WTC-7 Was Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition

[Terral]

From Nice Haircut To Falling On Deaf Ears . . .

Hi CurtC:

CurtC >> Please stop saying that fires have insufficient energy for anything - you're just showing your ignorance of physics. A fire has as much energy as the amount of fuel used. You want ten times as much energy? Just use ten times as much fuel.

No sir. Nice haircut BTW. :0) The fact is that CurtC just pointed the finger at himself and his own ignorance of hydrocarbon and structural steel physics, which just happens to be the first topic presented here. Throwing a million gallons of kerosene onto a fire is not going to melt one pound of 2800-degree steel from any steel-framed network, because the ‘maximum’ temperature of an uncontrolled hydrocarbon fuel fire is FAR lower than the temperatures required to melt structural steel. That is the very reason they build skyscrapers and such out of 2800-degree structural steel. :0) Your second problem for this WTC-7 case is that nothing crashed into the building for any serious amount of petroleum-based fuel to even become part of the equation.

The ‘diesel tanks’ argument is one of the most absurd reaches the Official Cover Story Con-artists attempt to pull out of their bag of tricks, as if falling WTC-1 debris from 350 feet away is going to penetrate WTC-7 walls and find its way to these tanks AND penetrate the tanks AND ignite the diesel fuel. We have WTC-6 standing near the footprint of WTC-1, but that building did not collapse into its own footprint demolition-style. The buildings adjacent to WTC-7 also did not collapse or even suffer the kind of exterior damage you are inflicting on WTC-7.

The “Building Fires Did It” theory is the most ridiculous ‘answer’ to this WTC-7 case than anyone here can imagine, OR begin to try and defend. Science and Math were always two of my favorite ‘straight-A’ subjections. So please forgive if your attempts to criticize my intelligence falls on deaf ears . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[DGM]

Terral:
Why do the fire proof steel buildings?

I actually want you to keep posting. Lurkers are abandoning the 911 "truth" movement with every one of your deluded posts.

Oh BTW your "thesis" does not even come close to proving anything (either one). Keep up your fine work, your what your "movement" calls disinfo (do you work for Bush?).

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The fact is that CurtC just pointed the finger at himself and his own ignorance of hydrocarbon and structural steel physics, which just happens to be the first topic presented here. Throwing a million gallons of kerosene onto a fire is not going to melt one pound of 2800-degree steel from any steel-framed network, because the ‘maximum’ temperature of an uncontrolled hydrocarbon fuel fire is FAR lower than the temperatures required to melt structural steel. That is the very reason they build skyscrapers and such out of 2800-degree structural steel.

Why does the steel have to melt to explain the collapse?

 

[Terral]

Heat Is An Excellent Conductor Of Heat. Period.

Hi Fred with X mentioned:

Fred >> [X] has already refuted this in terms of the thermodynamics, but let me just add that Terral's ignorance on this point is glaring. Steel is a crappy conductor of heat. I work for a company that makes all manner of thermal management products i.e. heat sinks, and not once in the company's 30+ year history have they made the part of the heat sink that carries the heat out of any kind of steel.

Before presenting my case: How many here agree with Fred that steel is a ‘crappy’ conductor of heat? Anyone? :0) My thinking is that Fred is standing completely alone in his ‘crappy’ statement and his assertions of Terral’s ignorance. What in the world is going on here when steel (the best conductor of heat) is transformed into a crappy conductor of heat? This information can be taken from anywhere, but I will use the encyclopedia:

Online Encyclopedia:

Flow of heat energy (see energy transfer) through a material without the movement of any part of the material itself (compare conduction, electrical). Heat energy is present in all materials in the form of the kinetic energy of their constituent vibrating particles, and may be conducted from one particle to the next in the form of this vibration.

Different materials conduct heat at different rates. This rate is called the thermal conductivity. A good conductor of heat, such as steel, will have a high thermal conductivity and a poor conductor of heat, such as air, will have a low thermal conductivity. In general, non-metals, such as wood or glass, are poor conductors of heat.

Now, I can bore you to tears with technical data, or you can listen to another building professional trained specifically in this area here.

AdvancedEnergy.Org

Arnie Katz >> . . . Other attractive features of steel framing include the fact that it doesn't burn; it is inert (doesn't give off terpenes which some wood species do and which some people are allergic to); and it is not attractive to insects.

So what's the catch? The biggest problem is the energy issue. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. It's such a good conductor, in fact, that if you replace wood framing with steel framing it reduces the insulation value of the wall by as much as 40-50%. According to ASHRAE (the national Engineering Society), a 2x6 wall, with wood studs spaced every 24", with R-19 insulation between the studs, has an R-value of R-16 (for studs and cavities, excluding sheathing, etc.). If you replace the wood with steel, the R-value goes down to R-8.6, a reduction of 46%.

Now, if we go back to my original statement that my distinguished debating adversary is attempting to ‘debunk’ (heh), then we find:

Terral Original (my highlights) >> The third problem is that steel is an excellent conductor of heat and any steel-framed network would disperse the heat much more quickly than any building fire could raise the temperature to anywhere near ‘steel-softening’ temperatures.

This expert says, “Steel is an excellent conductor of heat.” I say, “Steel is an excellent conductor of heat,” but somehow I am ignorant and these bozo’s saying “steel is a crappy conductor of heat” really and truly believe in their heart of hearts that they are proving ‘my’ ignorance. :0) Now ‘some’ of you understand why we see so many old fashioned smiley faces :0) appear in my posts, because I swear one of these guys is going to make me lose a rib laughing so hard . . .

But, guess what? In X’s and Fred’s universe, steel is still a crappy (nice scientific term) conductor of heat no matter what anyone says. :0)

GL,

Terral

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Terral: How come you keep ignoring important questions?

 

[1337m4n]

So can we say that it has been established that Terral doesn't even know what a "thermite shaped charge" is or how one is supposed to work?

Here. Enlighten yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_charge#The_explosive

For optimum penetration, a high explosive having a high detonation velocity and pressure is normally chosen. The most common explosive used in high performance anti-armour warheads is HMX (octogen), though it is never used on its own, as it would be too sensitive. It is normally compounded with a few percent of some type of plastic binder, such as in the plastic bonded explosive (PBX) LX-14, or with another less-sensitive explosive, such as TNT, with which it forms Octol. Other common explosives are RDX-based compositions, again either as PBXs or mixtures with TNT (to form Composition B and the Cyclotols) or wax (Cyclonites). Some explosives incorporate powdered aluminium to increase their blast and detonation temperature, but this addition generally results in decreased performance of the shaped charge. There has been research into using the very-high-performance but sensitive explosive CL-20 in shaped-charge warheads, but, at present, due to its sensitivity, this has been in the form of the PBX composite LX-19 (CL-20 and Estane binder).

Now it's up to you to tell us how you could make this work with thermite.

As has been said, thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. It'd be like trying to use napalm to bring down the Towers.

 

[332nd]

Hi Fred with X mentioned:




Before presenting my case: How many here agree with Fred that steel is a ‘crappy’ conductor of heat? Anyone? :0) My thinking is that Fred is standing completely alone in his ‘crappy’ statement and his assertions of Terral’s ignorance. What in the world is going on here when steel (the best conductor of heat) is transformed into a crappy conductor of heat? This information can be taken from anywhere, but I will use the encyclopedia:

Online Encyclopedia:




Now, I can bore you to tears with technical data, or you can listen to another building professional trained specifically in this area here.

AdvancedEnergy.Org



Now, if we go back to my original statement that my distinguished debating adversary is attempting to ‘debunk’ (heh), then we find:




This expert says, “Steel is an excellent conductor of heat.” I say, “Steel is an excellent conductor of heat,” but somehow I am ignorant and these bozo’s saying “steel is a crappy conductor of heat” really and truly believe in their heart of hearts that they are proving ‘my’ ignorance. :0) Now ‘some’ of you understand why we see so many old fashioned smiley faces :0) appear in my posts, because I swear one of these guys is going to make me lose a rib laughing so hard . . .

But, guess what? In X’s and Fred’s universe, steel is still a crappy (nice scientific term) conductor of heat no matter what anyone says. :0)

GL,

Terral

Silver, copper, gold, aluminum, and bronze are are all better conductors of heat. Do you have the stats that show the conductivity of steel would be enough to stop the collapse?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Throwing a million gallons of kerosene onto a fire is not going to melt one pound of 2800-degree steel from any steel-framed network, because the ‘maximum’ temperature of an uncontrolled hydrocarbon fuel fire is FAR lower than the temperatures required to melt structural steel.

It sounds like you do not understand the difference between heat and temperature.

That is the very reason they build skyscrapers and such out of 2800-degree structural steel.

Then why do they bother to apply fireproofing material to the steel if it is so resistant to the heat of a typical building fire?

As a related question, if an applied fireproofing is only rated for 3 hours, what happens on the fourth hour?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Before presenting my case: How many here agree with Fred that steel is a ‘crappy’ conductor of heat?

I do.

If iron and steel is such a good conductor of heat, then I would be burning the seasoning off my favorite cast iron pan every time I use it.

 

[DGM]

I do.

If iron and steel is such a good conductor of heat, then I would be burning the seasoning off my favorite cast iron pan every time I use it.

Count me and every fire fighter in. Ask a fire fighter which building type, wood or steel would the rather enter and it will be wood hands down.

Any bets Terral has no idea why?

 

[Pardalis]

 

[CurtC]

The fact is that CurtC just pointed the finger at himself and his own ignorance of hydrocarbon and structural steel physics, which just happens to be the first topic presented here. Throwing a million gallons of kerosene onto a fire is not going to melt one pound of 2800-degree steel from any steel-framed network,

Thanks for making my point. Instead of investigating to find out if just maybe your understanding of physics is incorrect, you go on to accuse me of getting it wrong, while then showing exactly the way you misunderstand basic physics. My point was that energy is a different thing from temperature. In the same way that distance is a separate idea from time. Twice as much fuel yeilds twice as much energy. Please stop saying that hydrocarbon fires don't have the energy to melt steel - that makes no sense.

Before presenting my case: How many here agree with Fred that steel is a ‘crappy’ conductor of heat? Anyone?

Well, let's look at the data and then I'll tell you whether I agree. Hmmm,

Silver: 406 W/mK
Copper: 385
Gold: 314
Aluminum: 205
Steel: 50.2

Yep, I'll agree - steel is a crappy conductor of heat.

 

[DGM]

I love how Terral says steel is an excellent conductor of heat then to prove it he compares it to wood. Yup, I got to say it is better then wood. The mental gymnastics some people will go through to support their fantasies.

 

[ferd burfle]

Well, let's look at the data and then I'll tell you whether I agree. Hmmm,

Silver: 406 W/mK
Copper: 385
Gold: 314
Aluminum: 205
Steel: 50.2

Yep, I'll agree - steel is a crappy conductor of heat.

Thanks, Curt, I should have offered some numbers to back my assertion.

Ferd

 

[MIKILLINI]

Terral, so far you have shown yourself to be a crappy conductor of facts.

 

[ferd burfle]

Hi Fred with X mentioned:


But, guess what? In X’s and Fred’s universe, steel is still a crappy (nice scientific term) conductor of heat no matter what anyone says. :0)

GL,

Terral

Terral, the handle is ferd, not Fred, thanks very much. And in terms of dissipating the heat of the fires, steel simply doesn't have the thermal conductivity. You're asserting that it does, so please show the thermal analysis that shows the steel distributing the heat of the fires throughout the rest of the steel structure. I say you won't even try, because if you did, the results would prove another one of your "points" wrong.

Ferd

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The fact is that CurtC just pointed the finger at himself and his own ignorance of hydrocarbon and structural steel physics, which just happens to be the first topic presented here. Throwing a million gallons of kerosene onto a fire is not going to melt one pound of 2800-degree steel from any steel-framed network, because the ‘maximum’ temperature of an uncontrolled hydrocarbon fuel fire is FAR lower than the temperatures required to melt structural steel. That is the very reason they build skyscrapers and such out of 2800-degree structural steel.

Why does the steel have to melt to explain the collapse?

Ok, since Terral seeks to avoid the issue, I might as well get the answer out for posterity. That way, bystanders will understand the truth:

Steel does not have to melt to explain the collapse. It never did. Once again, Terral misrepresents the conditions of the day in order to make his arguments. Fires in the building weakened - not melted, weakened - the steel structural members. No one ever said they melted. No one besides Terral here claims that melting steel caused the collapses. When the fires reached around 1000 degrees C - the temp NIST reports as the maximum "upper layer air temperatures" (fire experts and engineers can educate me in a later post as to why that's phrased that way) - the steel supports had only around 10% of their normal strength.

You'll notice nearly all his other claims are handwaving about temperature (oh, for the record, a burning fire gives off a certain amount of joules, and the temperature that is reached depends on many factors, including the heat's ability to escape. There was more than enough fuel in terms of office contents to create a very long, very big, very hot fire. Ask Lefty Sargent, NYCEMT86, Hamradioguy, or any of the other firefighters in this forum). His verbiage is just a repeat of how high a temperature it takes to melt steel, and that's all it is. That doesn't apply to the collapses, since it didn't take steel melting for that to occur.

... one of the most absurd reaches the Official Cover Story Con-artists attempt to pull out of their bag of tricks, as if falling WTC-1 debris from 350 feet away is going to penetrate WTC-7 walls and find its way to these tanks AND penetrate the tanks AND ignite the diesel fuel. We have WTC-6 standing near the footprint of WTC-1, but that building did not collapse into its own footprint demolition-style. The buildings adjacent to WTC-7 also did not collapse or even suffer the kind of exterior damage you are inflicting on WTC-7.

Very wordy argument from incredulity. Notice that in the graphic Terral links, WTC 6 was labeled "heavily damaged", and in fact, as noted in another debris map, was considered in danger of collapse. He merely ridicules the 350 foot figure without considering that this knowledge is from surveys and documented. Consider the fact that the Verizon Building actually received damaged from WTC 2 debris, and that's an even bigger distance.

When you read Terral try to ridicule impact debris damage in WTC 7 from the main towers collapses, understand that it was also a 47 story building on its own, that the towers themselves were over 1300 ft tall, and debris from that height could easily reach the south face of WTC 7 (http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm; scroll down to debris field map). Understand that the American Express building, Bankers Trust, and 90 West buildings all also were hit by debris, and all also were roughly equivalent distances from one or the other tower as WTC 7 was (overhead image).

Did the diesel fuel have any impact on the fires? Unknown. Evidence argues against it; according to the journal Professional Safety, May 2002, in the article "SH&E at Ground Zero":

72,000 gallons of diesel fuel were stored in a tank (on basement level 7) for the WTC complex backup generator/power systems. Final status: The tank was eventually located and inspected. Although slightly damaged, no leaks were found. The fuel was removed.

Some of that was discussed in this thread here, and apparently NIST doesn't think the diesel contributed all that much to the fires either. So assuming that the fuel recovered was for the generators in WTC 7, we can ignore whatever effect it might have had and concentrate on the fires fueled by the office contents alone. But that's all a side trip; Terral's main point of incredulity was over the distance and that supposedly miraculous chain of "penetrate WTC-7 walls and find its way to these tanks AND penetrate the tanks AND ignite the diesel fuel" red herring. That this chain of events is probable once you establish that debris can reach that far - and again, 1,300+ foot tall building - is irrelevant in the light of the fuel recovery. The overall point here is that main tower debris hitting WTC 7 is an established and documented fact, regardless of Terral's attempts at incredulous yet unsupported arguments to the contrary.

 

[X]

But, guess what? In X’s and Fred’s universe, steel is still a crappy (nice scientific term) conductor of heat no matter what anyone says. :0)

GL,

Terral

1) All I did was show that it is entirely possible to heat a section of steel substantially without having to heat the whole thing. If you apply adiabatic (ideal) insulation along the whole length, leaving only the end exposed, you will get heat transfer that is purely conductive along the full length of the steel. Thus, you will get a constant heat flux (q"). But heat flux depends on having a temperature differential. The end being heated is therefore hotter than an point an arbitrary distance away from it. And if the steel is not adiabatically insulated, you will get radiative and convective heat transfer, reducing heat flux (q") as you get further away from the source. This is the principle by which things called "fins" work. You now, the ones you see on air-cooled engines, like motorcycles and old airplanes.
Your claim shows an ignorance of thermodynamics that would be appalling in any field that uses thermal science.

2) I never claimed "crappy conductor of heat", bu I will comment on it: Steel is a mixture of iron and carbon (and sometimes traces of other useful elements). As such, it is a metal. As a metal, it will naturally have a pretty darn good electrical and thermal conductivity. As far as metals go, however, (and what Fred and Curt were referring to), it's pretty lousy.
Curt already posted a comparison, but here's a longer one.
http://www.engineersedge.com/properties_of_metals.htm
Follow the link. Find steel. Compare it to other metals. It's at the lower end of the spectrum.

 

[1337m4n]

Thanks for making my point. Instead of investigating to find out if just maybe your understanding of physics is incorrect, you go on to accuse me of getting it wrong, while then showing exactly the way you misunderstand basic physics. My point was that energy is a different thing from temperature. In the same way that distance is a separate idea from time. Twice as much fuel yeilds twice as much energy. Please stop saying that hydrocarbon fires don't have the energy to melt steel - that makes no sense.





Well, let's look at the data and then I'll tell you whether I agree. Hmmm,

Silver: 406 W/mK
Copper: 385
Gold: 314
Aluminum: 205
Steel: 50.2

Yep, I'll agree - steel is a crappy conductor of heat.

Now if the WTC had been
made of diamond, on the other hand...

 

[Atonement]

I happen to be one of the lurkers a few people have mentioned they're trying to convince as opposed to the thread starter. I've watched Loose Change and Zeitgeist and a few others out of curiosity. I don't take stuff like that at face value, but at the same time I never took the time (out of laziness/didn't know where to start) to actually research 9/11 enough to draw my own educated conclusions. I just wanted to throw down some thanks to everyone here who has taken the time and worked hard. It's been very informative.