Ask all firefighting and fire related questions here

[NYCEMT86]

I don’t think you understand how heat transfer in steel works. Our scientists at ae9/11truth say that even if the steel had no fire protection then it was so massive that the columns would have absorbed all the heat without failing. It says so in our slide show.

But the floor trusses were made out of bar joists with 5/8” 16mm dia bars. And these bars are small, so any local damage to the fire protection would expose the steel to the fire and any heat would not be able to spread away from the damaged fire protection: the heat would be concentrated. And since every element of a truss is critical to supporting it, then it would be susceptible to failure.

<Snip>

You sir do not understand heat transfer...

http://www.vtaide.com/png/heat2.htm
(It has pictures and right to the point so it will be easy to follow along)

Nah, only been fighting fires and teaching at the academy 20 years... I understand absolutely nothing of heat transfer...

<snip>

Shill

 

[triforcharity]

NYCEMT, you sir, Win the thread.

 

[bill smith]

Correct. As I posted in another thread, the melting temperature of the fireproofing is probably around 1300^oC, lower than the steel it's supposed to protect. But that's not the point. The point is that the heat flow through the material is very low. If the surface melts or otherwise falls off, it exposes new material underneath that is still at a lower temperature.

In spacecraft, the plasma cloud at reentry can reach temperatures in excess of 2000^oC -- but there's not that much heat content, because the air hitting it is rather thin. Some early re-entry systems used ablatives, with stubby-nosed projectiles actually preferable to sharp, streamlined ones, as in the heat shield of the Apollo capsules. This let the thermal protection system steadily boil off a gaseous cushion (this is the "ablation"), and it is that entrained gas layer, not the spacecraft itself, that hit the atmosphere, got heated to absurd temperatures, and then just... steadily blew away, carrying the heat with it.

This is why fire protection is rated for time, not for a specific temperature. It's all about heat. Truthers don't seem to understand heat at all.

''Suppose you had a hollow core column coated all round in a thick layer of fireproofing. Then further suppose that this hollow core column was filled with nanothermite. If this was ignited would it liquify the steel instantly. Would all the fireproofing melt together- fuse into a kind of glassy residue forming a hollow pipe of sorts ?''

But just to make it better chime with your post let me express it slightly differently.

Suppose you had a single 30-foot length of nollow core column standing upright and filled with nanothermite. The outside of the columnn is covered all around with a thick layer of fireproofing,

When the nanothermite is ignited it will almost instantly liquify the steel and sear the inside surface of the fireproofing, possibly turning it into Dr. Astaneh-Asl's glassy, presumably fused residue. Assuming that the liquid steel drops away you might be left with the hollow pipe of fused fireproofing I mentioned above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&NR=1

 

[Dave Rogers]

But the floor trusses were made out of bar joists with 5/8” 16mm dia bars. And these bars are small, so any local damage to the fire protection would expose the steel to the fire and any heat would not be able to spread away from the damaged fire protection: the heat would be concentrated. And since every element of a truss is critical to supporting it, then it would be susceptible to failure.

But since everyone knows the columns failed first the failure of the trusses cannot be the cause of failure. So explosives hidden in the fire zone were essential to start the building failure.

Of course, the failure mode of the trusses is such a trivial irrelevance that it can have no possible bearing on the situation, right? It's not as if there's any particular mode of truss failure, like - for example - sagging, that could place excessive loads on the columns in a direction they weren't designed to withstand. And, of course, the direction of a force isn't relevant either, because for some reason it's only gravitational energy that's directional on truther planet.

But, yes, of course, everyone knows the columns failed first, because truss failure inside the building, hidden from sight by the outer walls, would have been immediately obvious. Just like everyone knows that all the columns in WTC7 failed simultaneously, including the ones that failed six seconds before the rest and allowed the penthouse to fall, and the ones in the middle that failed before the ones at the edges, giving a kink in the face of the building as it fell. They all failed simultaneously at different times. Because, of course, it says that too in the slide show, and we all know that what's in a slide show must always be the truth.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

Of course, the failure mode of the trusses is such a trivial irrelevance that it can have no possible bearing on the situation, right? It's not as if there's any particular mode of truss failure, like - for example - sagging, that could place excessive loads on the columns in a direction they weren't designed to withstand. And, of course, the direction of a force isn't relevant either, because for some reason it's only gravitational energy that's directional on truther planet.

But, yes, of course, everyone knows the columns failed first, because truss failure inside the building, hidden from sight by the outer walls, would have been immediately obvious. Just like everyone knows that all the columns in WTC7 failed simultaneously, including the ones that failed six seconds before the rest and allowed the penthouse to fall, and the ones in the middle that failed before the ones at the edges, giving a kink in the face of the building as it fell. They all failed simultaneously at different times. Because, of course, it says that too in the slide show, and we all know that what's in a slide show must always be the truth.

Dave

Being generous I will allow you three columns that did not collapse at the same time as the rest. So here's the puzzle.

Allowing you three columns to fail in any way you like show how these caused the other 80-some columns to collapse at the exact same time bringing all four widely seperated corners down in such a way that the roofline stays level all the way down.

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by BigAl
Leap to conclusions much? Make ◊◊◊◊ up much?

A WTC fire in 1974(?) was limited to one floor and was contained by the sprinkler system until FDNY showed up yet the fire did structural damage to the truss system. (Cite on request)

Truss systems in fires kill people, including firemen. Firemen train for these fires. Read this:

So you are saying that if the fire protection to the trusses were damaged it would only last 6-8 minutes. So why did they last so long? And why did the columns fail first?

How can an an attempt at paraphrase go so wrong?

Listen to the firemen in this thread. They train for fires in steel-truss buildings.

 

[twinstead]

Being generous I will allow you three columns that did not collapse at the same time as the rest. So here's the puzzle.

Allowing you three columns to fail in any way you like show how these caused the other 80-some columns to collapse at the exact same time bringing all four widely seperated corners down in such a way that the roofline stays level all the way down.

yes, I know, because if it doesn't make sense to YOU, it just doesn't make sense at all, does it bill?

 

[Senenmut]

This is why fire protection is rated for time, not for a specific temperature. It's all about heat. Truthers don't seem to understand heat at all.

i understand its about heat but at a specific temp, the fireproofing does melt. so im wondering what a fireman would think if he found fireproofing that “melted into a glassy residue.”

 

[Justin39640]

i understand its about heat but at a specific temp, the fireproofing does melt. so im wondering what a fireman would think if he found fireproofing that “melted into a glassy residue.”

Seeing the guy you're quoting has said publicly he denounces all conspiracy theories, I'd believe him. He was also talking about the wreckage. You know, the blast furnace called ground zero.

Article

 

[triforcharity]

Idiotic rant about a 4 corners falling simultaniously, and the roofline staying level, blah blah blah.

You still have yet to explain Fitterman Hall.

 

[triforcharity]

I would suspect that it's not what you think it is, or it was some type of chemical fire. Not a normal office fire.

 

[Dave Rogers]

yes, I know, because if it doesn't make sense to YOU, it just doesn't make sense at all, does it bill?

Good god, is he still on about that one? The only roofline that stayed horizontal during collapse is the one bill smith likes to pretend s/he saw. The real one was nothing like horizontal, and the four corners didn't fail at the same time. The building rotated visibly to the south during the collapse, meaning that the south corners failed before the north; and the two sides of the V in the north face show that the northern perimeter columns failed sequentially outwards from an initial point of failure. Pretending that something happened that didn't and then using that fiction as evidence is simply insane.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

NYCEMT, you sir, Win the thread.

Before you raise his hand in victory there's still a question outstanding that he's planning on answering.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Before you raise his hand in victory there's still a question outstanding that he's planning on answering.

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

You still have yet to explain Fitterman Hall.

Is Bill S still trying to rant about wtc7?

How do all 4 corners collapse at the same time when the eastern mechanical penthouse falls first (meaning that corner was gone because you can see through the windows at the top and see the sky) So one corner is already gone.

Of course you can see the other 3 corners in multiple videos falling at nearly the same time.

So we have 3 corners (not 4) falling (not simultaneously) and somehow striking the roof of the building across the street causing a partial collapse.

 

[RedIbis]

Dave

It would be ironic if I simply rephrased questions that he had answered multiple times before in every conceivable way that the English language would allow.

 

[bill smith]

Good god, is he still on about that one? The only roofline that stayed horizontal during collapse is the one bill smith likes to pretend s/he saw. The real one was nothing like horizontal, and the four corners didn't fail at the same time. The building rotated visibly to the south during the collapse, meaning that the south corners failed before the north; and the two sides of the V in the north face show that the northern perimeter columns failed sequentially outwards from an initial point of failure. Pretending that something happened that didn't and then using that fiction as evidence is simply insane.

Dave

Well Readers I am not going to bother taking the time to argue with these people on WTC7. Just read what they say nd see if the many videos online match. After that you can make your own decision on what their function here is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational/watch/v16415017FADebtjf#

 

[njslim]

Sorry I'm late to the debate - spent some 12 hr days at JFK aiport in NY installing quipment

As a previous poster stated:

I've seen the standard fireproofing thats applied to the beams and under steel deck roofs get knocked off in patches by violent impacts like a truck running into a wall, or even once a fork-lift hitting a steel column in a warehouse.


Had to run cables in plenum above the drop ceiling - can tell you that Spray On
Fireproofing frequently crumbles off.

It was found that even the subtle movements of air and vibrations over time cause the
fireproofing to flake and peel away. Remember reading of one survivor from 91st floor
WTC 1 in American Bureau of Shipping. He is a marine engineer - when ceiling came down from impact was able to see floor trusses - remarked that could not see any fireproofing on the exposed steel

 

[twinstead]

Well Readers I am not going to bother taking the time to argue with these people on WTC7. Just read what they say nd see if the many videos online match. After that you can make your own decision on what their function here is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational/watch/v16415017FADebtjf#

You keep addressing the "readers". Let's have a poll of what the readers think. I suspect you'll be disappointed in what you find out. Yes, maybe you should start a thread and find out what these readers you assume see things just like you do REALLY think.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It would be ironic if I simply rephrased questions that he had answered multiple times before in every conceivable way that the English language would allow.

Which would be relevent if the definition of "answered multiple times" encompassed repeated assertions of having answered accompanied by links to posts that answered, in fact, a different question.

Dave