• 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.

Care to Comment

Rika said:
....*stares*

... seriously? You seriously want to say there weren't high temps there near the steel? OK!
Click to expand...

The steel itself has to get hot to weaken and there is no physical evidence of high steel temperatures. This isn't a belief, it is a reality.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There is no physical evidence of high steel temperatures in the steel that NIST salvaged from the twin towers, in case you didn't know, and their analyses show the impact damage did not remove any more than 20% of the column strength. This cannot possibly account for a lack of deceleration in the fall. You should read the NIST report if you haven't, and if you have you may have missed those parts and should reread it.
Click to expand...

You have already proved you have not read it. Either that or you were caught telling lies about it.
 
dafydd said:
Best thing perhaps.These people will be carrying these delusions to their graves.Sad.
Click to expand...

That's is increasingly being my sentiment. indeed. Let them.

Now for most Truthers the dungeon of woo is their natural habitat. For Tony, it isn't. Which makes it all the more painful.
 
There are a couple of interesting arguments going on here. I think that Tony's point is that if the tower tilted by 1 degree then the columns above would only miss the columns below by three and a half feet. And that the upper columns were likely to land safely on the columns below, supported by the bar joists.

While Profanz is saying that the fires were not hot enough to yield a 10mm dia rod, so that the bar joists would not fail, and would not pull the perimeter columns. You could test that theory on your stove.

You have to realize that a much more sensible option would be for the explosives to survive the fire and be located at the level of impact and for the demo team to wait until most of the people had escaped before exploding the buildings with a new silent, flashless explosives.

Come on you know what makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
friction, in this case, is caused by gravity.
Click to expand...


This is not true. Gravity, in absolutely no case, is the direct cause of friction. Friction, in this case, is caused by the ball's contact with the pool table (and the air, too). Gravity merely ensures that the ball remains in contact with said pool table.
 
rsalinger said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s&feature=player_embedded

was sent to me recently. Has anyone else commented on this latest video?
Click to expand...

The video was made by a freaking pea-brain who has no grasp of physics. He is comparing solid blocks to thin sheet metal. He seemsto have this notion that tree limbs were broken by a build-up of stuiff falling on the floors. The perimeter cloumns were pushed out over the side by moving (Thus HOT)material dowarnd where it could get down there.
 
Telltale Tom said:
There are a couple of interesting arguments going on here. I think that Tony's point is that if the tower tilted by 1 degree then the columns above would only miss the columns below by three and a half feet. And that the upper columns were likely to land safely on the columns below, supported by the bar joists.
Click to expand...

I have said 1 degree of tilt would not cause the columns to miss each other at all.

It would be very interesting to see the math you used to arrive at your assertion that 1 degree of tilt would cause columns to miss by three and a half feet.
 
Last edited:
Today I just finished a fire/smoke diving course. It was pretty clear that fires produce high temperatures along the roof. Enough to seriously weaken steel.
 
Toke said:
Today I just finished a fire/smoke diving course. It was pretty clear that fires produce high temperatures along the roof. Enough to seriously weaken steel.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying it can't eventually if heated long enough with a hot enough fire.

It depends on the size and heat capacity of the steel, the size and proximity of the fire, and whether the steel has a sink to transfer some of the heat to.

NIST found no evidence of the steel they received from the towers experiencing high temperatures. This would have been due to the size of the steel, the size of the fires, and the fact that the steel had large sinks to transfer heat to.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
NIST found no evidence of the steel they received from the towers experiencing high temperatures. This would have been due to the size of the steel, the size of the fires, and the fact that the steel had large sinks to transfer heat to.
Click to expand...

And steel that got to high enough temp to seriously weaken it is not part of the NIST hypothesis anyways.

Their hypothesis goes more like - impact damage>load transfers. Moderately high temps lead to creep > more load transfers. Ext column pull in leads to out of plane columns > yet more load transfers. >>>> Collapse initiation.

So why this line of argument in the first place?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I have said 1 degree of tilt would not cause the columns to miss each other at all.

It would be very interesting to see the math you used to arrive at your assertion that 1 degree of tilt would cause columns to miss by three and a half feet.
Click to expand...

Would they miss by a little bit? Just a couple of inches, say?

For the "H" columns, would this result in the wide flanges missing each other, resulting in only the web flanges contacting, therefore meaning that the steel-to-steel contact area to be reduced by what... ~70% ?

What about box columns? The same would apply, right? Maybe ~60% reduction in steel-to-steel contact area?

Your buddies over at Greg's seem to think so, nearly unanimously.

And of course this deals with the core columns only. The ext columns would be just as bad on the descending side.

Now, please provide a realistic explanation as to just HOW all these misaligned columns could provide any jolt at all.
 
Rika said:
It's something I said. I said the fire weakened the steel enough to remove a lot of their capacity to hold up load.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok.

It's not really a point in NIST in the first place. Tony's correct that there's no evidence of steel from the core experienced temps at something like 500-600C prior to collapse. 250C however, yes.

Creep can occur at temps as low as 250C, if the load is high enough. This is a proven engineering fact. This is one of the mechanisms that resulted in load transfers that resulted in overloading.

Troofs just like to argue this cuz it gives them a strawman to attack.

Don't get sucked into that chidish game.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
and the fact that the steel had large sinks to transfer heat to.
Click to expand...

More stupidity.

Doesn't matter if heat is transferred away quickly or not (and reality says it really doesn't, compared to other materials like aluminum) when it's being applied over several floors.

If, on the middle of 5 floors, the column steel gets hot, where is it gonna transfer heat to? The columns on the adjacent floors are likely just as hot, resulting in zero heat flow away from that middle floor.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I have said 1 degree of tilt would not cause the columns to miss each other at all.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't have to miss completely. Wouldn't just "slightly askew" effect the ability of the member to do its job to the fullest?

Tony Szamboti said:
NIST found no evidence of the steel they received from the towers experiencing high temperatures. This would have been due to the size of the steel, the size of the fires, and the fact that the steel had large sinks to transfer heat to.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the localized effects of a "collapse accelerants"(for lack of better term considering no one has come up with a plausible alternate theory) be very evident then? I would think they would be very hard to miss by the (very many) people that investigated and examined the steel. Don't you think?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom