Trussbolt failiures and flame cutters

[Par]

Still, that doesn't change the fact that NIST is quite clear that core columns never reached 250C.

You are wrong. At no point does NIST say or suggest such a thing, much less state it "clearly."

What you have not presented is any evidence that NIST found core column temps above 250C. Again, if you have NIST saying they found column samples with evidence exceeding 250C please post it.

That's quite dishonest.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy,
You're deflecting from the original point.

100% B.S. I'm sticking goddamned infernos in your face and you're denying them. That's incredibly disturbing.

Denialism.

Secondly, you know as well as anyone how many quotes there are of firefighters and survivors talking about small fires.

I do? Strange, I could have sworn I just posted photos of infernos at various times in both towers on 9/11.

I am aware of exactly one such quote, by Chief Orio Palmer when he was on the 78th floor, the lowest to be struck in the south tower. He could not see above him.

What was above Orio Palmer at 9:52 when he made that radio call? This.

You said there are many such quotes. Present them or retract your statement.

You even have the NIST temp charts showing you that the core temp was cooling before collapse.

And what happens to steel that's been heated and begins to cool? And what was happening to the 60-fioot floor trusses and the exterior columns at that time on the sides where the collapses initiated?

I await your reply.

What you have not presented is any evidence that NIST found core column temps above 250C.

Again, if you have NIST saying they found column samples with evidence exceeding 250C please post it.

Do not play games with me. You are wasting my time. Third time: you claim that NIST clearly stated that no core columns reached that temperature. IT'S YOUR CLAIM. The burden of proof is on you alone. Provide your evidence from NIST or retract your claim. That's what rational adults do.

Clear enough?

 

[RedIbis]

100% B.S. I'm sticking goddamned infernos in your face and you're denying them. That's incredibly disturbing.

Denialism.

I do? Strange, I could have sworn I just posted photos of infernos at various times in both towers on 9/11.

I am aware of exactly one such quote, by Chief Orio Palmer when he was on the 78th floor, the lowest to be struck in the south tower. He could not see above him.

What was above Orio Palmer at 9:52 when he made that radio call? This.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879046a56ad2692dc.jpg[/qimg]


You said there are many such quotes. Present them or retract your statement.


And what happens to steel that's been heated and begins to cool? And what was happening to the 60-fioot floor trusses and the exterior columns at that time on the sides where the collapses initiated?

I await your reply.

Do not play games with me. You are wasting my time. Third time: you claim that NIST clearly stated that no core columns reached that temperature. IT'S YOUR CLAIM. The burden of proof is on you alone. Provide your evidence from NIST or retract your claim. That's what rational adults do.

Clear enough?

I'm not very much intimidated by your bullying, swearing, and righteous indignation. Unless you want a formalized debate, I'm not likely to allow you to set all the conditions, so save me your ultimatums. Obviously, you're aware of Chief Palmer's testimony, I'm sure you're aware of Brian Clark's testimony.

If you're getting bent out of shape (pun intended!) over whether or not the towers were consumed by an inferno, check out a picture a little later in the fire and tell me where the inferno is. Is it behind all that black smoke?

 

[cloudshipsrule]

If you're getting bent out of shape (pun intended!) over whether or not the towers were consumed by an inferno, check out a picture a little later in the fire and tell me where the inferno is. Is it behind all that black smoke?

We all know an initial explosion like this:

wouldn' start fires large enough to create smoke visible from space:

 

[NYCEMT86]

Do you know where the smoke is coming from? Its coming from the north tower that was already hit. Thats not from the explosion from the south tower.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Do you know where the smoke is coming from? Its coming from the north tower that was already hit. Thats not from the explosion from the south tower.

Did I say the smoke was directly from the explosion? You do realize both initial explosions were similar, correct? Both exposions started large fires in both buildings.

Additionally, please show me the source where you found the smoke plume I posted, visible from space, was solely from the north tower.

My point being the fires were large enough as to be visible from space. These were significant fires.

 

[MIKILLINI]

If you're getting bent out of shape (pun intended!) over whether or not the towers were consumed by an inferno, check out a picture a little later in the fire and tell me where the inferno is. Is it behind all that black smoke?

[qimg]http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/wtc12fires.jpg[/qimg]

Ever see a diesel engine smoke when the injector is getting to much air to mix with fuel? That's the effect your seeing with the heavy smoke.

 

[Gravy]

RedIbis, please explain to me how you neglected to see the photographs I posted of both towers that were taken five minutes before they collapsed, one of which I posted twice. I await your answer.

Brian Clarke? Um, you are aware that he left the building with Stanley Praimnath at the start of the incident, before the fires had fully developed, aren't you? And you're aware of the stairwell they took?

Therefore you retract your claim that many witnesses said the WTC fires were small, correct? Or can you find me a single person who saw those fires who said any such thing?

Fourth time: you also retract your claim that NIST clearly said that no core columns exceeed 250C, correct? Don't think you can make false claims without being called on to own up to them. Your claim, your burden of proof. If you don't provide your evidence in your next post I will assume that you have none.* Fair enough?

What do the photographs I posted tell you?

Time to man up. Please don't play childish games with this subject. Don't waste people's time with your Denialism.


*You may want to keep in mind that I've read the NIST report in full, and have read particular sections many times.

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, please explain to me how you neglected to see the photographs I posted of both towers that were taken five minutes before they collapsed, one of which I posted twice. I await your answer.

Brian Clarke? Um, you are aware that he left the building with Stanley Praimnath at the start of the incident, before the fires had fully developed, aren't you? And you're aware of the stairwell they took?

Therefore you retract your claim that many witnesses said the WTC fires were small, correct? Or can you find me a single person who saw those fires who said any such thing?

Fourth time: you also retract your claim that NIST clearly said that no core columns exceeed 250C, correct? Don't think you can make false claims without being called on to own up to them. Your claim, your burden of proof. If you don't provide your evidence in your next post I will assume that you have none.* Fair enough?

What do the photographs I posted tell you?

Time to man up. Please don't play childish games with this subject. Don't waste people's time with your Denialism.


*You may want to keep in mind that I've read the NIST report in full, and have read particular sections many times.

Since you seem to have calmed down a bit, I have no problem engaging in a dialogue. Still, I'm not going to respond each time you shift the goal posts or make ultimatums. Now you can parse the semantics of this any way you like but here are the main points I've made in my three illustrious days on jref so far:

a) NIST did not report any steel core column temps exceeding 250C.

I'll even say that everything I said in the past was grossly erroneous if you agree that this statement is correct. The implications of this finding obviously deserve a great deal of discussion. So I'll move on.

b) NIST does not support the pancake collapse "phenomenon." I've heard the explanation that NIST did not consider the collapse progression, only the initiation or mechanism, but that's equivocation. That's an interpretation of a very simple statement, and I've said all that I will about that. If you believe that NIST does in fact accept any pancaking at all in the entire progression of the collapse, please let their editors know because that's not what this says. It's quite clear that they're talking about "floor systems."

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below)."

Even NIST realized the pancake theory was garbage.

c) The towers were not consumed by raging infernos. The NIST temp charts, anecdotal information and photographs do not support a raging inferno. I have not heard you or anyone else address how a diffuse flame fire, made up of office materials could raise the temperature of steel, which when heated would distribute heat. According to NIST of the steel they tested only three perimeter columns reached 250C and no core columns (NISTFR 88).

Now, if you think NIST did not get a sufficient sample, you might want to contact Rudy and ask him where the rest of the steel is.

Look at the photos. The South Tower, which falls first, is not consumed by a raging inferno.

You may want to keep in mind that whereas you may have done tremendous research, you are not alone. You might be surprised to find out who will debate this, who is having this dialogue with you. More importantly, I don't debate you, per se. I debate the official story. It's not important to me what you think happened. I'm interested in gov't funded explanations.

Honestly, I think you have a tough position to debate. You're good at it, but you can't just be a good debator, the official story itself has to be good. You guys have the disadvantage of having to support the entire story. That's a whopper of a story to have to continually support. I hear a lot of people say, there's no conspiracy, but I do think Flight 93 was shot down, or some such variation.

The debate is only for the purpose of examining truth. Let's keep it peaceful.

 

[The Almond]

Since you seem to have calmed down a bit, I have no problem engaging in a dialogue. Still, I'm not going to respond each time you shift the goal posts or make ultimatums. Now you can parse the semantics of this any way you like but here are the main points I've made in my three illustrious days on jref so far:

I would rather call them points of contention, and at least one of them is demonstrably false.

a) NIST did not report any steel core column temps exceeding 250C.

Were you to spend time reading some of my posts, you would find that I've already marked where they report steel core column temperatures above 250 C. For the second time, please see page 140 of NCSTAR 1, figure 6-48.

I'll even say that everything I said in the past was grossly erroneous if you agree that this statement is correct.

Wait, so you'll retract all of your previous points if Gravy admits that one of your demonstrably false points is true. So the things you believe are true, you're willing to state are false as long as Gravy says one false thing is absolutely true. Ludicrous.

The implications of this finding obviously deserve a great deal of discussion. So I'll move on.

If they deserved a great deal of discussion, why did you not bother to read NCSTAR 1? It is 300 pages long and can be read in a day. Gravy and I did read it, so why haven't you?

b) NIST does not support the pancake collapse "phenomenon." I've heard the explanation that NIST did not consider the collapse progression, only the initiation or mechanism, but that's equivocation.

NIST, as well as the engineering community at large, has had to deal with ambiguities in the term "pancake collapse." Progressive collapse indicates that floors fail in progression, while pancake collapse indicates that one floor must fall completely onto another in order to induce collapse. It also implies a shear failure at either support end of the floors. Clearly, the two terms overlap significantly, but one significant point of pancake collapse is the complete destruction of the structural components of each floor. Visual evidence shows that large sections of the WTC core columns in each tower remained standing.

That's an interpretation of a very simple statement, and I've said all that I will about that. If you believe that NIST does in fact accept any pancaking at all in the entire progression of the collapse, please let their editors know because that's not what this says. It's quite clear that they're talking about "floor systems."

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below)."

If I might be so bold as to finish your quotation:

Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Even NIST realized the pancake theory was garbage.

Because the floors had to remain connected to the columns, the entire floor system could not have failed completely. Thus, it doesn't completely fit the definition for pancake collapse.

c) The towers were not consumed by raging infernos.

Please read the chapters on fire modeling and ask yourself if a fire burning at over 500 degrees centigrade is not classified as a "raging inferno".

The NIST temp charts,

Which ones?

anecdotal information

Such as the ones that include the exact temperature of all areas of both towers during the entirety of the collapse, right?

and photographs

The photographs do, in fact, support the idea of a hot, widespread fire. You chose to post one picture that did not appear to have a hot fire, and then failed to respond to the numerous ones that did. That's academically dishonest.

do not support a raging inferno. I have not heard you or anyone else address how a diffuse flame fire,

It is your claim that the fire was "diffuse." I don't recall NIST ever characterizing it as such.

made up of office materials could raise the temperature of steel,

What temperature do you think office materials combust at? NIST built a scale model of an office space and measured the temperature and fire dynamics.

which when heated would distribute heat.

At what rate? NIST used the recovered steel samples to measure the conductivity of the steel, providing exact, well known inputs for their analysis.

According to NIST of the steel they tested only three perimeter columns reached 250C and no core columns (NISTFR 88).

That's page 90 and 91 of NCSTAR 1. If you're going to reference, at least reference correctly.

You might want to continue reading to get to the part where NIST mentions that NIST didn't test samples that were from an area where the temperature was expected to reach 250 C, thus confirming NIST's temperature model. I've addressed this point in this post.

Now, if you think NIST did not get a sufficient sample, you might want to contact Rudy and ask him where the rest of the steel is.

If you think NIST acquired the steel samples to do a paint analysis, please read the NCSTAR in its entirety. It is the only way you will correct this misconception.

Look at the photos. The South Tower, which falls first, is not consumed by a raging inferno.

This statement, which you continue to repeat, is false.

You may want to keep in mind that whereas you may have done tremendous research, you are not alone.

Actually, Gravy is in a class of his own. His breadth of knowledge exceeds that of many professionals, and his debate tactics, while aggressive, have throughly routed all truthers who try to match wits with him.

You might be surprised to find out who will debate this, who is having this dialogue with you. More importantly, I don't debate you, per se. I debate the official story. It's not important to me what you think happened. I'm interested in gov't funded explanations.

It is my personal opinion that your arguments are poor and your research is weak.

Honestly, I think you have a tough position to debate.

I agree. Arguing facts and logic with people who abhor truth, are incapable of logical thought, and are often downright crazy is difficult.

You're good at it, but you can't just be a good debator, the official story itself has to be good. You guys have the disadvantage of having to support the entire story.

That would indicate that we were obligated to debate the official story. Most of us do this for entertainment, and Gravy does this in his spare time while working to support himself as an NYC tour guide.

That's a whopper of a story to have to continually support. I hear a lot of people say, there's no conspiracy, but I do think Flight 93 was shot down, or some such variation.

The debate is only for the purpose of examining truth. Let's keep it peaceful.

We don't have to support it. We've looked at the evidence and examined the logic, that's it.

 

[The Almond]

I dedicate the space in this accidental double post to all the fine ladies in the League of Women Voters.

 

[RedIbis]

Please post the quote and the link. Pg 140 of NCSTAR 1 is a page intentionally left blank.

There are also subsections, please specify. But a quote and link works best.

 

[The Almond]

Please post the quote and the link. Pg 140 of NCSTAR 1 is a page intentionally left blank.

There are also subsections, please specify. But a quote and link works best.

Actually, page 140 has figure 6-48 on it. It is page 190 on the pdf viewer.

On a side note, I'm surprised that you would think that page 140 is intentionally left blank. Even page 140 in the pdf viewer isn't intentionally left blank. The first page left blank after page 140 is page 174, and the one behind it was page 50. Am I to assume that you did not even bother to look at the pages near page 140?

 

[RedIbis]

Actually, page 140 has figure 6-48 on it. It is page 190 on the pdf viewer.

On a side note, I'm surprised that you would think that page 140 is intentionally left blank. Even page 140 in the pdf viewer isn't intentionally left blank. The first page left blank after page 140 is page 174, and the one behind it was page 50. Am I to assume that you did not even bother to look at the pages near page 140?

You are assuming. I can assure you I checked the reference, I can assure you that page 140, not the pdf viewer page, but the included page number of NIST NCSTAR 1, is an intentionally blank page. Despite that fact that this is highly trivial, what is the problem with linking to the page? The entire report is online.

This is what you wrote, right? page 140 of NCSTAR 1, figure 6-48
This NCSTAR 1, correct? http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf

For the fun of it, check pg 140 and tell me what you see.

 

[cmcaulif]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

This is what almond is referring to Ibis, Page 140 in the report or page 190 in the viewer. It is figure 6-48

edit: It seems you have confused NCSTAR1 with NCSTAR1-1, these are different documents.

 

[beachnut]

If you're getting bent out of shape (pun intended!) over whether or not the towers were consumed by an inferno, check out a picture a little later in the fire and tell me where the inferno is. Is it behind all that black smoke?

The fires in the WTC were large out of control fires which people were jumping to escape. For those people the little fires you talk about were infernos. You have no conclusions and have failed to learn by questioning and lack the ability to research and comprehend. There is no need to get out of shape with your failings, I am happy there are only a minority of people who are unable to think rationally about 9/11, you seem to be in that minority, but I expect you have great potential to think rationally and with logic. Do you have an estimate on when that will occur?

 

[The Almond]

You are assuming. I can assure you I checked the reference, I can assure you that page 140, not the pdf viewer page, but the included page number of NIST NCSTAR 1, is an intentionally blank page. Despite that fact that this is highly trivial, what is the problem with linking to the page? The entire report is online.

This is what you wrote, right? page 140 of NCSTAR 1, figure 6-48
This NCSTAR 1, correct? http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf

For the fun of it, check pg 140 and tell me what you see.

Why on earth are you checking NCSTAR 1-1?

 

[RedIbis]

Why on earth are you checking NCSTAR 1-1?

A greivous error I know, which was resolved when cfc posted the correct link.

With a link to the document I was able to easily access the computer simulated scenarios.

My original statement was not that NIST did not model temps exceeding 250C in the core columns.

My statement was that NIST did not report evidence that the core column steel they tested exceeded 250C. The frames you referred to me are not evidence of this.

Unfortunately, NIST fed computer models with "worst case" scenarios until they achieved the desired result. They explain on the next page, (with my emphasis)

"Tables 6-8 and 6-9 summarize the regions of the floors in which the structural steel reached temperatures at which their yield strengths would have been significantly diminished."

 

[cmcaulif]

A greivous error I know, which was resolved when cfc posted the correct link.

My statement was that NIST did not report evidence that the core column steel they tested exceeded 250C. The frames you referred to me are not evidence of this.

Unfortunately, NIST fed computer models with "worst case" scenarios until they achieved the desired result. They explain on the next page, (with my emphasis)

"Tables 6-8 and 6-9 summarize the regions of the floors in which the structural steel reached temperatures at which their yield strengths would have been significantly diminished."

Again, the samples that the NIST collected were not in high temperature areas. This, if anything, is a testament to the accuracy of their fire models, which are consistent with these results. R Mackey has explained that collecting samples from the high temperature zones would have been quite useless for the NIST's investigation since it would have been much more difficult to determine the failure mode of the member and it would also be much more difficult to find the exact location of the member.

They are also quite clear on why they use the more sever case, case B for WTC1, and case D for WTC 2, it is because cases A and C(less severe) did not produce the observable events, namely the sagging of floors and inward bowing of columns, as were observed and measured from the photographic evidence.

It is not a matter of feeding higher values until the desired result is achieved, as you seem to suggest, but rather ensuring that their simulation is accurate in the sense that the structural response in the sim is as close as possible to the structural response as it occurred on 9/11.

 

[Gravy]

Since you seem to have calmed down a bit, I have no problem engaging in a dialogue. Still, I'm not going to respond each time you shift the goal posts or make ultimatums.

Right. You refuse to back your claims with evidence when asked. Got it.

Now you can parse the semantics of this any way you like but here are the main points I've made in my three illustrious days on jref so far:

This is not a matter of semantics. You made a false claim. Please learn to take responsibiilty for your actions.

a) NIST did not report any steel core column temps exceeding 250C.

I'll even say that everything I said in the past was grossly erroneous if you agree that this statement is correct. The implications of this finding obviously deserve a great deal of discussion. So I'll move on.

That's one of the strangest things I've seen anyone write on the internet. Almond covered the pretzel logic quite well.

b) NIST does not support the pancake collapse "phenomenon." I've heard the explanation that NIST did not consider the collapse progression, only the initiation or mechanism, but that's equivocation. That's an interpretation of a very simple statement, and I've said all that I will about that. If you believe that NIST does in fact accept any pancaking at all in the entire progression of the collapse, please let their editors know because that's not what this says. It's quite clear that they're talking about "floor systems."

As Almond pointed out, by including only the first part of the quote, you pretend that NIST may have been referring to something other than collapse initiation. And as I've already pointed out, that's dishonest behavior, especially for someone who falsely accuses others of basing arguments on semantics.

Even NIST realized the pancake theory was garbage.

No, the pancake hypothesis of collapse initiation appeared to be viable and NIST took it quite seriously. It was their leading hypothesis until 2004. After extensive study and findings of fact, they came to realize that they had been wrong, and that their secondary hypothesis was far more likely. Upon further study, NIST believes that they have established the likely cause of the collapses. That is called science.

c) The towers were not consumed by raging infernos. The NIST temp charts, anecdotal information and photographs do not support a raging inferno. I have not heard you or anyone else address how a diffuse flame fire, made up of office materials could raise the temperature of steel, which when heated would distribute heat. According to NIST of the steel they tested only three perimeter columns reached 250C and no core columns (NISTFR 88).

Sheer, unadulterated Denialism.

NIST, FEMA, and the independent investigations do not support your claim. The photographic and video evidence does not support your claim. The career firefighters and police who were there do not support your claim.

The experts who've studied the matter say you're wrong, and back their statements with evidence. Your arguments from incredulity won't ever change reality. You will do well to realize that sooner rather than later.

Now, if you think NIST did not get a sufficient sample, you might want to contact Rudy and ask him where the rest of the steel is.

Rudy Giuliani? What in the world does he have to do with WTC steel. You sound woefully misinformed about these issues, RedIbis

Honestly, I think you have a tough position to debate. You're good at it, but you can't just be a good debator, the official story itself has to be good.

Feel free to point out anything I've gotten wrong, and provide evidence for your claims.

You guys have the disadvantage of having to support the entire story.

We don't have to support anything. We choose to support quality research, the scientific method, logic, and critical thinking.

Please don't bring your arguments from incredulity to this table any more. If you have questions for which you are unable to find the answers, this is an excellent place to ask them. But you'll be called on your false assertions, denialism, unsupported arguments, and logical fallacies every single time you commit them.