• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ENough of the hand waving. Why does NIST's fire analysis not match the photographs?
What? You show an idiot who made up his own fire model and say NIST got the fire model wrong. Do you understand models? Flames are not the heat that NIST modeled. Are you this bad at understanding 911, or did your years of lurking help you fail?

You don't know much about fire, and it shows.
 
They have no shame cooperman.

It is another burial routine where they fill a few pages with garbage posts
in the hope that visitors will overlook the real discussion, short as it was.

MM

Don't allow it. Keep the thread alive and let the lurkers see these "critical thinkers" saying that flames aren't hot and water boiling on a barbecue shows that steel will fail without fire.

It exposes them just as well.
 
Last edited:
Yes, after the fire moved on. Do you really think that steel increases in temp, because that's what some of your cohorts are suggesting.

I am tempted to actually ask these people "are flames hot?". It needs to be done but I can't bring myself to do it.
 
Do you know what happens to a constrained beam when it's heated and then cools?

It doesn't cool. It actually increases in temperature even after the fire moves on. That's what I learned on jref today.
 
The initiating event that led to the collapse, according to NIST, is as follows,

From page 53 and 54 of the report

Initiating Event
Structural Response and Collapse

␣ The buckling failure of Column 79 between Floor 5 and Floor 14 was the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7. This resulted from thermal expansion and failures of connections, beams, and girders in the adjacent floor systems.

␣ The connection, beam, and girder failures in the floor systems, and the resulting structural responses, occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400 C (750 F), well below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness.

␣ Thermal expansion was particularly significant in causing the connection, beam, and girder failures, since the floor beams had long spans on the north and east sides (approximately 15 m, 50 ft).

o Heating of the long beams resulted in proportionately large thermal elongation relative to the other components of the floor system, in effect, compressing the beams along their length. This led to distortion of the beams and breaking of the connections of the beams to the floor slabs. Furthermore, the simple shear connections used in the typical floor framing were not able to resist these axial compressive forces that developed as the floor framing was heated.

o At Column79,heating and expansion of the floor beams in the north east corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams.

o The fires thermally weakened Floors 8 to 14. As Floor 13 fell onto the floor below, a cascade of floor failures continued until the damage reached the massive Floor 5 slab, leaving Column 79 without lateral support for nine floors. The long unsupported length of Column 79 led to its buckling failure.

␣ Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. NIST concluded that blast events could not have occurred, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile if unobstructed by surrounding buildings (such as along Greenwich Street and West Broadway). This sound level is comparable to a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. The sound from such a blast in an urban setting would have been reflected and channeled down streets with minimum attenuation. However, the soundtracks from videos being recorded at the time of the collapse did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast.

Now I am not a physicist, nor an engineer, but can someone point to me where in the above discussion of the initiating event, they mention that the temp of floor 12 specifically around column 79 had to be highly elevated?

Thanks

TAM:)
 
I am tempted to actually ask these people "are flames hot?". It needs to be done but I can't bring myself to do it.

oh stop it. You are strawmanning and you know it. No one here is going to say that when you remove flame the temp where the flame was placed, in an isolated single heat source event, will fail to drop some.

You know full well what people are saying here is that the fires, the heat sources, the types of heat "movement" (conduction, convection, radiation), etc...are much more complex then to say...

No fire at place X, means no heat at place X, etc...

TAM:)
 
Do you know what happens to a constrained beam when it's heated and then cools?

How can it cool? Once a fire has started and been extinguished the heat from it approaches infinity as you dion't actually need a fire to have heat. I am sure glad I got educated at the james randi educational forum.
 
Yes, after the fire moved on. Do you really think that steel increases in temp, because that's what some of your cohorts are suggesting.

If you take a single source of heat (such as a flame), and you apply it to a place on steel column X, and there is NO OTHER SOURCE OF HEAT, then removal of that heat source will result in a decrease in the temperature of the steel...best I can tell.

Are they arguing the above?

TAM:)
 
The initiating event that led to the collapse, according to NIST, is as follows,

From page 53 and 54 of the report



Now I am not a physicist, nor an engineer, but can someone point to me where in the above discussion of the initiating event, they mention that the temp of floor 12 specifically around column 79 had to be highly elevated?

Thanks

TAM:)

They don't, and I'm not sure why you would think they would, since they assert (without physical evidence, of course) that failures "occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400 C (750 F), well below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness."


- they don't specify how much below 400C these failures occurred
- they don't specify why these failures occurred at such low temps

And yet for you, a so-called skeptic, this doesn't raise even the slightest question.
 
How can it cool? Once a fire has started and been extinguished the heat from it approaches infinity as you dion't actually need a fire to have heat. I am sure glad I got educated at the james randi educational forum.

Given that this was explained to you pages ago and you agreed with it, do you use this strawman because you don't actually understand it or do you use it because you're a dishonest person?
 
How can it cool? Once a fire has started and been extinguished the heat from it approaches infinity as you dion't actually need a fire to have heat. I am sure glad I got educated at the james randi educational forum.

You should stop behaving like a spoiled child. It does not reflect well on people's opinions of you. That said, if you cared what people thought of you, you wouldn't be arguing the nonsense you are anyway.

TAM:)
 
That's not what you said. You said that the steel temp increases after the fire moves on. Are you really sticking with that?

Yes. Heat soak and conduction continued to operate and cause weakening and expansion in the absence of firefighters and water.
 
Last edited:
How can it cool? Once a fire has started and been extinguished the heat from it approaches infinity as you dion't actually need a fire to have heat. I am sure glad I got educated at the james randi educational forum.
Why can't you just answer my question. I don't care how you interrupted what other people may have said (I gave-up reading because there was too much non-sense from both sides).
 
They don't, and I'm not sure why you would think they would, since they assert (without physical evidence, of course) that failures "occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400 C (750 F), well below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness."


- they don't specify how much below 400C these failures occurred
- they don't specify why these failures occurred at such low temps

And yet for you, a so-called skeptic, this doesn't raise even the slightest question.

Even worse, YOU a so-called seeker of truth, can't come up with an single scenario that explains the event any better. Chip away, complain about things you aren't even qualified to judge, but the NIST report remains the commonly-held narrative of the event by professionals around the world. Why is that?
 
They don't, and I'm not sure why you would think they would, since they assert (without physical evidence, of course) that failures "occurred primarily at temperatures below approximately 400 C (750 F), well below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness."


- they don't specify how much below 400C these failures occurred
- they don't specify why these failures occurred at such low temps

And yet for you, a so-called skeptic, this doesn't raise even the slightest question.

because, the buckling of column 79 WAS NOT caused by heat induced failure of column 79. I was, from what I am reading, caused by thermal expansion of other components, that led to failure and collapse internally of several floors (via the breaking of connections etc...), that left column 79 unsupported for a dozen or more floors, and THIS lead to the collapse/buckling of column 79.

From the report...

The fires thermally weakened Floors 8 to 14. As Floor 13 fell onto the floor below, a cascade of floor failures continued until the damage reached the massive Floor 5 slab, leaving Column 79 without lateral support for nine floors. The long unsupported length of Column 79 led to its buckling failure.

TAM:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom