stories had been upgraded, including the entire impact zone in WTC 1 (floors 94–98), but only the 78th floor in the impact zone in WTC 2 (floors 78–84).

Spandrels and girders were specified to have sufficient protection to achieve a 3-hour rating. Except for the interior face of perimeter columns between spandrels, which were protected with a plaster material, sprayapplied materials similar to those used on the floor systems were used. The thickness of protection on spandrels and girders varied, with the more massive steel column sections receiving reduced fireproofing thickness relative to the thinner elements.

The primary vertical compartmentation was provided by the floor slabs that were cast flush against the spandrel beams at the exterior wall, providing separation between floors at the building perimeter. After a fire in 1975, vertical penetrations for cabling and plumbing were sealed with fire-resistant material. At stair and elevator shafts, separation was provided by a wall system constructed of metal studs and two layers of 5/8-inch thick gypsum board on the exterior and one layer of 5/8-inch thick gypsum board on the interior. These assemblies provided a 2-hour rating. Horizontal compartmentation varied throughout the complex. Some
separating walls ran from slab to slab, while others extended only up to the suspended ceiling. A report by the New York Board of Fire Underwriters (NYBFU) titled One World Trade Center Fire, February 13, 1975 (NYBFU 1975) presents a detailed discussion of the compartmentation features of the building at that time.

2.1.3.2 Suppression
When originally constructed, the two towers were not provided with automatic fire sprinkler protection. However, such protection was installed as a retrofit circa 1990, and automatic sprinklers covered nearly 100 percent of WTC 1 and WTC 2 at the time of the September 11 attacks. In addition, each building had standpipes running through each of its three stairways. A 1.5-inch hose line and a cabinet containing two airpressurized water (APW) extinguishers were also present at each floor in each stairway.

The primary water supply was provided by a dedicated fire yard main that looped around most of the complex. This yard main was supplied directly from the municipal water supply. Two remotely located highpressure, multi-stage, 750-gallons per minute (gpm) electrical fire pumps took suction from the New York City municipal water supply and produced the required operating pressures for the yard main.

Each tower had three electrical fire pumps that provided additional pressure for the standpipes. One pump, located on the 7th floor, received the discharge from the yard main fire pumps and moved it up to the 41st floor, where a second 750-gpm fire pump pushed it up to a third pump on the 75th floor. Each fire pump produced sufficient pressure to supply water to the pump two stages up from it in the event that any one pump should fail.

Several 5,000-gallon storage tanks, filled from the domestic water system, provided a secondary water supply. Tanks on the 41st, 75th, and 110th floors provided water directly to a standpipe system. A tank on the 20th floor supplied water directly to the yard main. Numerous Fire Department of New York (FDNY) connections were located around the complex to allow the fire department to boost water pressure in the buildings.
Click to expand...
 
Garb said:
Well with the way you are acting I doubt you would have these credentials anyhow.

And either way you still haven't cited any sources or backed up your arguments with evidence. So it doesn't matter.

And I don't have to reveal anything because I haven't made any wild accusations.
Click to expand...

Exactly, It doesn't matter. Now what are your qualifications?
 
Docker said:
Straw man. I said the fuel burned off, not the fires were out.

Firemen reached the impact zone and reported minor fires that they could put out.

I think I shall accept a professional firemans analysis over yours.
Click to expand...

So, the periodical about fire sciences that is written by members of the FDNY would be considered a good source by you?
 
Docker said:
Straw man. I said the fuel burned off, not the fires were out.

Firemen reached the impact zone and reported minor fires that they could put out.

I think I shall accept a professional firemans analysis over yours.
Click to expand...
you don't seem to think ongoing fires were a problem. You don't think commercial airliners crashing at high speeds were a problem. And you don't think NIST tests were good enough. Your opinion is valid because of...?
 
Docker said:
Straw man. I said the fuel burned off, not the fires were out.

Firemen reached the impact zone and reported minor fires that they could put out.

I think I shall accept a professional firemans analysis over yours.
Click to expand...
Did you do any research into this? If so, you will be able to answer the following question.

On which floor did the fireman report the "minor fires".
 
Docker: A Morality Play

JREFer: Docker, what are your qualifications?

Docker: No! No! You'll call me a liar. What are YOUR qualifications?

JREFer: It would help to possibly substantiate some of your wilder claims if we knew your background.

Docker: I'll never tell! NEVER!! You hear me?!?!?! I'll never talk!! You can't make me!! What are YOUR qualifications?!?!?!

JREFer: You're missing the point. You claim NIST has it all wrong, so it would help us continue this debate if we were aware of scientific pedigree.

Docker: WHAT ARE YOU DEAF!?!?! I. AM. NOT. TELLING!!!!

... And so on and so forth.
 
Docker said:
Exactly, It doesn't matter. Now what are your qualifications?
Click to expand...

Like I said I haven't made any outlandish claims. Now you have, and haven't done anything to prove them except with your own opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom