• 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 dust

Status
Not open for further replies.
When the force exerted on it became more than it's yeild strength.

That can happen by two methods. Either the force can increase, or the strength can decrease.

I say the strength decreased because of some exotic mechanism, maybe DEW, maybe something else.

You say the strength decreased because of an office fire. OK. Sounds implausible to me, but most people agree with you.

GOOD THING SCIENCE ISN'T DONE BY MAJORITY RULE, HUH?

Some science is collaborative, but it's mostly not. It's mostly one scientist alone in a lab doing whatever they do. If the science is controversial, nobody believes it at first, and some fail to convince the scientific community during their entire lifetime of work.

A specific example is Semmelweis. Nobody would believe him that hand washing was a good idea. http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/hand_background.php
 
It is a known fact that fire can weaken steel. Your incredulity towards this doesn't make it any less of a fact.
 
That can happen by two methods. Either the force can increase, or the strength can decrease.

I say the strength decreased because of some exotic mechanism, maybe DEW, maybe something else.

You say the strength decreased because of an office fire. OK. Sounds implausible to me, but most people agree with you.

GOOD THING SCIENCE ISN'T DONE BY MAJORITY RULE, HUH?

Some science is collaborative, but it's mostly not. It's mostly one scientist alone in a lab doing whatever they do. If the science is controversial, nobody believes it at first, and some fail to convince the scientific community during their entire lifetime of work.

A specific example is Semmelweis. Nobody would believe him that hand washing was a good idea. http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/hand_background.php

No no no! You should invoke Galileo. That's the standard line by woos.
 
Dusty, did you know that crazy people usually don't know that they are crazy? Just something for you to think about.

You also know that "crazy" is a convenient epithet for use in dismissing the ideas of another person.

It says more about the person who would use such a word than the person it was used about.

Personally, I care about crazy people. I don't want them to suffer, even if they are crazy, and calling a person crazy is bad manners, even if they happen to be crazy, which I'm not.

You're just calling me crazy because you like to do that to people who disagree with you. I think it's despicable.
 
I'm almost there. All I need is for you to support your case by telling us how your research has led to the conclusion that WTC turned mostly to dust.

Personally, I think you're a bald-faced liar when you tell us you're a research scientist. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Can you prove me wrong? I really don't think so, but it should be entertaining to see you try.

I won't try. I'm presenting my data for debunking. That doesn't involve following the directions of other people, especially belligerent people.
 
You also know that "crazy" is a convenient epithet for use in dismissing the ideas of another person.

It says more about the person who would use such a word than the person it was used about.

Personally, I care about crazy people. I don't want them to suffer, even if they are crazy, and calling a person crazy is bad manners, even if they happen to be crazy, which I'm not.

You're just calling me crazy because you like to do that to people who disagree with you. I think it's despicable.


Like I said, crazy people usually don't know that they are crazy.

And I am calling you crazy because your ideas are so out of the world ridiculous that no sane person could possibly believe them
 
I won't try. I'm presenting my data for debunking. That doesn't involve following the directions of other people, especially belligerent people.

So how long are we going to have to wait for you to present your data? Thus far you have presented nothing. I wonder why that might be. :rolleyes:
 
Okay, WTC Dust, I'll make this a bit simpler for you.

Let's look at how steelwork responds to fire. I'd like you to tell me if there are any errors that I make. And be specific.

Testing Criteria

Firstly, the lay reader may be interested to learn that there are, of course, formal standards to test the fire performance of structural steelwork.


The general procedures used for determining the fire resistance of load-bearing elements of structure are specified in BS476 series. In assessing the performance of fire protection materials the relevant parts are:


Part 20 Method of determination of the fire resistance of elements of construction (general principles)


Part 21 Method of determination of the fire resistance of load-bearing elements of construction


Whilst BS 476 Part 20 is concerned with general principles and covers requirements which are common to the other parts of BS 476, the BS 476 Part 21 fire resistance testing covers load-bearing elements of construction, such as steel beams, columns or walls, whilst BS 476 Part 22 fire resistance tests are intended for non load-bearing elements of construction.


European fire testing standards have also been published. In assessing the performance of fire protection materials the relevant part is presently ENV 13381-4 “Test methods for determining the contribution to the fire resistance of structural members Part 4: Applied protection to steel members”. This standard makes reference to the EN 1363 Series of standards which contain general information about conducting fire resistance tests. However, as all the procedures for assessing fire protection are currently specified in ENV13381-4, it is this standard which is generally referred to in this publication.


Performance of Steel in Fires

Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The small residual strength then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C (Lawson & Newman 1990). In addition to the reduction of material strength and stiffness, steel displays a significant creep phenomena at temperatures over 450°C. The phenomena of creep results in an increase of deformation (strain) with time, even if the temperature and applied stress remain unchanged (Twilt 1988).

High temperature creep is dependent on the stress level and heating rate. The occurrence of creep indicates that the stress and the temperature history have to be taken into account in estimating the strength and deformation behaviour of steel structures in fire. Including creep explicitly within analytical models, is complex. For simple design methods, it is widely accepted that the effect of creep is implicitly considered in the stress-strain-temperature relationships.

For those who require further information or, as the case may be, persuasion regarding the actual performance of steelwork under such conditions we are fortunate that a predictably large numbers of leading bodies have looked at the issue in depth.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/fire-research/..._meetings.html

http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_1416.htm

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/CIB_W14/workprog.htm

http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fi...rts/KLewis.pdf

Note in particular the strength/temperature/yield grading charts in the final link, which have obvious implications for the structure of any steel framed building exposed to fire conditions.

Practical Implications - Design Codes and Building Regulations


The fire design codes BS 5950-8, Eurocode 3 Part 1-2 and Eurocode 4 Part 1-2 provide the framework for designers to calculate the temperature at which a given steel member will fail in a fire situation. These design methods incorporate more realistic estimates of the applied load during a fire and include the effects of non-uniform heating through and along the member. The design methods are based on either fire resistance, which is a measure of an element to withstand given criteria in a standard furnace test, or natural fires where the size of the fire compartment, available combustible material, characteristics of the compartment boundaries and air supply are considered.

The requirements and calculations so arising are necessarily complex.

As the reader might anticipate, because structural steelwork is at risk of failure in a fire building regulations also introduce fireproofing requirements.

The Scottish Regs, section D, are a bit detailed - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/build_regs/sect-d.pdf - but you'll notice do flag up the need for fire protection in structural components and steelwork.

In England, Part B of the Regs flags up a similar position - its not available on-line free but Corus (who do know a thing about steel) have a useful and relatively non-technical summary at http://www.corusconstruction.com/leg...s_section1.pdf . Some of you will note on page 5 the admission that most unportected steel sections only have fire integrity for about 15 minutes.

The Canadian Regs aren't available on-line free either, but their national buildings institute flags up across all their documents the risk posed by fire and the need for protection - see, by way of example, http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd071e.html .

The New Zealand and Australian steel codes, (SNZ, 1997 and SAA 1990) are very similar to each other. The NZ regs section C4 requires....wait for it......structural protection of steel in fire ( http://www.building.govt.nz)

Summary

It is recognised through empirical analysis across a recognised series of standards that structural steelwork weakens significantly under normal fire conditions, and as a consequence codes require additional protection through (for example) the incorporation of passive fire protection systems.

There is no evidence that such tests are wrong, or that fire protection can be safely omitted due to (for example) the efects of heat conduction throughout the affected members.​
 
With enough voltage, you can cause a large steel bus-bar to either vaporize or fly apart from raw electrostatics -- the process is so violent that it's hard to describe it in definite terms. However, as far as I know that kind of voltage does not exist except in theoretical stellar phenomena...

Do you have imagination problems? By this I mean, is it possible for you to admit that a weapon such as I describe MIGHT exist? At this point, you seem to be the type of person who thinks that if they, personally, don't know about something, that it doesn't exist.

I find that to be arrogant and incurious. Don't you learn things every day? And if you do learn things every day, isn't that an admission that you don't already know everything? And if you don't know everything, how do you know FOR SURE that this weapon doesn't exist? That's a hard thing to know. I don't know how you'd even try to go about proving something doesn't exist.
 


Once someone can tell me what looks absolutely dustified in this picture... I will stop calling the DEW mechanism crazy.
 
Why would a great new weapon be a secret? We've had a couple of wars since then. Why are new weapons being kept on the sidelines?

The last few times the US military has come up with a great new weapon, they were eager to tell the whole world about it. They wanted EVERYONE to kinow "don't screw with us, or we'll uncork this nightmare on YOU."

Who says this was the work of the US military? NOT ME!

Steven Jones will tell you that 9/11 was the work of the US, but then again, he'll also tell you about thermite bombs.
 
You also know that "crazy" is a convenient epithet for use in dismissing the ideas of another person. ...
Your ideas on 911 are crazy. You can't defend them with facts or evidence, and you will not be doing math or physics to explain them in the real world.
 
Given that lightning rods don't get vaporized when they're hit by lightning, we're looking at a pretty powerful energy source. One that could pretty much power the planet if it actually existed.

Why are you talking about vaporization? The WTC was not vaporized. It was turned almost entirely into dust. Dust isn't vapor.
 
Do you have imagination problems? By this I mean, is it possible for you to admit that a weapon such as I describe MIGHT exist? At this point, you seem to be the type of person who thinks that if they, personally, don't know about something, that it doesn't exist.

I find that to be arrogant and incurious. Don't you learn things every day? And if you do learn things every day, isn't that an admission that you don't already know everything? And if you don't know everything, how do you know FOR SURE that this weapon doesn't exist? That's a hard thing to know. I don't know how you'd even try to go about proving something doesn't exist.

You haven't described any weapon, so it's impossible for us to say if it does or doesn't exist. What is absolutely certain is that a weapon able to dustify the WTC towers doesn't exist, as that would break the laws of physics.
 
Do you have imagination problems? By this I mean, is it possible for you to admit that a weapon such as I describe MIGHT exist? At this point, you seem to be the type of person who thinks that if they, personally, don't know about something, that it doesn't exist.

I find that to be arrogant and incurious. Don't you learn things every day? And if you do learn things every day, isn't that an admission that you don't already know everything? And if you don't know everything, how do you know FOR SURE that this weapon doesn't exist? That's a hard thing to know. I don't know how you'd even try to go about proving something doesn't exist.

The burden of proof is on you to prove your outrageous claims. If you can't, there is no reason for sane people to believe you. Can you prove that there isn't a giant hamster in the center of the Earth running causing the Earth to spin? No? I guess we should just assume that it is possible then.
 
Last edited:
You have said that YOUR RESEARCH has led you to believe in "dustification".

Please tell us specifically what this research was and how it led you to this conclusion.

This is a SIMPLE REQUEST. Why can't you do it?

I have my suspicions, but I'd like to hear it from you.

It's not a simple request to explain 9 years of work. Besides, I think I've made it clear that I am presenting my data for debunking, not following orders.

You haven't begun to comment about the data that I've already presented. When you begin to talk about my data, then I will begin to answer your questions. If you never contemplate my data, then you will just miss out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom