'What about building 7'?

[BigAl]

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?

Steel doesn't have a rating, fireproofing does and you are pulling unreal numbers out of your butt.

 

[cooperman]

Steel doesn't have a rating, fireproofing does and you are pulling unreal numbers out of your butt.

Eh? The numbers for flame and ember temperature came from a poster in this thread.

Give me the real numbers then. What was the rating for the fireproofing in wtc7?

 

[cooperman]

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

I don't have sources, it was an EXAMPLE. You should have guessed that from the way I put FOR EXAMPLE in front of it.

In my example would the steel fail?

The numbers for temperatues was from the example of a debunker up the thread.

 

[uke2se]

I don't have sources, it was an EXAMPLE. You should have guessed that from the way I put FOR EXAMPLE in front of it.

In my example would the steel fail?

The numbers for temperatues was from the example of a debunker up the thread.

Would the steel fail? Don't know. It depends on so many other factors, as you should know. As a hypothetical example, your's is pretty useless.

 

[BigAl]

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.

Source, please. IME one or two hours is the rating.

As you have already been told, the process of heat soak makes the steel continue to heat up after the fire has died down.

 

[cooperman]

Would the steel fail? Don't know. It depends on so many other factors, as you should know. As a hypothetical example, your's is pretty useless.

I figured it would be. I should not have used the figures the debunker used.

 

[cooperman]

Source, please. IME one or two hours is the rating.

As you have already been told, the process of heat soak makes the steel continue to heat up after the fire has died down.

That is not how they rate it though. They expose it to flame for the specified period.

The wtc7 beams and giirders were rated at 2 hours.

 

[BigAl]

It cools down immediately. There are no flames there anymore. Stuff is no longer burning.

Wrong.

 

[cooperman]

Wrong.

How is it wrong. If a flame goes out the temperature in that area will drop. How can it not?

 

[uke2se]

Let's just end this discussion right now and look at what really happened:

Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections-that caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse-occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat.

SOURCE

 

[BigAl]

WTF? Are these serious questions?

You are seriously asking me if an area cools down when the fire goes out? Umm, yes , it does.

The "size" of the fires is a meaningless quantifier. The fires were fuelled by ordinary office contents and had a standard, expected, temperature range which the fireproofing was rated for.

Fireproofing is rated in hours, not temperature and for the sake of this discussion, all fires burn at roughly the same temperature and the type of fuel has little to do with it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

I'll try to be patient, and just repeat what I said before.

NIST didn't compare the fireproofing rating and the fire duration and draw the crudest possible conclusion from them. They did extensive modelling of the fire dynamics, thermomechanical response of the structure, and resulting damage, using a realistic model including the known fireproofing. They concluded from that modelling that a collapse of the floors around column 79 removed lateral bracing causing a collapse of that column, progressing to result in global collapse.

Any analysis as simple as "the fireproofing rating was X and the fire duration was Y therefore the building should/shouldn't collapse" is basically at a five-year-old level of functioning, and so is utterly unworthy of any attention whatsoever.

Dave

 

[cooperman]

Fireproofing is rated in hours, not temperature and for the sake of this discussion, all fires burn at roughly the same temperature and the type of fuel has little to do with it.

And?

 

[TJM]

You are correct- The lack of fires is the clue.The WTC1 is missing from the still-

Here is another cameo of the WTC7 penthouses taken from the observation
platform on the WTC 2 roof- The building on the extreme left is the WTC1 tower.
Note the WTC1 tower's position with respect to the WTC7 tower.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814ca61f0486045.bmp[/qimg]

NOW - study the still I posted and note what is missing--
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=456&pictureid=3789[/qimg]

Correct , The WTC1 tower is missing- This still was taken after the 2nd tower,the WTC1 tower, collapsed.
The lack of fires is the clue.![/QUOTE]

My bad, Fonebone is right. My dyslexia has once again bit me.

That picture is of WTC 7 after WTC 1 collapsed, soon after apparently. The fires in the north side hadn't developed yet.

 

[T.A.M.]

You do not need a new theory to prove the prevailing theory wrong. That is nonsense.

What you meant to say was; "He doesn't want to answer the question because it destroys the NIST theory"

Wrong. No one amongst your ilk has either proven the nist theory wrong...not one bit.

As well, i noticed mm, and other trithers, have failed to answer if they agree wholely withthe CTBUH report entirely, or just, as we suspect, only with the part where they disagree with nist.

I mean cherry picking is the #1 rule of truthering....isnt it.

TAM

 

[Miragememories]

"If the fireproofing was rated for 3 hours then it is quite important how long the fire burned for in a given location.

Saying "the building burned for 7 hours, which is longer that the fireproofing is rated for therefore it would collapse" is not honest. In fact, when taking into account the avoidance of the issue of how long the fire burned in a specific location, it is lying."

"The fireproofing rating of a component determines how long the component will take to fail in a specific controlled test, using a particular set of experimental conditions that may or may not exist in any specific fire. It's useful in comparing one type of fireproofing installation with another, but of very little value in determining the duration of a specific, arbitrary, real-world fire that is required to cause the component to fail. Therefore, a simple-minded comparison of the duration, either of the fire overall, or of the fire in any specific location, with the rating of the fireproofing is utterly worthless in predicting component failure."

It is absolutely incredible that you would utter such bs.

Do you actually read what you write man?

Why bother doing the tests if the results have no validity in rating real world fire-proofing materials?

"This is not, of course, what NIST did. What they did was to model the progress of the fires, determine the temperature distribution this induced as a function of time throughout the structure, determine from this the differential expansion of different parts of the structure, and determine what structural failures resulted. Their findings were that the structural failures were sufficient to cause global collapse. The structure defined for their models included fireproofing of the composition and dimensions of that of the actual building. Therefore, comparing fireproofing ratings with durations is utterly irrelevant to any assessment of the NIST investigation."

The NIST did not properly test and prove their theory using experimental fires.

They were quite content to feed assumed data to a computer model. A model which the NIST pioneered [drum roll] during their WTC Twin Towers investigation.

One of the biggest problems with their computer model, was that its success demanded a certain level of fuel loading in order to satisfy the NIST WTC7 collapse theory.

In Dr. Greening's paper, he questioned the exaggerated fuel availability estimates that the NIST was using as computer data.

The critical point in the NIST collapse theory was the failure of column 79 on the 13th floor. That failure was dependent on the heat subjected to the 13th floor from the fires on floor 12 below.

The NIST fire simulations indicate that floor 12 and floor 13 of WTC7 suffered from the greatest amount of heat energy.

Using NIST's Figure 9-13 from NCSTAR 1-9's fire simulation chapter, the NIST argues that on floor 12, a heat release rate of 200 MW was sustained for over 2 hours from about 3 p.m. onward.

The NIST figure 9-11, indicates that fully developed fires covered an area of 750 square meters between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m.

The problem is, the NIST used a fuel loading factor of 32 kg per square meter for their floor 12 simulations.

The NIST's heat release rate of 200 MW sustained for over 2 hours implies a total energy release of 1,440 GJ.

To do this, it has to be assumed that the combustible material on floor 12 of WTC7 released 20 MJ/kg.

Over an area of 750 square meters, that would represent the combustion of 72,000 kg of office material.

In other words 96 kg per square meter.

Knock the NIST time estimate down to 40 minutes, instead of 2 hours, and then their 32 kg per square meter fuel loading factor becomes in agreement with the 12th floor fuel load that the NIST has assumed.

You can only imagine how this grave error would wreak havoc with the NIST computer simulation results.

MM

 

[cooperman]

I'll try to be patient, and just repeat what I said before.

NIST didn't compare the fireproofing rating and the fire duration and draw the crudest possible conclusion from them. They did extensive modelling of the fire dynamics, thermomechanical response of the structure, and resulting damage, using a realistic model including the known fireproofing. They concluded from that modelling that a collapse of the floors around column 79 removed lateral bracing causing a collapse of that column, progressing to result in global collapse.

Any analysis as simple as "the fireproofing rating was X and the fire duration was Y therefore the building should/shouldn't collapse" is basically at a five-year-old level of functioning, and so is utterly unworthy of any attention whatsoever.

Dave

Could you linkme to this model?

 

[Sabretooth]

It cools down immediately. There are no flames there anymore. Stuff is no longer burning.

We really do have to walk you through kindergarten stuff. Putting a fire out in a given location will cool the area down. This isn't new, people have known about it since they discovered fire.

You are dead wrong.

The flames may diminish, but the heat does not just disappear with them.

The area may cool down relative to the flames...but do you really want to argue semantics over a flame at 1800^o and then a drop to 1500^o when the room starts baking?

Spend some time with a simple campfire and you can debunk yourself.

Go read a book or something and stop trolling.

 

[T.A.M.]

If the fireproofing was rated for 3 hours then it is quite important how long the fire burned for in a given location.

Saying "the building burned for 7 hours, which is longer that the fireproofing is rated for therefore it would collapse" is not honest. In fact, when taking into account the avoidance of the issue of how long the fire burned in a specific location, it is lying.

A. Was it rated for 3 hours....proof.
B. If it was, what exactly does this rating mean?
C. Where does this issue prove the wtc7 nist report wrong...i want you to list the exact area it contradicts.

TAM

 

[Sabretooth]

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.

I'd really like to know where you got the delusion that a fire will expend all of it's fuel in 20 minutes. Links? Sources?

And I'm warning you right now, if your "info" comes from a truther website, it's 100% horse .