Why did the WTC columns pull in?

[Tony Szamboti]

And what exactly would those temperatures be? Over 1000 deg C?

What physical evidence does NIST have of steel experiencing these types of temperatures, from their microstructure testing? The answer is none. Out of the paltry 236 pieces they got, only three experienced temperatures of 600 degrees C, where steel loses half its strength, and they were exterior steel elements of which most did not exceed 250 degrees C, where steel hasn't lost any strength. None of the three core columns they got experienced temperatures above 250 degrees C. The physical evidence shows that only a few percent of the structural steel elements, which were actually tested, experienced high enough temperatures to do any weakening at all.

Now put your thinking cap on and ask yourself why NIST only got 1% of the steel from the fire affected areas, and combine that with the facts above.

 

[Architect]

I cannot understand how the middle column in fig. 2 suddenly disappears! Who took it away?

A page of caluclations and that's the best you can do?

 

[funk de fino]

What physical evidence does NIST have of steel experiencing these types of temperatures, from their microstructure testing? The answer is none. Out of the paltry 236 pieces they got, only three experienced temperatures of 600 degrees C, where steel loses half its strength, and they were exterior steel elements of which most did not exceed 250 degrees C, where steel hasn't lost any strength. None of the three core columns they got experienced temperatures above 250 degrees C. The physical evidence shows that only a few percent of the structural steel elements, which were actually tested, experienced high enough temperatures to do any weakening at all.

Now put your thinking cap on and ask yourself why NIST only got 1% of the steel from the fire affected areas, and combine that with the facts above.

All I wanted was a figure for normal household/office fire temps.

Its ranging between 700 and 1100 degrees C

Agree?

Are you the guy that never read the NIST report? They will tell you why they got the steel they did, not my job.

 

[e^n]

What physical evidence does NIST have of steel experiencing these types of temperatures, from their microstructure testing? The answer is none.

Indeed, there's very little evidence of high temperatures available from the steel. However there is plenty of evidence of windows breaking, fires in progress and floor failures. These were all modelled by NIST.

Are you trying to suggest that the NIST theory cannot be plausible without physical evidence, but the controlled demolition argument doesn't even require calculations nevermind physical evidence?

You seem to be applying two different standards?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Indeed, there's very little evidence of high temperatures available from the steel. However there is plenty of evidence of windows breaking, fires in progress and floor failures. These were all modelled by NIST.

Are you trying to suggest that the NIST theory cannot be plausible without physical evidence, but the controlled demolition argument doesn't even require calculations nevermind physical evidence?

You seem to be applying two different standards?

I am saying there is something very wrong with NIST only getting 1% of the steel from the fire affected areas and that physical evidence is always preferrable to computer modeling. If that steel had been saved we wouldn't even be discussing this from different points of view. We would know what happened. Why wasn't the steel saved for NIST?

If NIST could have at least replicated the fire induced collapse of the floor trusses, which is the basis of their theory, I would not have a problem. The problem is they could not reproduce the failure mechanism they claim physically. Why not?

The controlled demolition argument should also be tested for, I am not denying that.

 

[R.Mackey]

If NIST could have at least replicated the fire induced collapse of the floor trusses, which is the basis of their theory, I would not have a problem. The problem is they could not reproduce the failure mechanism they claim physically. Why not?

This is a disingenuous statement. NIST did not even attempt to reproduce the failure mechanism physically. Your claim that they could not is therefore nonsensical. "Why Not" is budget and facilities limitations.

Dr. Quintiere, on the other hand, was able to reproduce the failure mechanism, physically: Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall, “Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 21, No. 6, pages 414-421, November/December 2007.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This is a disingenuous statement. NIST did not even attempt to reproduce the failure mechanism physically. Your claim that they could not is therefore nonsensical. "Why Not" is budget and facilities limitations.

Dr. Quintiere, on the other hand, was able to reproduce the failure mechanism, physically: Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall, “Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 21, No. 6, pages 414-421, November/December 2007.

Nobody will go for the budget and facilities limitiations argument, other than those with a bias. That is disingenuous. The doubts about 911 are causing major problems in this country and if the failure mechanism that the NIST report claims could be produced for under even a billion dollars it should be.

 

[einsteen]

I don't understand why you draw a column failure at a single point. In that picture the floors sag at the core connections while still connected (before the whole temperature is taken into account), is that not only possible, in this schematic model, if the whole core column with those connections sags down ? That means 14 or 29 stories. If this is the case is there not a visible sign then in a photo or video and not only the local inward pull ? Or do you mean that that pull is everywhere but becomes relevant because of the heat ? If the connections are destroyed at the core itself at some points then a floor can hang while only connected at the perimeter columns. And that tension only, do you mean that they expand like bi-metals ?

 

[R.Mackey]

Nobody will go for the budget and facilities limitiations argument, other than those with a bias. That is disingenuous. The doubts about 911 are causing major problems in this country and if the failure mechanism that the NIST report claims could be produced for under even a billion dollars it should be.

Stuff and nonsense. People in your camp criticize NIST saying that their $20 M effort was too expensive!

I showed you that the mechanism was physically replicated. You must, therefore, accept it as plausible, if you are honest. That's all there is to it.

 

[funk de fino]

realcddeal

post # 43

agree? 700 - 1100 deg C

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Stuff and nonsense. People in your camp criticize NIST saying that their $20 M effort was too expensive!

I showed you that the mechanism was physically replicated. You must, therefore, accept it as plausible, if you are honest. That's all there is to it.

You have never seen me say 20 million was too expensive for the WTC investigation. I think it was ridiculously low considering what is at stake.

I guess I don't recall where you showed me that the failure mechanism was physically replicated.

 

[R.Mackey]

You have never seen me say 20 million was too expensive for the WTC investigation. I think it was ridiculously low considering what is at stake.

There, I might even agree with you. I'm withholding judgment until I see the quality of the WTC 7 report.

I guess I don't recall where you showed me that the failure mechanism was physically replicated.

Two posts back. I gave you the full citation. Dr. Quintiere and his team physically replicated it with a scale model, and published it.

Honestly, Tony, nobody is this dense.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

realcddeal

post # 43

agree? 700 - 1100 deg C

I have never seen any documentation that household/office fires get to 1100 degrees C. I think you mean Fahrenheit here. I have seen estimates of 700 to 1100 degrees F for households. I'll agree with that.

Regardless, these are air temperatures and it is a proven fact that air temperature is much higher than actual steel temperatures in fires in steel framed structures. Have you ever looked at the Cardington testing done on this issue? The steel temperatures were approximately 500 degree C and this was a frame with significantly less area than that of the WTC. At 500 degrees C steel loses about 25 to 30% of its strength and the factor of safety in the core, the floor trusses, and the perimeter was still a minimum of 2.00 to 1 after the aircraft impacts.

The results of the NIST testing of the physical specimens agrees with historical data of steel temperatures in fire testing, so it looks like something isn't right with the fire induced failure theory.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There, I might even agree with you. I'm withholding judgment until I see the quality of the WTC 7 report.



Two posts back. I gave you the full citation. Dr. Quintiere and his team physically replicated it with a scale model, and published it.

Honestly, Tony, nobody is this dense.

Boy, you really like to huff and puff. I'll have to go to the library to read this paper and see if what you claim about it is true. I am curious as to why it is the 96th floor and not the 98th which is where NIST said the collapse initiated.

 

[e^n]

I am saying there is something very wrong with NIST only getting 1% of the steel from the fire affected areas and that physical evidence is always preferrable to computer modeling.

Of course, how much steel do you think NIST should have recovered?

If that steel had been saved we wouldn't even be discussing this from different points of view. We would know what happened. Why wasn't the steel saved for NIST?

I disagree, perhaps you would be satisfied but the majority of 'truthers' have not even read the NIST report and would use the same claimed anomalies to present the same case even if NIST had ample physical samples showing high temperatures.

If NIST could have at least replicated the fire induced collapse of the floor trusses, which is the basis of their theory, I would not have a problem. The problem is they could not reproduce the failure mechanism they claim physically. Why not?

I was unaware that this had been attempted. Could you cite?

The controlled demolition argument should also be tested for, I am not denying that.

We all know your feelings regarding WTC7, but what about WTC1 and 2? What evidence do you think has not been provided for the 'official story' but has been provided for the controlled demolition hypothesis?

 

[GlennB]

I have never seen any documentation that household/office fires get to 1100 degrees C. I think you mean Fahrenheit here. I have seen estimates of 700 to 1100 degrees F for households. I'll agree with that.

Read towards the end of page 109 of Christoper7's "10 storey hole in WTC7" thread, where examples and links are given.

Temperatures of 1000°C in house and office fires are not uncommon.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Of course, how much steel do you think NIST should have recovered?

All of it from the fire affected areas. I don't know that it was NIST who did the recovery. Do you?

I disagree, perhaps you would be satisfied but the majority of 'truthers' have not even read the NIST report and would use the same claimed anomalies to present the same case even if NIST had ample physical samples showing high temperatures.

I was unaware that this had been attempted. Could you cite?

Ryan Mackey will disagree but it would certainly seem that the UL floor assembly fire tests were about more than just calibration. That is silly on its face.

We all know your feelings regarding WTC7, but what about WTC1 and 2? What evidence do you think has not been provided for the 'official story' but has been provided for the controlled demolition hypothesis?

The antenna drop on the North Tower, before the perimeter roofline starts to fall, is one quick example. Sudden onset and complete failure of a large somewhat non-interdependent steel frame is a circumstantial, although not definitive proof, for CD. It is highly unusual for fire.

 

[Bananaman]

although not definitive proof, for CD. It is highly unusual for fire.

Coo, does this imply some doubt creeping into your mind?

Bananaman.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Coo, does this imply some doubt creeping into your mind?

Bananaman.

No, just stating what that level of evidence is. I do try not to be biased.

 

[R.Mackey]

Read towards the end of page 109 of Christoper7's "10 storey hole in WTC7" thread, where examples and links are given.

Temperatures of 1000°C in house and office fires are not uncommon.

Absolutely correct. Also, NIST's own mockup of the WTC fires hit 1000^o Celsius in almost every sensor location, and one got as high as 1400^oC before destroying the temperature sensors. Appendix C, NCSTAR1-5E.

Ryan Mackey will disagree but it would certainly seem that the UL floor assembly fire tests were about more than just calibration. That is silly on its face.

It isn't even about calibration, it was about testing certification. The experiment was not designed to test large deflections and caternary behavior -- all tests were stopped upon reaching a "maximum midspan deflection" of about eight inches, or sooner. Caternary behavior implies buckling in the truss diagonals, and they explicitly halted before that, since it might destroy the test cell.

The antenna drop on the North Tower, before the perimeter roofline starts to fall, is one quick example. Sudden onset and complete failure of a large somewhat non-interdependent steel frame is a circumstantial, although not definitive proof, for CD. It is highly unusual for fire.

As you know -- or should know, anyway -- the antenna drop was a lean, it only looked like a drop from some perspectives. Totally ordinary.

Really, Tony, you're coming across as very poorly informed, given your long association with the JONES.