• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC Discussion: Core Column Temperature & Failure.

defaultdotxbe said:
you like to ignore my explanation of that, even though you quoted it in this thread
Click to expand...

Their color illustration on page 31 of the .pdf I linked to, looks quite accurate to me. I don't agree that many core columns could have been severed with an aluminum plane, however - those steel temps, looked pretty accurate. Why don't they say in the .pdf that they didn't test all the columns, when clearly they give colors for all the core and perimeter columns? They left out the severed columns from the color chart...so why not leave out the columns they didn't get a chance to test for temps?
 
28th Kingdom said:
Their color illustration on page 31 of the .pdf I linked to, looks quite accurate to me. I don't agree that many core columns could have been severed with an aluminum plane, however - those steel temps, looked pretty accurate. Why don't they say in the .pdf that they didn't test all the columns, when clearly they give colors for all the core and perimeter columns? They left out the severed columns from the color chart...so why not leave out the columns they didn't get a chance to test for temps?
Click to expand...
you linked to an interim media report published 4 months before the final report, the final report states they could not test all the columns (i beleive it states the columns they did test werent from the impact area, but im not sure) and details how they tested them (with the paint)

and on what are you basing your claim that it "looked pretty accurate" have you done your own temperature modeling for the WTC fires?
 
The NIST models show ceiling temps to have reached or exceeded 1000 C (1800 F). Gee, I wonder where those lightweight trusses are located?

Prediction: 28th will never, ever read the NIST report.
 
Does another CTist need to learn that temp' isn't the sole defining characteristic of energy transfer?
 
Last edited:
"None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degrees C for as long as 15 minutes." NIST p.180

"Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperature experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." NIST p.181

"NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC Towers..." NIST p.142

"All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing..." NIST p.143

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11." NIST p.143

So the whole point of testing trusses that were like those in the WTC towers, was to see if collapse was possible due to jet fuel fires...and in all four tests they couldn't get them to fail. So, why then, do they conclude from the data that they have collected from their experiments...that this is what occurred on 9/11?
 
28th Kingdom- I have a very important question to ask you regarding heat and core columns. How much heat can the steel core columns absorb before you get a life?
 
28th Kingdom said:
How does a steel truss sag? Especially when 95% of the steel columns on the impact floors were only heated to 250C...why were these trusses so hot?
Click to expand...


Why is a separate matter for discussion. The fact is they WERE sagging. You may find having a 150+ tonne airliner crash into them at 500 MPH and spill jet fuel through them that then caught alight in an enormous inferno had something to do with the floors sagging.

-Gumboot
 
What is a truss made out of?


Truss is made of lightweight components working in concert - if you go to
any large warehouse style store and look up will see trusses supporting
roof deck. Problem with truss is that the components being lighter than
a solid beam heat up faster and reach failure point in very short time.
In some cases as little 10 minutes a truss can fail from heat stress. For a truss to fail only one of its components need to fail to compromise the entire
truss. Fire fighters are well aware of the dangers of a truss failure - many
of the deaths especially multiple fatalities are caused by a truss roof/floor
failing during a fire. Remember one class about building construction the
veteran battalion chief giving it made this statement "A truss is perfectly
adequate under normal conditions" , then added "a fire in a building is not a normal condition". Trusses are so dangerous the building codes in state of
New Jersey require that all buildings with truss supporting roof/floors have
a sign in front of building indentifing it.
 
njslim said:
What is a truss made out of?


Truss is made of lightweight components working in concert - if you go to
any large warehouse style store and look up will see trusses supporting
roof deck. Problem with truss is that the components being lighter than
a solid beam heat up faster and reach failure point in very short time.
In some cases as little 10 minutes a truss can fail from heat stress. For a truss to fail only one of its components need to fail to compromise the entire
truss. Fire fighters are well aware of the dangers of a truss failure - many
of the deaths especially multiple fatalities are caused by a truss roof/floor
failing during a fire. Remember one class about building construction the
veteran battalion chief giving it made this statement "A truss is perfectly
adequate under normal conditions" , then added "a fire in a building is not a normal condition". Trusses are so dangerous the building codes in state of
New Jersey require that all buildings with truss supporting roof/floors have
a sign in front of building indentifing it.
Click to expand...
In other words...Never Trust A Truss :)
 
28th Kingdom said:
"None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degrees C for as long as 15 minutes." NIST p.180

"Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperature experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." NIST p.181

"NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC Towers..." NIST p.142

"All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing..." NIST p.143

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11." NIST p.143

So the whole point of testing trusses that were like those in the WTC towers, was to see if collapse was possible due to jet fuel fires...and in all four tests they couldn't get them to fail. So, why then, do they conclude from the data that they have collected from their experiments...that this is what occurred on 9/11?
Click to expand...
so are you claiming NIST drew conclusions that werent supported by the evidence and none of the wrolds engineers or archetects noticed but you did?
 
Its 'out of context theater'!

28th Kingdom said:
"None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degrees C for as long as 15 minutes." NIST p.180
Click to expand...

The key words here are 'recovered'. Not all the steel parts were found.

"Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperature experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." NIST p.181
Click to expand...

Keep in mind a few things here:

1) Panels. Not columns.

2) In excess of 250 degrees does not merely mean 260 degrees. in this test, done via paint cracking, the paint was simply gone above the temps.

"NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC Towers..." NIST p.142

"All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing..." NIST p.143

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11." NIST p.143
Click to expand...

And they would have..if it hadn't been for that darn impact.

[/QUOTE]
So the whole point of testing trusses that were like those in the WTC towers, was to see if collapse was possible due to jet fuel fires...and in all four tests they couldn't get them to fail.
[/QUOTE]

Uh, no. The test was run to make certain that the design did not have any defects. Read up, bucko.

So, why then, do they conclude from the data that they have collected from their experiments...that this is what occurred on 9/11?
Click to expand...

Well, gollygosh. What are the odds:

1) That you are smarter than all the structural engineers in NIST, if not the entire world.

or

2) You have taken a lot of tests out of the context and purpose, twisting both their meaning and results.
 
"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers..." NIST FAQ 2

"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom..." NIST FAQ 2

Besides the clear Doublethink that I have pointed out before...I would like someone to tell me how the collapses could have progressed from the top to the bottom, without a pancaking of the floors?

"As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass." NIST FAQ 6

What are they describing if not a pancaking of the floors? How is the increasing falling mass in this progressive collapse from top to bottom, not a pancake collapse? What are the progressively falling floors from top to bottom doing if not pancaking? Where are the falling floors disappearing to as the collapse progresses from top to bottom? If they are not stacking, than where are they going?
 
Last edited:
~enigma~ said:
In other words...Never Trust A Truss :)
Click to expand...

Indeed. "Beware the Truss" has long been a warning to firefighters, thanks in great measure to the work of Francis Brannigan over the last 30+ years. His work has probably saved the lives of many.
 
Last edited:
"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers..." NIST FAQ 2

"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom..." NIST FAQ 2
Click to expand...
the second quote makes no mention of what failed, merely using the word "progress" does imply a failure mechanism

and ive already dealt with your claim that a non-pancake collapse cant build up mass

its very dishonest of you to continually post these things after youve been shown that they are false
 
28th Kingdom said:
"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers..." NIST FAQ 2

"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom..." NIST FAQ 2

Besides the clear Doublethink that I have pointed out before...I would like someone to tell me how the collapses could have progressed from the top to the bottom, without a pancaking of the floors?

"As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass." NIST FAQ 6

What are they describing if not a pancaking of the floors? How is the increasing falling mass in this progressive collapse from top to bottom, not a pancake collapse? What are the progressively falling floors from top to bottom doing if not pancaking? Where are the falling floors disappearing to as the collapse progresses from top to bottom? If they are not stacking, than where are they going?
Click to expand...
You are quoting the words of engineering experts and challenging their conclusions. I think it's more then fair to ask you what qualifications you bring to the table which lead you to believe your conclusions should be considered over the engineers.
 
28th Kingdom said:
"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers..." NIST FAQ 2

"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom..." NIST FAQ 2

Besides the clear Doublethink that I have pointed out before...I would like someone to tell me how the collapses could have progressed from the top to the bottom, without a pancaking of the floors?

"As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass." NIST FAQ 6

What are they describing if not a pancaking of the floors? How is the increasing falling mass in this progressive collapse from top to bottom, not a pancake collapse? What are the progressively falling floors from top to bottom doing if not pancaking? Where are the falling floors disappearing to as the collapse progresses from top to bottom? If they are not stacking, than where are they going?
Click to expand...

You are having problems thinking what NIST means. You are making up your conclusions base on reading 1984? Why do you have problems understanding the WTC failure? It could be too complicated for you to grasp many of the ideas you are not calling doublethink.

Good luck. Why not look up your words, you seem to be missing what NIST is saying.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Besides the clear Doublethink that I have pointed out before...I would like someone to tell me how the collapses could have progressed from the top to the bottom, without a pancaking of the floors?
Click to expand...

And I showed your Doublethink was flawed.

The collapse was initiated by the inward bowing of the outer columns.

After the collapse started, the whole mass struck lower floors, each floor adding to the collapsing mass. This is often called pancaking by us laymen.

If you watch this video you will see the inward bowing outer columns give way at the moment the collapse started.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom