Open Letter to Richard Gage

[roundhead]

No, it won't. As noted hundreds of times, any blacksmith can demonstrate that a steel bar can be heated, at one end, to a working temperature, while the other end can be held in one's hand.

Heat transfer is also limited by length and cross-section. There is no reason at all to expect significant heat transfer more than a few meters away from the hottest steel.



The evidence exists. NIST has bales of steel heated so much that it can't even be tested via microscopic analysis -- this simply gets overlooked because it can't be identified where it came from. We also have a full-scale live test in NCSTAR1-5E demonstrating these temperatures. And we have reports of glowing structure from NYPD helicopter crews. It's there.

And... we're off-topic. Sorry Gregory, some of this is my fault.

Sorry to get off topic, but you pique my interest with your comments.

If steel is known "not"to be from the impact zones, and perhaps came from the rubble pile i would find that noteworthy, and sinister to the official story.

In other words, if 157 of 160 pieces "known" to come from the impact area are all relatively cool, i would consider any other steel found from other places to be sinister if in fact it exhibited the characteristics you state.

The impact areas were the only places there was a fire, and thus heat.

I dont consider Helicopter reports convincing, nor unconvincing. They are of course(without photos) highly dubious because who knows what was glowing?

My point with the heat sink is this. Whatever the highest temp any fire in any area got, the steel in that same area is going to by nature be some figure less than the hightest temp that would have been seen.

If you sit in a tub with warm water, and turn the faucet on hot, the area under the faucet is of course going to be hotter than the rest of the tub. The water coming out of the faucet is ALWAYS going to be the hottest, and the rest is going to take quite some time to elevate to anywhere near the incoming water.

The towers were a huge tub, and the impact and resulting fires were a tiny faucet.

De Martini's mosquito netting statement comes to mind.

 

[BenBurch]

...

My point with the heat sink is this. Whatever the highest temp any fire in any area got, the steel in that same area is going to by nature be some figure less than the hightest temp that would have been seen. ...

Not so. Steel in a heat-soak, that is, surrounded by fire, will absolutely reach the level of the fire because there is nowhere for the heat to communicate TO, and because steel is such a bad conductor in the first place. Soldering is a point source; You heat one place - a fire on this scale is not like that whatsoever, so your experiential analogy is valueless here. (And I think I have likely done a whole lot more soldering than you have to boot.)

 

[R.Mackey]

If steel is known "not"to be from the impact zones, and perhaps came from the rubble pile i would find that noteworthy, and sinister to the official story.

In other words, if 157 of 160 pieces "known" to come from the impact area are all relatively cool, i would consider any other steel found from other places to be sinister if in fact it exhibited the characteristics you state.

The impact areas were the only places there was a fire, and thus heat.

You don't seem to know much about the recovered steel. All of the "known" pieces from the impact floors are also not predicted to get very hot. It isn't enough to say they're from those floors, you also have to know where. If you actually go back and match the pieces to their original locations -- NIST does this for you -- you won't be surprised at all that they didn't get hot.

Also, there were fires on multiple floors, all the way to the basements. Not as significant, but there were. After collapse, there were staggeringly large fires, and that affected whatever steel had the misfortune to wind up in those particular places.

I dont consider Helicopter reports convincing, nor unconvincing. They are of course(without photos) highly dubious because who knows what was glowing?

If the interior of the structure is glowing, an hour after the fire begins, it's a safe bet the interior structure is hot as well. Besides, you didn't answer the other sources of evidence. Tests prove that those temperatures are expected, end of story.

My point with the heat sink is this. Whatever the highest temp any fire in any area got, the steel in that same area is going to by nature be some figure less than the hightest temp that would have been seen.

If you sit in a tub with warm water, and turn the faucet on hot, the area under the faucet is of course going to be hotter than the rest of the tub. The water coming out of the fuacet is ALWAYS going to be the hottest, and the rest is going to take quite some time to elevate to anywhere near the incoming water.

True, but irrelevant. NIST predicts gas temperatures in the 1100^oC range with spiking to about 1400^oC. NIST predicts the hottest temperature in a column around 930^oC, with the majority of affected columns between 500 and 700^oC. There's no inconsistency here. Please read NCSTAR1-5F and 1-5G for details.

 

[Pardalis]

My biggest issue with the NIST report is that the dislodgment of fireproofing is a necessary condition for their reasoning to hold. Nonetheless, they haven't demonstrated that the fireproofing would have been dislodged to the extent they use in their fire model.

You're a truther just because of that?

My other issue is the lack of an explanation for WTC7. Some day, maybe.

Yeah...

- Bush administration's foreknowledge and lying about it
- no one was held accountable
- the administration interfered with the congressional inquiry (something to hide?)
- the administration interfered with setting up the commission (something to hide?)
- the commission failed to interview potential whistle-blowers
- the commission was convinced that NORAD was lying but didn't do anything about it

So basically your beef is with M. Bush.

In your letter you end with : "we can rule out demolition using conventional means"

Well, wouldn't the next logical step be to say that there wasn't any demolition? Why cling to the belief that there was a CD if there's no evidence of one?

Don't you feel you're chasing ghosts at this point?

 

[roundhead]

Roundhead. There is a REASON that heat sinks are aluminum and not iron. LEARN.

Now, back to topic.

I know the definition. But the principle is to wick away heat. That principle applys to anything that is tied together, with obviously differing results, but it applies.

Do you not agree that vast amounts of steel tied together dont offer similar characteristics to a heat sink?

 

[BenBurch]

I know the definition. But the principle is to wick away heat. That principle applys to anything that is tied together, with obviously differing results, but it applies.

Do you not agree that vast amounts of steel tied together dont offer similar characteristics to a heat sink?

No I do not agree. This was a heat soak. VERY different because there is no cool area the heat CAN communicate TO. I think you are not properly visualizing the scale here. Each floor was one acre in size.

 

[BenBurch]

To amplify; If steel were able to "wick away" heat to the degree you suggest, steam locomotives would never suffer crown sheet failure merely because their crown sheets became dry; The steel of the crown sheet which is elaborately connected with the steel of the exterior boiler shell by the stay bolts would just shed its heat to the cold exterior through those bolts and the engine would be safe!

But that is not what happens. The crown sheet softens even right where the stay bolt is in intimate contact with it, and pulls away from the bolt under steam pressure, and the result is a boiler explosion of an amazing magnitude.

 

[roundhead]

I will concede to higher knowledge the positive effects (at least in any big way)of the interconnected steel having on temp wicking. It has SOME help, but i will concede maybe not as much as i thought.

Back to temps. I have found zero credible evidence anywhere that shows temps hot enough to make steel fail.

I am of the opinion that the perhaps 3000-4000 gallons of jet fuel that may have burned INSIDE the building would have been gone quickly , and probably wouldnt have elevated the office fire temps more than a couple of hundred degrees for a short period, before it was gone.

Office fires just dont weaken structural steel in an hour.And any steel that was found that exhibited extreme temps is to me problematic to the official story, baecause an office fire isnt capable of deforming or weaking structural steel in a very short period of time. Period.

The plane impacts are a Red Herring regarding the temps.Yes they are big, yes they had kerosene on them, but as i noted above, it likely burned in a few minutes at most, so we are left with short duration office fires. They just arent going to do what happened on 9/11. Something else had to. And i have yet to figure out what that might be.

I long ago forgot about the planes knocking down the towers, and so seemingly did NIST. We are left with a real short kerosene fire, and a very short term office fire. If the above are the only imputs to the towers, they 100% should still be there.

 

[Kent1]

Another addition,
1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
Even prior to the 10 minute mark you can find footage from a police helicopter
(NYPD radio comms) at 10:07 am stating

"The remaining tower, the North Tower is leaning to the southwest at this time."

"It appears to be buckling in the southwest corner."

The tower collapsed at 10:28
This is on the The Anatomy of September 11th video.
http://www.biography.com/listings/episode_details.do?episodeid=164291&airingid=184111

 

[Pardalis]

Something else had to. And i have yet to figure out what that might be.

Keep lookin'

Have a nice life.

 

[R.Mackey]

Back to temps. I have found zero credible evidence anywhere that shows temps hot enough to make steel fail.

NCSTAR1-5E. Read it.

I am of the opinion that the perhaps 3000-4000 gallons of jet fuel that may have burned INSIDE the building would have been gone quickly , and probably wouldnt have elevated the office fire temps more than a couple of hundred degrees for a short period, before it was gone.

No argument here. But the volume of the combustible furniture is far, far greater, and not so easily dismissed.

Office fires just dont weaken structural steel in an hour.And any steel that was found that exhibited extreme temps is to me problematic to the official story, baecause an office fire isnt capable of deforming or weaking structural steel in a very short period of time. Period.

Totally wrong. Again, NCSTAR1-5E. For the times required, see NCSTAR1-5B.

 

[pomeroo]

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf

Comments are welcome.

Your specific criticisms of the controlled-demolition myth are sensible enough, but you continue to attempt to be the rational fantasist. It doesn't work; oxymorons rarely do. The whole "truth" movement rests on a massive conceptual error: wars are by their very nature unpredictable. The notion that a huge shadow army of super-villains carried out an absurdly convoluted plan to start a war with Afghanistan is, after all is said and done, simply stupid. The immediate drawbacks, a devastating blow to several sectors of the U.S. economy, were obvious. The consequences of the war were unpredictable. When conspiracy liars stop shrieking and look--really look--at the changes in the world over the past seven years, they can't help noticing that Republicans have lost control of both houses of Congress and will probably lose the Presidency. What good is pretending that an all-powerful cabal is pulling all the strings when reality is laughing in your face?

 

[Dog Town]

Back to temps. I have found zero credible evidence anywhere that shows temps hot enough to make steel fail.

Do you have any concept of strength loss in percentages, to temperature applied? Start there.


ETA: Mackey again! This one handed typing is slowing me down!

 

[pomeroo]

I will concede to higher knowledge the positive effects (at least in any big way)of the interconnected steel having on temp wicking. It has SOME help, but i will concede maybe not as much as i thought.

Back to temps. I have found zero credible evidence anywhere that shows temps hot enough to make steel fail.

I am of the opinion that the perhaps 3000-4000 gallons of jet fuel that may have burned INSIDE the building would have been gone quickly , and probably wouldnt have elevated the office fire temps more than a couple of hundred degrees for a short period, before it was gone.

Office fires just dont weaken structural steel in an hour.And any steel that was found that exhibited extreme temps is to me problematic to the official story, baecause an office fire isnt capable of deforming or weaking structural steel in a very short period of time. Period.

The plane impacts are a Red Herring regarding the temps.Yes they are big, yes they had kerosene on them, but as i noted above, it likely burned in a few minutes at most, so we are left with short duration office fires. They just arent going to do what happened on 9/11. Something else had to. And i have yet to figure out what that might be.

I long ago forgot about the planes knocking down the towers, and so seemingly did NIST. We are left with a real short kerosene fire, and a very short term office fire. If the above are the only imputs to the towers, they 100% should still be there.

Why post such nonsense? Seriously? You have no idea of what you're talking about and yet you invite physicists and engineers to demolish your rubbish. Are you Ace Baker?

 

[Clippy]

Looks like a very fair letter. You might want to stress in the opening paragraph that you are an active member of STJ, having published in their journal.

Just one question on point 12. You say it's obvious that any observed molten metal could not have come from a thermate attack weeks previous. How quickly would you expect enough heat to dissipate that it would return to solid phase? I guess it would depend on the surroundings, but let's say you had one ton pooled at the bottom of GZ.

 

[BenBurch]

... I have found zero credible evidence anywhere that shows temps hot enough to make steel fail. ...

Because you don't want to see it.

The Kerosene was only fire-starter, like the kerosene you use to start your charcoal grill. The real heat was from a class-A office fire and those routinely make steel fail;

Finally, a graph to explain it;

And a video; This is how Union soldiers destroyed Confederate railroads during the Civil War;

 

[roundhead]

Why post such nonsense? Seriously? You have no idea of what you're talking about and yet you invite physicists and engineers to demolish your rubbish. Are you Ace Baker?

Nonsense???


I assume you are implying my statement about office fires not weakening structural steel in a very short amount of time rubbish?


Find me a steel framed building that fell because of office fires in under an hour and maybe i will agree with your assesment of me.

I can point out scores of them that didnt fail, with much larger and longer fires.

As i am a newbie, i cant link to a study done in England i believe that tested a steel frame structure that behaved as anticipated, it suffered no collapse. As i recall, that study seemed pertinent to our discussion.

Didnt even the NIST have to raise temps above what they actually saw in the buildings to achieve any sagging or induce problems that would lead to collapse, on the floors.

 

[pomeroo]

Nonsense???


I assume you are implying my statement about office fires not weakening structural steel in a very short amount of time rubbish?


Find me a steel framed building that fell because of office fires in under an hour and maybe i will agree with your assesment of me.

I can point out scores of them that didnt fail, with much larger and longer fires.

As i am a newbie, i cant link to a study done in England i believe that tested a steel frame structure that behaved as anticipated, it suffered no collapse. As i recall, that study seemed pertinent to our discussion.

Didnt even the NIST have to raise temps above what they actually saw in the buildings to achieve any sagging or induce problems that would lead to collapse, on the floors.

You are reinventing the wheel, as so many conspiracy liars try to do with laughable results. When a NASA engineer directs you to a specific section in the NIST Report, why not take the trouble to read what it says?

Your statement is rubbish because office fires did weaken the structural steel of the Twin Towers.

 

[BenBurch]

... Find me a steel framed building that fell because of office fires in under an hour and maybe i will agree with your assesment of me. ...

McCormick Place, Chicago, 1967, during the housewares show.

 

[T.A.M.]

Nonsense???


I assume you are implying my statement about office fires not weakening structural steel in a very short amount of time rubbish?


Find me a steel framed building that fell because of office fires in under an hour and maybe i will agree with your assesment of me.

I can point out scores of them that didnt fail, with much larger and longer fires.

As i am a newbie, i cant link to a study done in England i believe that tested a steel frame structure that behaved as anticipated, it suffered no collapse. As i recall, that study seemed pertinent to our discussion.

Didnt even the NIST have to raise temps above what they actually saw in the buildings to achieve any sagging or induce problems that would lead to collapse, on the floors.

There are examples of partial collapses for sure, examples of steel framed structures as well. Also, as you know, it was not the fires alone, it was not the removal of fireproofing alone. It was the combination of damage to the steel structure from the aircrafts, and the fire damage to the UNPROTECTED steel, that ultimately resulted in the collapses.

If there is to be a correct version of your tired, annoying old truther canard, it would be...

"There has never been a case of COMPLETE COLLAPSE of any STEEL FRAMED SKYSCAPER prior to 9/11 from fires alone."

Show me a an example of a 110 storey steel framed skyscraper struck by a jet airliner at 500mph, that was engulfed by multiple level fires, that DID NOT COLLAPSE, and you might have something. Otherwise, any example of non-collapse you provide is useless.

you can post the link by parsing part of it out for us to see, I am sure we can take care of the rest.

TAM