Fyziks 101

[Newtons Bit]

"other columns failed from the heat of the fires"

NIST flatly states that 157 of 160 pieces of Steel they tested reached no more than 500 degrees.

Could you reference where in the NIST report that is? I want to read what they wrote.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Oh wow, a whole 5 degree tilt to the south!

and how far out of vertical was the core designed to be able to stand?

 

[roundhead]

No, you missed the point. NIST was looking for identifiable steel. Don't forget, much of the damage to the steel recovered was determined to be the result of the collapse, not necessarily the conditions before collapse. NIST cataloged the steel that showed evidence of several different types of damage, but with no way to tell exactly where the steel was located, it is impossible to determine the exact cause of the damage.

Since there was plenty of other evidence for the fire temperatures, steel showing the effects of those temperatures would have been redundant.

It would be like investigating a car accident, determining the brakes failed, and then saying "Aha! Since you didn't check the status of the rear brake lights, there has to be another explanation."




What lies?



Sure, additional evidence is always a good reason to change a theory.




Since when did the NIST report become a criminal investigation?

As a source of recommendations for improvements in building codes, it only makes sense to investigate possible contributing causes to the collapse in order to update building codes to avoid such failures in the future. In most cases, NIST is tasked to make such recommendations based on any available evidence. They are not tasked to prove beyond all doubt what exactly happened (that is the job of a criminal investigation), but to determine plausible and testable theories that can improve building practices.

And before this gets dragged out again, I do not think the NIST report is perfect in any sense. There are a couple of their code change recommendations I do not agree with, and there have been plenty of other papers and tests done that disagree with some of NIST's findings. However, that does not suggest in any way that they "FAILED" at the task to which they were set.

It is the truth movement that fails to understand the nature of the report, not the report that fails to meet its mission.

WHat happened at the WTC's was a criminal act. Discarding steel that was an important clue in discovering exactly what happened is in my mind a treasonable offense. I am far from alone in making this correct accusation.



This extremely well respected publication, aptly sums up my feelings on this issue. And its speculation as to what the investigation would turn in to was spot on




By Bill Manning

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 4 removed.

 

[Newtons Bit]

and how far out of vertical was the core designed to be able to stand?

The columns were likely designed for a P-Δ that would be experienced from a wind event. I can't imagine this being more than one inch between the top and bottom of the column. A 5 degree tilt of a building 208 ft long results in a vertical offset of 18 feet, or 217 inchs and a horizontal offset of 19inches.

That's probably relevant, don't you think?

 

[beachnut]

Thank you Jaydee sincerely. Even though we don't see eye-to-eye,
I do respect your civil replies.

On that note, I'll just take off and concentrate on FDR threads.
...
I have yet to see a solid vertical object bury itself into the ground due
to gravity.

Oh no. I took my bb gun out side, shot it straight up, the bb came back only on gravity and buried itself in the ground. Vertical symmetry, oops.

Oh no. Took a steel posts, round, and dropped it (gravity, as fast as free fall, not faster, no slower, no thermite) from a ladder, it buried itself in the ground. It is a vertical column, YES! CASE CLOSED, go try it yourself.

I fear to think of what steel would do from 1300 feet! Ouch.

is this physics, or Fysiks, or FissZAKs.

Einstein says it best, it fits like a T

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Einstein

Good luck, hurry back.

 

[johnny karate]

This extremely well respected publication, aptly sums up my feelings on this issue. And its speculation as to what the investigation would turn in to was spot on

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

Glad to see you've finally given up on that ridiculous controlled demolition hypothesis.

 

[WildCat]

By Bill Manning

Funny you left the date off that roundhead! It was written before the NIST investigation was even commissioned.

You'll find that Bill Manning got exactly what he wanted in the NIST report. No, he is not a truther.

 

[Hokulele]

WHat happened at the WTC's was a criminal act. Discarding steel that was an important clue in discovering exactly what happened is in my mind a treasonable offense. I am far from alone in making this correct accusation.

And you are far from alone in being wrong about that.

It is simply mind-boggling how CTists conflate all government agencies the way they do. The fact that they cannot separate the mission statements of NIST, NTSB, FBI, CIA, etc. never fails to amaze me.

This extremely well respected publication, aptly sums up my feelings on this issue. And its speculation as to what the investigation would turn in to was spot on

You may want to revisit your Membership Agreement.

 

[phunk]

Phunk - There is also what appears to be some form of dust, or oxide
trailing behind the steel as it descends. Too strange to be bolts and
welds popping suddenly.

Of course there's dust on it. There was acres of drywall in those buildings that just got crushed in the collapse.

 

[funk de fino]

WHat happened at the WTC's was a criminal act. Discarding steel that was an important clue in discovering exactly what happened is in my mind a treasonable offense. I am far from alone in making this correct accusation.

It a shame that all the steel was forensically examined then eh? Before NIST looked at it. Photographed and catalogued. Even steel from WTC7.

Oh and just to repeat this - forensically examined. By investigators.

 

[Turbofan]

Oh no. I took my bb gun out side, shot it straight up, the bb came back only on gravity and buried itself in the ground. Vertical symmetry, oops.

Oh no. Took a steel posts, round, and dropped it (gravity, as fast as free fall, not faster, no slower, no thermite) from a ladder, it buried itself in the ground. It is a vertical column, YES! CASE CLOSED, go try it yourself.

I fear to think of what steel would do from 1300 feet! Ouch.

is this physics, or Fysiks, or FissZAKs.

Einstein says it best, it fits like a T


Good luck, hurry back.

Foolish logic. All this time, those steel columns were fixed and standing strong
on their foundation, and on 9/11 they felt enough magic to slide into the
bedrock, huh?

Again with this "dropped" crap. It was a solid length. Nothing fell from space.

You must be reading the NIST report which incorrectly depicts the tower
construction as a floor held by two posts?

It's more like this:

This theory about one floor hitting the other like pancakes doesn't account
for the inner core (blue representing 47 core columns), nor does it account
for the perimeter columns.

I really don't understand how the core buckled at a rate of 10 floors per
second; especially knowing the floor sections were tied between core
and perimeter every ~12 feet!

 

[WildCat]

Foolish logic. All this time, those steel columns were fixed and standing strong on their foundation, and on 9/11 they felt enough magic to slide into the bedrock, huh?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

"other columns failed from the heat of the fires"

NIST flatly states that 157 of 160 pieces of Steel they tested reached no more than 500 degrees.

There is zero evidence any impact zone steel MELTED(or failed from the heat of the fires). NONE.

Show me where in the NIST report they found melted steel from the impact zone?


Give me a minute, i better go check all my pots and pans from my Kitchen, some of those have been subjected to 500 degress of heat way longer than an hour.

Just got back, all my pots and pans are fine.

None of them had to melt to fail. That point has been made time and time again in this forum. Steel loses approximately 40 to 50% of its load bearing capacity at 600 °C, which was reached in the fires, despite your attempt to paint a picture to the contrary. Speaking of which, you're being disingenuous with that 500 degrees figure. Since you're saying that NIST says that, there are only two places I can think of where that came from: The exterior panels test:

Most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped) saw no temperature T > 250 °C, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire on 13 panels

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf[/size]

... of which people should note the following: Those were exterior panels (If steel on the edges of the buildings and therefore the edges of the fires got that hot, how hot were the temperatures in the most intense part of the conflageration?).

Or, the only other place I can think of is NCSTAR 1-3:

Similar results, i.e. limited exposure if any above 250 °C were found for the two core columns recovered from the fire-affected floors of the towers, which had adequat paint for analysis. Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.

... in which case, the 250 °C figure (roughly 482 °F, close to the 500 degree figure you gave) is the low end. Read again: "... if any above 250 °C...".

In either case, the "500 degrees" figure you cite was never intended by NIST as being the highest temperature reached at all. It was either the temperature a steel component on the periphery of the fire didn't exceed, or the bottom-most figure for a core column. Either that, or some misquote from a conspiracy peddler; you tell us where you got it from. In either case, it doesn't represent what they say the highest temperatures were.

So what does NIST say those highest temperatures were? They lay it out in NCSTAR 1-5: Up to 1000 °C for periods at a time, and up to 600 °C for the rest of the time the steel members were engulfed in flame. That's degrees celsius, not fahrenheit. I really doubt your stove can reach 500 degrees celsius.

No matter what, your argument fails in that it brings up a total red herring in the steel temperature you cite, as well as failing when you say the steel had to melt to cause collapse. No one's sane is saying that, and only conspiracy peddlers have ever tried to make that claim. The myth of steel needing to melt in order to cause the collapse is such an old argument that it was settled back in 2006. Your response fails to refute my statement.

 

[uk_dave]

Foolish logic. All this time, those steel columns were fixed and standing strong
on their foundation, and on 9/11 they felt enough magic to slide into the
bedrock, huh?

You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

The columns are braced by the floor assemblies. Take away the floors and there is nothing to stop the columns from moving.

If you can't grasp that concept, there really is no hope for you.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The honest answer is, which you avoided, is that the NIST looked dilligently to find ANY steel that reached temps that would weaken it. THEY DIDNT AND COULDNT.

In lieu of the above fact, they again morphed the story to dislodged fireproofing as the culprit.

That is blatantly untrue. You make the progress of model refinement as being like the elaborations of a bad liar. That couldn't be further from the truth, although it pretty much nails conspiracy peddlers dead on. NIST's model was built from a study of the recovered debris, and the model changes as more information is uncovered. For example, the progression from pancaking collapse initiation to the whole upper section being involved in a progressive collapse is a refinement.

NIST's search for steel debris was well laid out in NCSTAR 1-3, as well as in the links at Gravy's page on the debris cleanup. Regardless, you have no proof for your charge.

Because previous lies werent justifiable in relation to OBSERVED TEMPS.

What "previous lies"? You're making allegations. Back them up. What parts of the initial story laid forth in places like the FEMA 403 reports weren't justifiable in relation to the "OBSERVED TEMPS". Which, as I pointed out to you in my post above, is something you're misunderstanding.

There is a perfect reason why NIST continued to change its story on the collapses.
They dont stand scrutiny, and they are well aware of it.

They went from pancaking collapse initiation to the progressive collapse model. And that was based on their investigation. What else has supposedly "changed"?

Thank god we now have a shotgun shot into a box to explain how dislodged fireproofing is the newest culprit.

When did they not consider dislodged fireproofing to be a contributing cause?

On top of that, there's a school of thought out there that says the fireproofing didn't have to dislodge for the collapse to occur. Look up in this forum the discussions over Arup's and the University of Edinburgh's fire engineering department's stance on the subject.

Just like a common criminal who continually changes his story and whereabouts while being questioned by police, becuase he figures a new lie will finally clear him, so the NIST has went down the same path.
They are unfortunately being asked to stand on an untenable slippery slope, and thus far have found little to no purchase on this slippery slope, which is the "Official lie"...Sucks to be them.


The NIST is exactly this...The poor lawyer being asked to defend for murder a client they are well aware is guilty.

Again, cite what has changed. We know of the refinement from "pancake" initiation to progressive collapse, but the rest of your charge is more vaporous. You make it sound as though NIST has gone all over the place with their explanation. I've observed none of this from them. But I've seen plenty of it from Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Bermas Rowe and Dylan...

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Foolish logic. All this time, those steel columns were fixed and standing strong
on their foundation, and on 9/11 they felt enough magic to slide into the
bedrock, huh?

Again with this "dropped" crap. It was a solid length. Nothing fell from space.

You must be reading the NIST report which incorrectly depicts the tower
construction as a floor held by two posts?

It's more like this:

This theory about one floor hitting the other like pancakes doesn't account
for the inner core (blue representing 47 core columns), nor does it account
for the perimeter columns.

I really don't understand how the core buckled at a rate of 10 floors per
second; especially knowing the floor sections were tied between core
and perimeter every ~12 feet!

 

[Mancman]

I really don't understand how the core buckled at a rate of 10 floors per
second; especially knowing the floor sections were tied between core
and perimeter every ~12 feet!

That didn't happen. You're just wrong. Stop wasting our time.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Foolish logic. All this time, those steel columns were fixed and standing strong on their foundation, and on 9/11 they felt enough magic to slide into the bedrock, huh?

This is beyond question the most delusional Bull*rule10* I have ever heard from you... and also the most hilarious XD

You must be reading the NIST report which incorrectly depicts the tower
construction as a floor held by two posts?

Would you mind linking me to the page where you read this? Knowing your history I don't think I can rely on you for context...

I really don't understand how the core buckled at a rate of 10 floors per
second;

That's because they did not... photographic and video evidence shows that they did not, (you aren't forgetting how much of the cores collapsed AFTER the main event are you). They suffered a local failure at collapse initiation and everything from the failure point and above started coming down... Your question has the makings of a strawman argument...

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If you can't grasp that concept, there really is no hope for you.

I linked for him a very basic scenario which I covered in structures classes... to teach him the point... It doesn't seem he is interested...

For the record, the 'equation' I used are provided to illustrate the difference between unbraced load capacity and braced load capacity. The link I gave is by *no measure* intended to replicate or represent the towers only the concept he continually fails at comprehending

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh wow, a whole 5 degree tilt to the south!

I was having fun, now I'm having much more fun! You just contradicted
everyone else who said it broke and fell straight down!

Love it.

There is no contradiction in what he says, what the rest of us says, and what really happened; there's only contradiction in how you attempt to paint the responses. For example, take the Blanchard work I qouted:

ASSERTION #2
“But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”
PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance.

Any discussion of how the towers fell on 9/11 requires a fundamental understanding of how buildings collapse and an examination of the damage inflicted upon adjacent structures that morning.

A tall office building cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because typical human-inhabited buildings (and their supporting elements) are spread over a larger area and are not nearly as rigid, the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off center to a certain point. Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in designing upper-floor charge patterns to maximize breakage and in predicting debris drop zones.

The collapse of towers 1 and 2 followed this principle exactly. When the impact floors of both towers eventually failed, the upper sections did not simply tumble over onto the street below, rather they tilted while simultaneously collapsing downward.

In short, the towers fell the way they did because gravity would naturally pull the components downward once they were separated from their supports. When the jets hit, they severed columns. Other columns failed from the heat of the fires. The remainder failed from the overload resulting from the previous two types of failures. Once those failures occurred, the upper section came down onto the lower sections. And that leads back to the posts you continue to ignore, the ones describing how the upper section defeated the individual floors' resistance on the way down. No explosives demolition required. This is not too hard to understand.

Does it look like Blanchard and I are saying that everything went straight down? Or were we just describing that gravity pulls the towers down once they lose their internal structural supports? If you'll take the time to actually understand the arguments we're making, we're not saying everything went straight down into its own footprint with no horizontal deviation whatsoever. We're saying that gravity pulls downward. Which is what your original post was asking about: What caused the downward collapse? It was gravity. What else would it be? To presume that the tower should have done anything else would be to presume that it had a rigidity roughly equal to that of a solid object, like a tree. That is not the case.

But, the general downward direction is not a contradiction of MancMan's statement. Everything falls downward in general, but some horizontal spreading is to be expected. And in fact, Blanchard noted this:

With the weight and mass of the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant “mushroom” effect around its perimeter.

As we now know, significant amounts of heavy structural debris rained down for blocks around the site. Many of the closest WTC buildings were completely destroyed and others heavily damaged. Predictably, the north tower’s collapse caused slightly more ancillary damage than the south tower, as its impact point was higher and thus a larger volume of debris was projected farther from its footprint. Video of the north tower collapse clearly shows a roughly 50-story tall section of the building shearing away intact and laying out towards the west, heavily damaging the American Express Building and others on the adjacent block. Aerial photos taken just after both collapses show massive volumes of debris that impacted WTC 7 (and other buildings to the north), the effects of which were directly responsible for the intense fires within that structure.

These facts indicate that a relatively small amount of structural support debris actually landed straight down within the towers’ footprints, making this event notably dissimilar to a planned demolition event.

So, Blanchard says "down", but does he exclude any "out"? Not when he says things like "Video of the north tower collapse clearly shows a roughly 50-story tall section of the building shearing away intact and laying out towards the west, heavily damaging the American Express Building and others on the adjacent block". Downward direction does not exclude the distribution of segments tilting or debris falling outward.

You need to actually try to comprehend the collapse, and stop being so worried about catching people in supposed contradictions. When you do that, you miss the nuance of the explanations, and you fail to understand the truth of what happened. 5 degrees of tilt of any given section doesn't contradict what anyone's saying about the collapse.