'What about building 7'?

[uke2se]

No, of course it doesn't attain room temperature immediately. I never claimed that.

It will start to cool as soon as the flames are extinguished.

In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue.

Flames are very hot, hot air not so much. If you were trapped in a burning building and 80% of your floor was on fire and 20% wasn't. Where would you be heading? Sure, you would almost certainly die anyway, but I am happy to wager you would head for the area with no flames.

Where I would head in a burning building has nothing to do with the second part of my question and seems more like an attempt to deflect.

Again: How long does it take for temperatures to come down to a level where they are no longer damaging the structure?

 

[cooperman]

Ahem. If NIST had simply said "The building burned for seven hours and was only fireproofed for three, so obviously it fell down," then some of this might be relevant.

Dave

I never claimed NIST said that. I was paraphrasing a post further up the thread which said that it was surprising that it didn't fall earlier given that it had burned for twice its rated time.

 

[uke2se]

I never claimed NIST said that. I was paraphrasing a post further up the thread which said that it was surprising that it didn't fall earlier given that it had burned for twice its rated time.

You really really need to work on your reading comprehension.

 

[cooperman]

No flames means no more heat? Really? That is quite laughable.



You need to head back to kindergarten. Also, your reading comprehension still sucks.

I didn't say that. I said no flames means LESS heat. It really does, honest.


I cannot believe this discussion is even taking place. Debunkers are reduced to arguing here that an area in a fire doesn't cool down when the flames are extinguished.

 

[DGM]

cooperman:
If you want to discover how localized heat can effect large steel members, ask an iron worker how he straightens a beam (I can explain it later but I have to go)

PS I do ornamental iron work.

 

[cooperman]

You really really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Here is the post I was paraphrasing:

The WTC 7 fire burned for roughly twice as long as the fireproofing was rated to withstand. It's a miracle it stood as long as it did.
You could also dig up the video of the firefighter saying that the building was leaning and was, "definitely coming down." He says firefighters aren't going in because the, "structural integrity isn't there."

 

[uke2se]

I didn't say that. I said no flames means LESS heat. It really does, honest.


I cannot believe this discussion is even taking place. Debunkers are reduced to arguing here that an area in a fire doesn't cool down when the flames are extinguished.

We are "reduced" to arguing with a science illiterate how temperatures work, yes. It's sad, but then again, you have the power to end the conversation.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I never claimed NIST said that. I was paraphrasing a post further up the thread which said that it was surprising that it didn't fall earlier given that it had burned for twice its rated time.

Yes, and as I just pointed out, that's a drastic oversimplification. However, so is the response that the duration of the fire in any specific location was less than the rated time.

Dave

 

[uke2se]

Here is the post I was paraphrasing:

As I said, you really really really need to work on your reading comprehension.

 

[cooperman]

Yes, and as I just pointed out, that's a drastic oversimplification. However, so is the response that the duration of the fire in any specific location was less than the rated time.

Dave

Come on, Dave. The firepoofing was rated for HOURS. The fuel in a given location will be spent in 20 MINUTES. Thats a big difference.

 

[cooperman]

We are "reduced" to arguing with a science illiterate how temperatures work, yes. It's sad, but then again, you have the power to end the conversation.

Amy of my posts should have ended the conversation. I am not to blame if people continue to lie.

If you want to deny reality, then I will keep posting it. You call me a science illiterate. i didn't realise you needed a PhD to know that flames are hotter than air.

An old saying goes "If I asked you to put your hand in the fire, would you?" It is said to someone if they seem to be blindly following something. I never thought I would be reduced to arguing it literally.

 

[GlennB]

No, of course it doesn't attain room temperature immediately. I never claimed that.

It will start to cool as soon as the flames are extinguished.

Nope. As with most things in life it depends.

Flames running at 1000°c might only raise the steel girder average temperature to 200°, but if the remaining embers are at 600° then the average steel temperature might continue to rise even though the fire is no longer flaming.

A steel wire or pin, on the other hand, will rise to flame temperature very quickly and then cool quickly to ambient temperature as the flames subside. Which is why a puddle of water next to a lake will freeze over quicker than the lake.

Yet another example of a Truther only being able to believe what they can physically see or, in this case, visualise. Flames are the only source of heat. D'uh.

 

[uke2se]

Amy of my posts should have ended the conversation.

There's two ways for this conversation to end. Either you slink away quietly after pages of pages of harsh punishment, or people grow tired enough of your inane comments that they put you on ignore.

I am not to blame if people continue for continuing to lie.

Fixed that for you.

If you want to deny reality, then I will keep posting it.

I'm not denying reality. You are. Your entire argument is a massive logical fallacy called argument from personal incredulity.

You call me a science illiterate. i didn't realise you needed a PhD to know that flames are hotter than air.

You need at least a high school education to understand why temperatures don't immediately go down to non-damaging levels after a fire has burned out. It's obvious that you haven't got this level of education.

An old saying goes "If I asked you to put your hand in the fire, would you?" It is said to someone if they seem to be blindly following something. I never thought I would be reduced to arguing it literally.

There's also an old saying that goes "When you're in a hole, stop digging". Something for you to think about.

 

[uke2se]

Nope. As with most things in life it depends.

Flames running at 1000°c might only raise the steel girder average temperature to 200°, but if the remaining embers are at 600° then the average steel temperature might continue to rise even though the fire is no longer flaming.

A steel wire or pin, on the other hand, will rise to flame temperature very quickly and then cool quickly to ambient temperature as the flames subside. Which is why a puddle of water next to a lake will freeze over quicker than the lake.

Yet another example of a Truther only being able to believe what they can physically see or, in this case, visualise. Flames are the only source of heat. D'uh.

My guess is that cooperman has never seen one of these:

http://www.nps.gov/features/yell/slidefile/fire/wildfire88/smokeconditions/Images/12238.jpg

 

[cooperman]

Nope. As with most things in life it depends.

Flames running at 1000°c might only raise the steel girder average temperature to 200°, but if the remaining embers are at 600° then the average steel temperature might continue to rise even though the fire is no longer flaming.

A steel wire or pin, on the other hand, will rise to flame temperature very quickly and then cool quickly to ambient temperature as the flames subside. Which is why a puddle of water next to a lake will freeze over quicker than the lake.

Yet another example of a Truther only being able to believe what they can physically see or, in this case, visualise. Flames are the only source of heat. D'uh.

I am not disputing that the steel temperature might continue to rise. But the area above the fire will be cooler if the fire goes from 1000 degree flames to 600 degree embers.

As an example, I can hold my hand 2 inches above the coals on my barbecue for a good length of time quite comfortably. When it is first lit and flaming then I can't do it. The temperature is higher.

 

[cooperman]

There's two ways for this conversation to end. Either you slink away quietly after pages of pages of harsh punishment, or people grow tired enough of your inane comments that they put you on ignore.



Fixed that for you.



I'm not denying reality. You are. Your entire argument is a massive logical fallacy called argument from personal incredulity.



You need at least a high school education to understand why temperatures don't immediately go down to non-damaging levels after a fire has burned out. It's obvious that you haven't got this level of education.



There's also an old saying that goes "When you're in a hole, stop digging". Something for you to think about.

There go the goalposts. I did not claim it immediately goes down to non damaging levels. I just said it immediately goes down and it does.

 

[beachnut]

I am not disputing that the steel temperature might continue to rise. But the area above the fire will be cooler if the fire goes from 1000 degree flames to 600 degree embers.

My wood stove goes hotter when the flames go out, the very hot gases take over and take the temperature goes past 600 degrees to 1200 degrees. Which part of the fire are we talking about; remembers WTC 7 had zero fire fighting, no water, no body doing anything about the fires which never went out on 911, and burned for weeks or months.

The hot air might be hotter than the flames; why does that happen?

 

[uke2se]

There go the goalposts. I did not claim it immediately goes down to non damaging levels. I just said it immediately goes down and it does.

You may note that I've asked about damaging levels since I first engaged you on this issue, so you can remove that accusation of moving the goal posts, or it'll stand as a testament to yet another of your lies.

Let's start over: How long does it take for temperatures to reach non-damaging levels after the fire has burned out?

Do you think it's plausible, given your recent admission that temperatures might continue to go up in the steel structure, that an area could continue to weaken even after the fire has burned out?

 

[cooperman]

You may note that I've asked about damaging levels since I first engaged you on this issue, so you can remove that accusation of moving the goal posts, or it'll stand as a testament to yet another of your lies.

Let's start over: How long does it take for temperatures to reach non-damaging levels after the fire has burned out?

Do you think it's plausible, given your recent admission that temperatures might continue to go up in the steel structure, that an area could continue to weaken even after the fire has burned out?

Yes the steel could continue to weaken. But we are talking about a large difference between the amount of time a fire will burn in a location and the time the steel is rated for.

For example, if it is rated for 2 hours at 1200 degrees and there are 1000 degree fires in a given area for 20 minutes followed by 600 degree embers, slowly burning out, are you saying the steel will fail?

 

[uke2se]

Yes the steel could continue to weaken. But we are talking about a large difference between the amount of time a fire will burn in a location and the time the steel is rated for.

For example, if it is rated for 2 hours at 1200 degrees and there are 1000 degree fires in a given area for 20 minutes followed by 600 degree embers, slowly burning out, are you saying the steel will fail?

I will answer the question after you show me your sources for your numbers.