Gage's next debate

[NoahFence]

Nice to see the 12th floor is no longer burning. The other 46 floors? Eh...still going.

 

[BasqueArch]

I have read the report and according to NIST, it all happened at once. But that is impossible because the fire had gone out over one half hour earlier.

The seven hour fires damage to the steel was continuous and cumulative.

"At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse." - wiki

You don’t know no engineering. The fire and its damage continued until the building collapsed.
It did not “all happened at once”.
“It all happened” gradually and then suddenly.

 

[Justin39640]

The seven hour fires damage to the steel was continuous and cumulative.

"At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse." - wiki

You don’t know no engineering. The fire and its damage continued until the building collapsed.
It did not “all happened at once”.
“It all happened” gradually and then suddenly.

Layman?: The straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[Christopher7]

The seven hour fires damage to the steel was continuous and cumulative.

"At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse." - wiki

You don’t know no engineering. The fire and its damage continued until the building collapsed.
It did not “all happened at once”.
“It all happened” gradually and then suddenly.

"It all happened at once" refers to the collapse, that is, floor 13 collapsed and that led to a cascade of floor failures that left column 79 unbraced laterally and it buckled which led to the total collapse.

NoahFence,
Read the report. there were fires on 7,8,9,11,12,13,19,22,29,and 30. The fires on floors 19,22,29 and 30 had gone out by about 1M. The fire on floor 12 had burned at least one half hour before the collapse.
[FONT=&quot]NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.
[/FONT]Part IIC also contains the statement about the fire on floor 12 being burned out by about 4:45. [pg 22]
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

[FONT=&quot]http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf[/FONT]

 

[ozeco41]

Layman?: The straw that broke the camel's back.

Actually a "cascade" or "runaway" failure.

Almost always such a mechanism has a rapidly escalating logarithmic characteristic. So it can look like nothing happening>>>nothing happening>>>sudden rush.

Close observation of all three WTC collapses shows "little happening" then a brief observable period of "it is starting" then a more or less uniform speed of collapse.

 

[Animal]

Actually a "cascade" or "runaway" failure.

Almost always such a mechanism has a rapidly escalating logarithmic characteristic. So it can look like nothing happening>>>nothing happening>>>sudden rush.

Close observation of all three WTC collapses shows "little happening" then a brief observable period of "it is starting" then a more or less uniform speed of collapse.

And not surprising in WTC considering the number of transfer girders that supported the building. Not surprising in the towers either considering the long spans and "perimeter/core support structure.

 

[triforcharity]

He said the extreme heat they created released benzene and other toxins from plastic and polystyrene in the dust.

Benzene is common in ANY hydrocarbon fire. Hell, it is even produced when a piece of wood burns.

It is MOST common with plastics, as their incomplete combustion produces this. It does NOT need extreme temperatures at all.

In fact, Benzene is the principal componet of the smoke produced when you burn polyvinyl chloride, or PVC. Which, BTW, would have been found in ABUNDANCE in the WTC towers.

Conclusion: Waterboy is wrong.

See here http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/IntheWorkplace/benzene

here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene

here

http://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/benzene/basics/facts.asp

And a study done on the dangers that benzene and other chemicals pose to firefighters.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12018402

Now, next time you want to go and repeat something that someone else claims, please feel free to make sure it's factual.

Because, as you have seen here, it's a boldfaced lie.

 

[triforcharity]

[FONT=&quot]Provide another way of removing all the supporting structure on 8 floors in a synchronistic manner that results in free fall acceleration or stop claiming that there is.


[/FONT]

Please show me that the entire structure fell at FFA. From what I read, it was a portion of the north face, above the buckled columns region, that fell at FFA, which would be stage 2, when minimal interior support existed.

 

[Christopher7]

Please show me that the entire structure fell at FFA. From what I read, it was a portion of the north face, above the buckled columns region, that fell at FFA, which would be stage 2, when minimal interior support existed.

[FONT=&quot]NCSTAR 1A pg 55 [pdf pg 97][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ETA: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]As to your other post:
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7021324&postcount=170
[/FONT]

 

[chrismohr]

Only if you ignore the fact that the irregular buckling of the exterior moment frame provides resistance and Sunders acknowledgment that "[FONT=&quot]a free fall time would be an object that has [/FONT][FONT=&quot]no [/FONT][FONT=&quot]structural components below it[/FONT]."

The core columns pulling down on the floor beams pulled the exterior columns down but could not pull them at free fall acceleration because they provided resistance.
ETA: As can be seen in the collapse video captures and Figure 12-63
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/7267/nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/1647/bucklingvnothing.jpg

The fact that you thought of 100 reasons not to believe something clearly demonstrates a deep seated desire not to believe the obvious. The videos of WTC 7 collapse look like a CD and were it not for the ramifications no one would dispute that it was a CD.

* * * * *
The fire that supposedly started the collapse had gone out over one half hour before the collapse. In other words, the NIST hypothesis of a progressive collapse never started.

Hey, just yesterday you thanked me for my honesty! I'm one of those anti-war guys who detested Bush for starting the Iraq war using reverse scientific method to collect evidence for WMDs. Our government has done terrible things, and sometimes I was leaning towards CD, but every time I did, the evidence fell apart...over 100 times. This whole long process I'm going through now re free-fall of Building 7? I've been through this kind of process dozens and dozens of times now, for five years. I tried to be openminded and honest all along. It's been a long, slow slog for an honesty, enquiring mind. You, Chris, in the meantime, never once let up on your assertion that CD is the ONLY possible explanation for the things we are talking about.

Still, Chris thanks for the reminder about this:

That is what Shyam Sunder said and we agree on this part:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . ."

Here he is saying that their model provided resistance as can be seen in the video captures and Figure 12-63.
"there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

You know, those NIST guys know and like me. I think I'll ask Sunder about this one more time. Who knows, I might actually get a clarification... or not. Worth an ask.

And BTW, I used to agree with you that free-fall means no structural resistance below, but it seems logical to refine that by saying "net zero" resistance, where a small amount of resistance can be canceled out or overwhelmed by other forces.

I'll let you know if NIST gives me an answer.

 

[ozeco41]

... I'm one of those anti-war guys who detested Bush for starting the Iraq war using reverse scientific method to collect evidence for WMDs. Our government has done terrible things, and sometimes ...

A lot of us think similarly. Which is why I can never fathom why genuine truthers - those with real political concerns about the US Government management of 9/11 - why they insist on pursuing dead set loser technical issues like claims for demolition at WTC.

Pursuit of technical losers must be detrimental to the possible genuine political goal.

Or is it just use anything truthful or lies to gather a momentum for political action? I cannot see that as viable either. Wouldn't work here in Aust. but the whole size of population/critical mass thing is different and we would not be the target for anything as big as 9/11. Then it isn't working in the US either, is it?

So this hanging on to technical false claims brings the whole sector of truth movement supporting demolition into disrepute. (throw in Pentagon not that planers and the missile shoot down at Shanksville mob - same reasoning)

 

[ozeco41]

...That is what Shyam Sunder said and we agree on this part:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . ."

Here he is saying that their model provided resistance as can be seen in the video captures and Figure 12-63.
"there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

...

Sunder is on a loser to nothing bet. He is explaining a complex topic with an audience that ranges from untechnical lay persons up to top professionals. that puts them across at least five broad bands of understanding. No matter what level he answers four out of five could find something wrong. And, if there is a committed truther in those levels they will be determined to find something wrong.

Ryan Mackey and my explanations in recent posts were at least level 4 on the scale of 5 - possibly level 5. The quotes you give from Sunder are addressing level 2 or 3. They look as if they conflict. They don't if you ask "Who is he talking to? Is it good enough for them? would it be a worse answer for them if he made it more sophisticated?"

 

[chrismohr]

BTW this whole 12th floor no longer burning question... when a floor is burning with these long beams, they expand, then sag, then pull the columns in. Then, if the steel beams cool off, they shrink even more while retaining their sag, thus adding even more inward stress to the columns (I've learned a thing or two from Ryan and Ozeco). I don't know if the fire was out on the 12th floor, but if it was, that could create still more structural stress!

 

[Christopher7]

Hey, just yesterday you thanked me for my honesty!

No offense intended. Like you, I bought the OCT but then I saw the implosion of WTC 7. By the time it went out of sight I knew it was CD. My first reaction was denial so I can understand the denial of others. I did not want to believe it but when I saw it again on the History Channel "America Rebuilds" I had to face the ugly reality. Building implosion is a fine art and it cannot happen by chance. Fire could not make a modern steel frame skyscraper collaps the way WTC 7 did - IMnsHO. The thermal expansion hypothesis is a bunch of crap. Beams always expand in high rise fires and it has never been a problem before.
Here is an extreme example:
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/2411/meridian6si9.png

The NIST hypothesis is impossible and the final report is a fraud and a farce. I found several fatal misrepresentations.

1) The fire that supposedly initiated the collapse had gone out over an hour before the collapse.

2) They lied about there being no shear studs on the girders.

3) To get the shear studs on the beams to fail, they heated the beams but not the slab.

4) They applied 4 hours of heat in 1.5 seconds which does not allow for heat dissipation or sagging.

5) They have the girder failing twice. First it was pushed off its seat to the east and then it was rolled off its seat to the east.

To save column space I'll just give the URL where my research is posted:
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

Chris, We can debate the points I have made there if you like.
Note to all: I will be moderating all comments and only thoughtful, intelligent comments will be posted.

And BTW, I used to agree with you that free-fall means no structural resistance below, but it seems logical to refine that by saying "net zero" resistance, where a small amount of resistance can be canceled out or overwhelmed by other forces.

Nada ;-)

 

[Christopher7]

BTW this whole 12th floor no longer burning question... when a floor is burning with these long beams, they expand, then sag, then pull the columns in. Then, if the steel beams cool off, they shrink even more while retaining their sag, thus adding even more inward stress to the columns (I've learned a thing or two from Ryan and Ozeco). I don't know if the fire was out on the 12th floor, but if it was, that could create still more structural stress!

The NIST hypothesis is "thermal expansion", not "thermal contraction".

 

[beachnut]

... By the time it went out of sight I knew it was CD. ... Nada ;-)

The first time I saw WTC 7 collapse, I knew it was due to gravity. Most people ignore the fact the primary source of energy in CD is gravity.

I cheated, I went to engineering school, became an engineer, earn a masters in engineering, I can hear, I can see, took physics in high school, flew high performance jets, flew large heavy jets, etc. The second I saw 7 collapse, I knew it was a gravity collapse. The only reason to study the collapse is to improve building codes and increase safety.

I also understand building can fail, when fires are not fought; something every fireman should respect and understand.

World Trade Center building 7 was a controlled demolition.
It is the mother of all smoking guns.

Sure Chris.

If I suspected it was CD, I would work on the differential equations and study the structure to understand why I am wrong, or right. WTC7 was not CD, to say it was CD without presenting the evidence first is reckless. To say it is CD with the evidence we have, is failure.

Ironic, I have learned about WTC 7 structure due to the moronic CD claims of 911 truth. WTC 7 was a unique building. I have learned 911 truth can't comprehend the difference between CD and gravity collapse, and 911 truth is proud to remain in ignorance. I learned 911 truth believes in silent, no blast effect bombs, or that thermite was used. I learned 911 truth has no idea how to calculate the heat energy of an office fire.

Gravity, E=mgh; I knew math would come in handy one day. Thermo, anyone?

What 911 truth needs is some engineering skills displayed, in use, real work completed, so the crazy claims of CD can evaporate. Chris, what does your engineering school say about your claims? And your fellow engineers, what do they say about your claims? Got anyone in engineering to support your claims besides 911 truth disciples?

Gage attracted strap hangers, those who fail to understand 911, those who have crazy claims, those who can't think for themselves, as Gage makes money selling delusions.

 

[ozeco41]

...To save column space I'll just give the URL where my research is posted:
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

Chris, We can debate the points I have made there if you like.
Note to all: I will be moderating all comments and only thoughtful, intelligent comments will be posted.

Nada ;-)

Chris do I translate that to mean that all dissenting comment will be censored?

 

[Carlos]

Building implosion is a fine art and it cannot happen by chance.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199290

Fire could not make a modern steel frame skyscraper collaps the way WTC 7 did

Well... WTC7 was constructed on 80's.

The thermal expansion hypothesis is a bunch of crap.

No, it's Physics.

Beams always expand in high rise fires and it has never been a problem before.

How many long-span-steel-framed-building was already engulfed on an unfought fire?

1) The fire that supposedly initiated the collapse had gone out over an hour before the collapse.

But the damage was already done.

2) They lied about there being no shear studs on the girders.

Out of context.

3) To get the shear studs on the beams to fail, they heated the beams but not the slab.

Again out of context.

4) They applied 4 hours of heat in 1.5 seconds which does not allow for heat dissipation or sagging.

Out of context again?

5) They have the girder failing twice. First it was pushed off its seat to the east and then it was rolled off its seat to the east.

Out of context again, I guess.

 

[Carlos]

2) They lied about there being no shear studs on the girders.

3) To get the shear studs on the beams to fail, they heated the beams but not the slab.

The right context.

Chapter 8 - Initiating evente Hypotheses (NCSTAR 1-9 - pg. 323)

8.1 Introduction

This chapter addresses the initiating event and collapse propagation hypotheses that formed the basis of the technical approach to determine why and how the 47 story WTC 7 building collapsed on September 11, 2001.

(...)

The leading collapse hypothesis will be presented first, followed by supporting evidence and calculations that led to the hypotesis. Prediction of the growth and spread of fires from fire simulation models, analysis of heating of the structural elements due thes fires, and structural analysis of the initiating events hypothesis and global response are presented in subsequent chapters

_______________________________


8.7.4 - Absence of Shear Studs on Girders (NCSTAR 1-9 - pg. 346)

(...)

"Consider a simple floor beam-to-girder arrangement as found" in the northeast corner of WTC7

In-plane restraint of the floor slab restrained expansion. This boundary condition is assumed for illustrative purposes and to produce a maximum force in the shear studs. This simple analysis helped to determine whether or not the failure of shear studs needs to be accounted for in the detailed ANSYS analysis of the lower 16 stories of WTC 7 (Chapter 11). In the detailed finite element analysis, the floor slabs were not restrained and the heating of the concrete slab and steel beams was determined by thermal analysis (Chapter 10).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6345554&postcount=1459

 

[Animal]

The right context.

Chapter 8 - Initiating evente Hypotheses (NCSTAR 1-9 - pg. 323)

8.1 Introduction

This chapter addresses the initiating event and collapse propagation hypotheses that formed the basis of the technical approach to determine why and how the 47 story WTC 7 building collapsed on September 11, 2001.

(...)

The leading collapse hypothesis will be presented first, followed by supporting evidence and calculations that led to the hypotesis. Prediction of the growth and spread of fires from fire simulation models, analysis of heating of the structural elements due thes fires, and structural analysis of the initiating events hypothesis and global response are presented in subsequent chapters

_______________________________


8.7.4 - Absence of Shear Studs on Girders (NCSTAR 1-9 - pg. 346)

(...)

"Consider a simple floor beam-to-girder arrangement as found" in the northeast corner of WTC7

In-plane restraint of the floor slab restrained expansion. This boundary condition is assumed for illustrative purposes and to produce a maximum force in the shear studs. This simple analysis helped to determine whether or not the failure of shear studs needs to be accounted for in the detailed ANSYS analysis of the lower 16 stories of WTC 7 (Chapter 11). In the detailed finite element analysis, the floor slabs were not restrained and the heating of the concrete slab and steel beams was determined by thermal analysis (Chapter 10).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6345554&postcount=1459

So typical of trooferism, proof by omission (or he has no clue what he is reading), and then their failed conclusion that the study is fatally flawed.