Originally posted by theability
Do any of the na-sayers mainstreamers get that? Do you now walk into any steel framed building and not "recognize" that any fire will cause a complete failure, based off the 'testimony" of NIST report of WTC 7!!!!

No, because this is completely wrong. NISTs report says nothing of the kind and whoever has told you this is lying.

Fire has been known to be a serious cause of structural failure for thousands of years. Why else would steel be fireproofed?

Originally posted by exponent


Fire has been known to be a serious cause of structural failure for thousands of years. Why else would steel be fireproofed?

For thousands of years??? I didn't realize the Pyramids in Egypt were steel structured.

I must be pretty stupid, I guess. Even though my IQ is higher than most, I wasn't aware that steel skyscappers existed for thousands of years. Could you please explain the history of these buildings please? I was to believe that these monstrosities came out of the indrustrial age, but apparently you've figured out that they have been around 100's and 100's of years before that.
WOW! Where have I been?????

Yeah, I agree, fire sucks, but I seriously doubt that fire is smart enough to figure out how to demolish a building into it's own footprint. But I guess, in your mind, since steel buildings and fire have been around for ever, fire has evolved more.

Originally posted by exponent


Fire has been known to be a serious cause of structural failure for thousands of years. Why else would steel be fireproofed?

The steel in a modern .50 cal. air cooled, machine gun gets hotter that the jet fuel was capable of producing.
What should they start making gun barrels out of now?
Without water cooling and oil cooling an internal combustion engine will get very hot, that is a cast iron block. As long as you leave it running and cool it down gradually you have not hurt it. The internal combustion enging uses the same hydrocarbon fuel as the jets do.

Ok... attention to all truthers:

If you are in a steel constructed building and it catches fire..... stay in it as long as you'd like.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
If you are in a steel constructed building and it catches fire..... stay in it as long as you'd like.

Its just too bad it has been shown so many times that steel buildings in the US. do not collaspe from fire no matter how severe.

Maybe you can explain why a fire in the North tower that burned for 3 hours caused no damage to steel but a fire on 9/11 that burned less then an hour casued so much damage to steel?

Heating steel is like pouring syrup on pancakes. It does not stack up it runs off.

Heat a piece of steel with a fire and the cold part of the steel will draw the heat away from the source of heat. To uniformly heat enough of the steel in WTC to cause it to collapse is ludicrous. There was insufficient heat to do this.

Take an empty tin can of corn and put it on top of a bonfire and pour gasoline all over it. Light it and let the thing burn till it goes out on its own. The tin can will still look like a tin can.
Then pile boards and sticks on top of the tin can again and burn it again. After it goes out the can will still be in its original shape.


Plus the smoke coming from WTC was black, which indicates a low temperature oxygen starved fire.



[edit on 6-9-2008 by fmcanarney]

Originally posted by JimBeam
For thousands of years??? I didn't realize the Pyramids in Egypt were steel structured.

I must be pretty stupid, I guess. Even though my IQ is higher than most, I wasn't aware that steel skyscappers existed for thousands of years. Could you please explain the history of these buildings please? I was to believe that these monstrosities came out of the indrustrial age, but apparently you've figured out that they have been around 100's and 100's of years before that.
WOW! Where have I been?????

You didn't read my post. I said fire causes structural failure and that steel is fireproofed. I never suggested that steel skyscrapers have been around for thousands of years, just the effects of fire on many types of construction.

Yeah, I agree, fire sucks, but I seriously doubt that fire is smart enough to figure out how to demolish a building into it's own footprint. But I guess, in your mind, since steel buildings and fire have been around for ever, fire has evolved more.

Neither WTC 1,2 or 7 collapsed into their own footprint. WTC7 was closest as the collapse initiated lower in the structure, but it still damaged buildings around it enough to cause them to be demolished afterwards.

Originally posted by fmcanarney
The steel in a modern .50 cal. air cooled, machine gun gets hotter that the jet fuel was capable of producing.
What should they start making gun barrels out of now?
Without water cooling and oil cooling an internal combustion engine will get very hot, that is a cast iron block. As long as you leave it running and cool it down gradually you have not hurt it. The internal combustion enging uses the same hydrocarbon fuel as the jets do.

You can actually seriously damage your block by overheating it, even if you cool it down gradually, but your point is irrelevant anyway. I never suggested that steel was an inappropriate material, just that is vulnerable to fire which is why it is fireproofed.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Maybe you can explain why a fire in the North tower that burned for 3 hours caused no damage to steel but a fire on 9/11 that burned less then an hour casued so much damage to steel?

There are a couple of reasons, the first is that there was no damage to the fireproofing beforehand and as such the steel was much better protected. The second is that the fire was much smaller in magnitude than the fires on 9/11. I guess a third would be that the fire was also fought and as such was not burning freely.

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Heat a piece of steel with a fire and the cold part of the steel will draw the heat away from the source of heat. To uniformly heat enough of the steel in WTC to cause it to collapse is ludicrous. There was insufficient heat to do this.

This is true, but your explanation indicates you don't understand the mechanism behind this. It is limited by surface area and by temperature differential. Steel is not a particularly good conductor of heat as far as metals go, and in the WTC in all cases the surface area exposed to fire was massively greater than the area available for conduction. There is no doubt it would have heated up. I can do these calculations again for you if you like, I have already demonstrated this at the old Loose Change forum.

Plus the smoke coming from WTC was black, which indicates a low temperature oxygen starved fire.

It indicates it was oxygen limited yes. However it says nothing about the temperatures involved. Black smoke is produced easily by plastics and other materials in abundance in the WTC.

Originally posted by cashlink
Mark Roberts needs to go to school and get a life he of all people is not a credible source.
He think he is going to put a 20 year experience architect to sham with out any education

This whole post is chock full of fallacies. We have appeals to authority, poisoning the well, straw manning. Surely this violates the civility rules or do these only apply to members of ATS? I don't know, but I know that this type of arguing is just sad.

steel is not a good conductor of heat??
All elements that conduct electricity are great conductors of heat.
If it conducts electricity it conducts heat.
Glass does not conduct electricity so does not conduct heat.
Plastic does not conduct electricity or heat.
Copper conducts electricity and heat.
Wood does not conduct electricity nor heat.
Look are you that certain that steel does not conduct heat???
The chassis of a car is steel and is used for the ground of the batttery in a vehicle system.
Surface area of the steel was not great enough to allow it to conduct the heat. You would get laughed out of my sons fifth grade science class.

do the calculations.
surface area, temperature differential, dont understand the situation going on in WTC. How about the tin can?? Explain that for me. And it is obvious you are in over your head here invoking all those fancy sounding logical fallacies.

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Look are you that certain that steel does not conduct heat???

That's not what I said, please don't lie about what I say. Steel is not a good conductor of heat compared to say, copper, or silver, or many other types of metal. You can quite happily heat up a reasonably long iron rod at one end, and hold it in your hand at the other end. The heat transfer will be relatively slow compared to the rate of heating as the surface area for heating is the area of the outside of the cylinder and the area for conduction is the cross sectional area which is much smaller.

Surface area of the steel was not great enough to allow it to conduct the heat. You would get laughed out of my sons fifth grade science class.

If that's the case perhaps you can show me your calculations that indicate the maximum temperature the truss structures could reach. After all if it requires a fifth grade education then it should not be too hard.

Originally posted by fmcanarney
do the calculations.

Which calculations would you like? I can show you the surface area but so far you don't seem to agree with me that it would matter.

surface area, temperature differential, dont understand the situation going on in WTC.

Oh? Could you explain what I don't understand?

How about the tin can?? Explain that for me.

What needs explaining? You're not heating the can up enough or putting enough force onto it to cause it to deform. I assure you if you put enough force on it and heat it it will collapse. What argument could you possibly be making here, that heat cannot damage steel at all?

And it is obvious you are in over your head here invoking all those fancy sounding logical fallacies.

How is that obvious? They're not 'fancy sounding', they're just names given to common logical fallacies. For example, he points out qualifications rather than claims. It doesn't matter how qualified someone is, because that does not stop them getting things wrong. It can be a good indicator of the likely-hood of correctness, but Richard Gage says things anyone can easily determine to be wrong.

Originally posted by exponent

If that's the case perhaps you can show me your calculations that indicate the maximum temperature the truss structures could reach. After all if it requires a fifth grade education then it should not be too hard.

No need to go there. That poster lost credibility when they claimed glass does not conduct heat.

With that aside, the distracting argument that is ensuing pulls away from the matter at hand. The NIST report came to conclusions for which its own data does not support - I'll add even contradicts! It doesn't matter what party of a two-party debate got what wrong. What I just stated is FACT. And there is no rebuttal. The NIST manipulated models beyond the envelope the data showed, and then rejected results that did not fit to their preconceived conclusions.

They stacked the deck...they rigged the results.

They need to be brought on charges - and all the money paid back to the taxpayer.

It's about that simple.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Valhall]

I think everybody needs to get away from one and two personalities concerning this organization. I applied for membership because of my personal TECHNICAL beliefs after studying 9/11 for several years. What attracted me to the organization was that they were NOT trying to push one particular "theory", or trying to make some one believe a certain chain of events, but that it was an organization of appropriately educated people who had found fault in the official report of the NIST and 9/11 Commission.

The point here is that there are many of us, who have spent years in mechanical engineering, architecture, material science/metallurgy who have read the full NIST report and not only find it wanting...but completely unacceptable.

The NIST was tasked with determining what brought down the buildings. They did not do that. They DECIDED what brought down the buildings and then produced a report for that conclusion.

That's not what I paid for. Did you pay for that?


[edit on 9-7-2008 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
No need to go there. That poster lost credibility when they claimed glass does not conduct heat.

Oh hey I missed that.

With that aside, the distracting argument that is ensuing pulls away from the matter at hand. The NIST report came to conclusions for which its own data does not support - I'll add even contradicts!

Please be more specific.

The NIST manipulated models beyond the envelope the data showed, and then rejected results that did not fit to their preconceived conclusions.

They stacked the deck...they rigged the results.

Again please be specific, a citation would be useful. I can't exactly rebut something which is so general.

Originally posted by cashlink
Really! Then why bother posting in here if it is all a fallacy.

I don't know if this is trying to sarcastically say my posts are fallacies, or whether you've misunderstood the nature of my post. Your aggressive post about Mark Roberts is full of fallacies.

I don’t see any of this, if you do please point out where and by whom?

In the post I quoted, by you.

From a lot of your past posts “you” surely have no room to talk about civility rules!

I know this isn't true because I have been nothing but civil here at ATS and the same at LC and JREF. Can you post a single example of me not being civil?

Originally posted by Valhall
The point here is that there are many of us, who have spent years in mechanical engineering, architecture, material science/metallurgy who have read the full NIST report and not only find it wanting...but completely unacceptable.

Do you mind if I ask your qualifications, and a test question to indicate you have read the report? Can you explain to me in simple terms, the initiation of collapse as NIST sees it?

Originally posted by exponent

Do you mind if I ask your qualifications, and a test question to indicate you have read the report? Can you explain to me in simple terms, the initiation of collapse as NIST sees it?

Well sure I can! The collapse - according to the manipulation of their model - was created by the worst case damage model of the jet at the highest speed and greatest strength and highest mass for the plane, the least strength model of the building, and temperatures far in excess of any temperatures sample testing showed to exist in the building. In addition, their model completely ignored the behavior of the central core section, AND ignored the specimens they had collected which indicated the core section fell, pulling down the floors and the outer walls with them and failing the outer floor connections in a downward motion while keeping the core section floor connections intact, for the most part. I could go on, but I've discussed every bit of this in numerous threads on this board...so I'll quit for now.

Now - quid pro quo:

Can you tell me what the NIST report states AFTER the initiation of collapse?

P.S. I am a degreed Aerospace Engineer who has worked for 17 years in mechanical design, stress analysis, fatigue analysis and specialized in the metallurgical side of steel design. I have two patents issued and at least 4 technical, peer-reviewed papers published. I've won meritorious engineering awards for innovation on one patent and a second modeling and software development project I led for 2 years.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Valhall]