|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
 Posted - 06/21/2007 : 22:53:04 [Permalink]
|
NIST says that the heat from the fires had significantly weakened the steel which led to the collapse of the WTC buildings...
Cut-and-paste removed and linked instead; in general, and for legal reasons, we prefer not to have entire sections from other sites cut-and-pasted here.
j911ob, if you would like to address specific points from the site for discussion, feel free to introduce them here; we'd just rather not have the whole thing copied here verbatim.
ETA: It was Cune who did the editing of this post, in case you had questions or concerns! Sorry for not stating that earlier!!
|
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 06/23/2007 19:41:27 |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2007 : 23:06:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
j911ob, can't come up with anything of your own?
Copyrighted material presented in full without so much as a comment or reference.
|
I meant to put the link. I shall edit my post. I hope you will address some of it. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 00:54:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
Originally posted by Ricky
j911ob, can't come up with anything of your own?
Copyrighted material presented in full without so much as a comment or reference.
|
I meant to put the link. I shall edit my post. I hope you will address some of it.
|
And you will remove this copyrighted material, when?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 11:57:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
NIST says that the heat from the fires had significantly weakened the steel which led to the collapse of the WTC buildings.
But the problem is that the fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation:
“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181
“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180
“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
[...] |
Long rants like this are hard to address. Even harder when getting to the sourced material is so difficult. The version of the NIST I'm looking at says nothing of the sort on page 143 (in fact, it suggests the opposite!). And if I try to find some other report, there are so many that I couldn't possibly figure out which one is the one where, on page 143, it says the above stuff. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 13:52:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Long rants like this are hard to address. Even harder when getting to the sourced material is so difficult. The version of the NIST I'm looking at says nothing of the sort on page 143 (in fact, it suggests the opposite!). And if I try to find some other report, there are so many that I couldn't possibly figure out which one is the one where, on page 143, it says the above stuff. |
Actually, the two quotes from page 143 are actually in that document, on page 141 (page 195 of the PDF file). And the only thing to address is obvious confusion over the word "collapsing." The floors didn't need to collapse on 9/11 for NIST's theory to be correct. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 14:28:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Long rants like this are hard to address. Even harder when getting to the sourced material is so difficult. The version of the NIST I'm looking at says nothing of the sort on page 143 (in fact, it suggests the opposite!). And if I try to find some other report, there are so many that I couldn't possibly figure out which one is the one where, on page 143, it says the above stuff. |
Actually, the two quotes from page 143 are actually in that document, on page 141 (page 195 of the PDF file). And the only thing to address is obvious confusion over the word "collapsing." The floors didn't need to collapse on 9/11 for NIST's theory to be correct.
|
Ah, that explains it. Proof (if any was needed) that without proper citation, real discussion goes nowhere... |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2007 : 18:04:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Long rants like this are hard to address. Even harder when getting to the sourced material is so difficult. The version of the NIST I'm looking at says nothing of the sort on page 143 (in fact, it suggests the opposite!). And if I try to find some other report, there are so many that I couldn't possibly figure out which one is the one where, on page 143, it says the above stuff. |
Actually, the two quotes from page 143 are actually in that document, on page 141 (page 195 of the PDF file). And the only thing to address is obvious confusion over the word "collapsing." The floors didn't need to collapse on 9/11 for NIST's theory to be correct.
|
They needed to sag more than 3 inches though.
Anybody care to address the 1975 fire? You know, the one that burned hotter and longer and caused no sagging of any structural members whatsoever. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2007 : 19:39:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Long rants like this are hard to address. Even harder when getting to the sourced material is so difficult. The version of the NIST I'm looking at says nothing of the sort on page 143 (in fact, it suggests the opposite!). And if I try to find some other report, there are so many that I couldn't possibly figure out which one is the one where, on page 143, it says the above stuff. |
Actually, the two quotes from page 143 are actually in that document, on page 141 (page 195 of the PDF file). And the only thing to address is obvious confusion over the word "collapsing." The floors didn't need to collapse on 9/11 for NIST's theory to be correct.
|
They needed to sag more than 3 inches though.
Anybody care to address the 1975 fire? You know, the one that burned hotter and longer and caused no sagging of any structural members whatsoever.
|
Well, for one, we should ask what the actual facts are re the 1975 WTC fire. It's one thing for some conspiracy site to tell us this, but it's another to provide the real data.
Secondly, the NIST makes it clear that neither the plane impact nor the fires alone would have made the two buildings collapse. Rather, it was the combined aspects of both that led to the problems. So addressing why a fire didn't cause a building to collapse is silly, since no one blames the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 solely on fire. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 12:10:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
They needed to sag more than 3 inches though. |
Which misses the point entirely. And I'm sure that if I took the time to explain to you why the three-inch-sag idea is also a misleading strawman, you'd find some other one-liner rationalization to keep your theory alive in your head. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 13:31:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by j911ob
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Long rants like this are hard to address. Even harder when getting to the sourced material is so difficult. The version of the NIST I'm looking at says nothing of the sort on page 143 (in fact, it suggests the opposite!). And if I try to find some other report, there are so many that I couldn't possibly figure out which one is the one where, on page 143, it says the above stuff. |
Actually, the two quotes from page 143 are actually in that document, on page 141 (page 195 of the PDF file). And the only thing to address is obvious confusion over the word "collapsing." The floors didn't need to collapse on 9/11 for NIST's theory to be correct.
|
They needed to sag more than 3 inches though.
Anybody care to address the 1975 fire? You know, the one that burned hotter and longer and caused no sagging of any structural members whatsoever.
|
Well, for one, we should ask what the actual facts are re the 1975 WTC fire. It's one thing for some conspiracy site to tell us this, but it's another to provide the real data.
Secondly, the NIST makes it clear that neither the plane impact nor the fires alone would have made the two buildings collapse. Rather, it was the combined aspects of both that led to the problems. So addressing why a fire didn't cause a building to collapse is silly, since no one blames the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 solely on fire.
|
Thats totally false.
NIST says that the combination of fire and damage wasnt enough to collapse the buildings. Their theory rests on pure conjecture that the fireproofing was blown off. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 13:33:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by j911ob
They needed to sag more than 3 inches though. |
Which misses the point entirely. And I'm sure that if I took the time to explain to you why the three-inch-sag idea is also a misleading strawman, you'd find some other one-liner rationalization to keep your theory alive in your head.
|
How is it a strawman? Its empirical data that NIST admit to. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 16:26:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
How is it a strawman? Its empirical data that NIST admit to. |
It's a strawman in the same way as the empirical data that the flooring sections didn't collapse during the tests is a strawman. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 17:32:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
Thats totally false.
NIST says that the combination of fire and damage wasnt enough to collapse the buildings. Their theory rests on pure conjecture that the fireproofing was blown off. |
I assume that under the rubric of "damage" we would include things like "damage to thermal insulation," no?
And I think you're wrong in stating that such a thing is "pure conjecture"-- or rather, you're wrong to use it in a pejorative sense. The report states thatThe dislodgement of thermal insulation from structural members could have occurred as a result of direct
impact by debris and could have occurred by inertial forces due to vibration of structural members as a result of the aircraft impact. In interpreting the output of the aircraft impact simulations, NIST assumed that the debris impact dislodged insulation if the debris force was strong enough to break a gypsum board partition immediately in front of the structural component. Experiments at NIST confirmed that an array of 0.3 in. diameter pellets traveling at 350 mph stripped the insulation from steel bars like those used in the WTC trusses. |
In other words, when considering what sort of damage might the building have sustained, they reasonably assumed that damage to the insulation would be included. Moreover, tests demonstrated that this was the correct assumption. I don't understand why this is so objectionable.
They go on to say that| Determining the adherence of SFRM outside the debris zones was more difficult. There was photographic evidence that some fraction of the SFRM was dislodged from perimeter columns not directly impacted by debris. |
Still, after considering some aspect of the SFRM, and running tests, they remained cautious and state that NIST developed a simple model to estimate the range of accelerations that might dislodge the SFRM
from the structural steel components. As the SFRM in the towers was being upgraded with BLAZESHIELD II (CAFCO II) in the 1990s, The Port Authority had measured the force required to pull the insulation from the steel. The model used these data as input to some basic physics equations... The analyses were not sufficient to establish justifiable, general criteria for a coherent pattern of vibration-induced dislodging. Thus, NIST made the conservative assumption that all other insulation remained adhered to the structural components. |
In light of this, why should we not think that it's reasonable? |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 17:41:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by j911ob
How is it a strawman? Its empirical data that NIST admit to. |
It's a strawman in the same way as the empirical data that the flooring sections didn't collapse during the tests is a strawman.
|
It is not a strawman. The NIST simulations rely on the sag. They extrapolated it because it didnt sag enough in physical tests. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Purdue U study supports 9/11 report
