It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Computer simulation show WTC fires reaching 1000 deg C

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
In reports from NIST - the new computer models clearly show fires reaching 100o deg C over large areas.
I have only just started looking at all this recent documentation from the last few months so I can't really comment yet, but I thought I'd submit it here for people to look at.

I see they have lots of new information with detailed analysis of the steel and also images of steel recovered from the WTC.
For the computer simulation and from what I can make out they actually built mock-ups to test figures.

The fire simulation report is here:

wtc.nist.gov... (50 meg)

The main site for anyone that doesn't know is here and has some fairly recent updates:

wtc.nist.gov...

[edit on 17-12-2005 by AgentSmith]




posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Thanks, downloading right now.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
In reports from NIST - the new computer models clearly show fires reaching 100o deg C over large areas.



So again, we are supposed to "trust the gov't"? Has any private entity come up with the same "computer simulation" results?



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I'm gonna run out and build a structure of reinforced steel , after I procure all the licenses to build it , and pay for the materials and fees , then I'll go get the licenses to burn it up , even though it is my property , and I can supposedly do with it as I please.

Or...I can write,get,.....the software to do the simulation myself , and have the powers that be discredit me for not having the credentials to be correct if the simulation contradicts what their claims may be.

I am going to go beat this dead horse now , I need to get this field plowed so I can plant these bananas.

Damn with all these distractions , I forgot what it was I was planting , so all that is left to do is get drunk and hope it comes to me tomorrow when I wake up.

Oh yeah , I plant the seed of doubt , I am a doubt farmer , who will harvest my crop?.

What we have here is absolutely no control over reality , it is fed to us like nursing babies , then the powers that be give us something like the internet , so we can talk about things , but never fix a damn thing , so that things will never change.

And who thinks things are good?.

1100 Degrees?, it's a bit late , we are already talking about attacking Iran , the WTC whateveritwas will probably somehow be blamed on them as it was on Iraq somehowhichwayorever...
Look up the word "bourse".
But that's another topic altogether , the real one.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by XiNGYaNGFoo
I'm gonna run out and build a structure of reinforced steel , after I procure all the licenses to build it , and pay for the materials and fees , then I'll go get the licenses to burn it up , even though it is my property , and I can supposedly do with it as I please.

Or...I can write,get,.....the software to do the simulation myself , and have the powers that be discredit me for not having the credentials to be correct if the simulation contradicts what their claims may be.

I am going to go beat this dead horse now , I need to get this field plowed so I can plant these bananas.

Damn with all these distractions , I forgot what it was I was planting , so all that is left to do is get drunk and hope it comes to me tomorrow when I wake up.

Oh yeah , I plant the seed of doubt , I am a doubt farmer , who will harvest my crop?.

What we have here is absolutely no control over reality , it is fed to us like nursing babies , then the powers that be give us something like the internet , so we can talk about things , but never fix a damn thing , so that things will never change.

And who thinks things are good?.

1100 Degrees?, it's a bit late , we are already talking about attacking Iran , the WTC whateveritwas will probably somehow be blamed on them as it was on Iraq somehowhichwayorever...
Look up the word "bourse".
But that's another topic altogether , the real one.


A lot of people won't understand what you are talking about my friend, but you are closer than anyone else

While everyone is arguing about something and being completely wrong about it, the whole world around them is falling to crap.

Me.. I chose not to have kids - so I don't have anything to worry about... LOL



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
The problem with what basically amounts to NIST's computer-aided guesses is that the prediction data doesn't seem to match with the physical evidence, and therefore is meaningless. But NIST went ahead and based their conclusions on the computer guesses anyway. Why would they do that, I wonder? Also what matters is the heat transfered to the steel, not the temperature of the fire itself. A 600°C fire doesn't mean 600°C steel.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I've still to see any picture - save one of the end of a piece of steel being raised, molten, from a post-collapse pile - of any steel prior to, during, or after collapse, glowing any color. Only dark, cool gray. Dark isn't hot.



This is about the worst pic of the WTC fires I could find - for either building:



And you can see the steel columns dark amidst the red fire all around them.

Here too:



That's not hot steel. Know why? Those columns are exposed to the outside air. What can you expect? Sure, if you stood in that fire, you might get burned, but that steel is doing just fine.

By contrast:



Hot steel.

Or even a red:



But we just have those finely-cut gray beams, eh. I don't know what NIST was trying to prove by creating some fires in a metal box and seeing how hot they could get them, but the only real heat I've seen from the WTC was coming from underground.

Where's that pic of a crane pulling out a piece of steel melted at the end? I can't find it.


SMR

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
IMAGE:


Here is a video in WMV format ( not from the image though I believe ) HERE

Few links about image and video
www.911blogger.com...
www.physics.byu.edu...
cortez.gnn.tv...

The only problem is though, that the image and video dont seem to match.The video is short and does not show what the image does.But you will see and hear that molten metal was there and they were digging it out.At one point, the fire chief says not to put water on it because it will steam too much and they wont be able to see what they are doing.

I wish the video had that screencap to further prove the molten metal, but it dont.Im sure many will just come and say the image isnt from ground zero, that isnt molten steel, yada-yada-yada
The image is from WTC though as you can make out, but the video does show how hot it was and the fire chief saying it is 'red hot'
I only wish that clip was longer.It has to be from some special, but cant tell what one.I can barely see the logo bug in the corner and all it says is 5 in a circle.

[edit on 19-12-2005 by SMR]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Computer simulation shows Dinosaurs are alive and well

However, physical evidence suggests no Dinosaurs currently inhabiting earth



Just like NIST's research showed that the WTC floors could live through 2 hours reaching 700°C under maximum live load without failing. Does not compute, I guess.

This illustrates the process and its results

This offers actual data obtained from actual samples

[edited to add some more links - all coming from official sources, all supporting conspiracy theories (depending on your perspective of course). Powermongers might have no conscience, but maybe engineers do?]
[edit on 22-12-2005 by Lumos]

[edit on 22-12-2005 by Lumos]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
here's an analysis of the NIST report
911research.wtc7.net...

and it doesn't bode well for NIST

[edit on 3-1-2006 by derdy]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lumos
Just like NIST's research showed that the WTC floors could live through 2 hours reaching 700°C under maximum live load without failing. Does not compute, I guess.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by Lumos]



The NIST tests of the trusses and the fireproofing were conducted in accordance with standard methods. This allows for a baseline to be established.

In reality, however, and the NIST report is quite clear about this, the condition of the fireproofing at the towers was not the same as used in the fire tests.

In reality, the fireproofing at the towers was substantially degraded even before the impact of the planes.



A mock up of the truss assembly after testing by UL/ NIST. Note the thickness of the fireproofing around the truss diagonals and chords.




A typical truss to exterior wall connection. This picture was taken in the mid 1990’s. After 25 years in service note the numerous areas of missing or degraded fireproofing.

Imagine the shock of the airplane impact on that material.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Yay, another sidewinder. Maybe you accidentally forgot to read further:


LumosThis offers actual data obtained from actual samples


so, as evidence strongly suggests the actual temperatures never even came close to NIST's 700°C, the deteriorated fireproofing couldn't have been a problem.


HowardRoarkImagine the shock of the airplane impact on that material.


Why do you bring this up right after you say the fireproofing was basically nonexistant anymore? "OMG, imagine the shock on the nonexistant material! I'm sure it couldn't have survived that!"

Guess you shills all need to wear steel toe caps.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
The temperature of the exterior columns wasn’t the issue. The temp of the core columns was, as well as the temps on the floor trusses.

BTW, have you seen this info?

Pics of molten metal:










[edit on 3-1-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
so i'm confused why these 2 towers, which were damaged in different places, fell exactly the same way (which is a VERY small chance), after only 1 burning for almost an hour and the other for nearly 2? the other flaw in the NIST report, is that they go from impact to initiation of collapse, because if they took into consideration of how the towers collapsed their report wouldn't work out

also how did the top of the North Tower start to topple over, then stop and fall straight down and disintegrate in mid-air....

i'm telling you read this analysis, 911research.wtc7.net...
it blows holes in the NIST report

[edit on 3-1-2006 by derdy]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

HowardRoarkThe temperature of the exterior columns wasn’t the issue. The temp of the core columns was


Jeez, you're right. So then, let's take a look at Mr. Frank Gayle's findings regarding the core columns:


Frank Gayle, NIST Summary of metallographic analysis - Core columns

-two core columns in impact area with sufficient paint
-columns 603 (floors 92-93) and 605 (floors 98-99)
-paint analyses indicate both columns T < 250°C


(emphasis added)

Regarding that NYPost article, it theorizes without providing any specifications other than a temperature supposedly reached. For all it's worth, they could be talking about how hot the air became. Besides, it's contradicting direct physical evidence.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Howard, the fireproofing would not have mattered.

Seriously.

What evidence of heating did NIST find? Oh yeah, around like, 250 degrees Celsius. Not surprising, since steel is an excellent heat sink and there was a damned lot of it in those buildings.

So how much strength does steel lose at 250 degrees Celsius?



Yep. What huge strength lost. Pretty much none.
If only for that fireproofing. So critical. Damn.




posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Computer simulations dont cut it, Im sorry. Computer simulations do not beat real condition testing. Thats where real results are. And of course, computers only give you data based on guideline you set for them. In otherwords, computers can tell you whatever you want to hear.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Well in the paper they show you the conditions they set for the simulation, including the mockup they built. From what it says are they unrealistic?



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Well in the paper they show you the conditions they set for the simulation, including the mockup they built. From what it says are they unrealistic?


Yes. because ultimately, the only really reliable tests are the real world ones. Like building a smaller scale model of the WTC that is proportionatly and anaotmically and structurally correct, perfectly scaled down, ect that can withstand at a proportionate level what all the WTC wasdesigned to withstand, then use a small scale 767 model filled with jet fuel proprtionate, and fly it into the model and speeds equal to size, ect. You know what i mean.

Im not talking about toy models. Im talking about perhaps a two story model with everything in perfect ratio to reality. Its not the sort of thing the average joe would do, its something for the geniuses in all those labs to do But i feel such an experiment could give far better and more accurate info than a computer model.

Computer models are like scientific theories. I can begin to tell you how many time Ive seen scientists of various disciplines go far off the mark because they relied on computer models. especially weather ones.

A computer can never beat true hands on lab work and human observation.

Its more than just the conditions of the data entered. Its the fact that it is a computer program, one that will calculate based on how it is programed to process the data.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Smith, what about the steel actually from the WTC? Did you ever see the testing done on it for heat exposure? The results were much different than these computer simulations and other NIST-overseen 'studies' or whatever you would call them.

The actual WTC steel showed exposure only to pathetically low amounts of heat.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join