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.

 

Fire caused global collapse in wtc7?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Badgered1

would there be no 'heat sink' effect from the steel that was connected, but not in the areas of the fires?


Not much of one, at any rate.

The heat would have to transfer through the bolts and connections, so it really wouldn't matter much how large the "sink" was.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered from doing so.
Motional energy from hot surroundings is spontaneously spread out in cooler systems/substances, never the other way around. The entropy of the cooler system always increases more as it is heated than the hot surroundings decrease in entropy

you have metal to metal contact on EVERY joint and connection, JUST like it was continuous and would do little to slow the transfer

those towers were one big heat sink..THAT'S why NIST ONLY found LOW temp readings on the steel they tested

Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values(600C)
no core column examined showed temp. above 250C
NIST 1-3 p.95,101,132
Paint tests indicated low steel temps(480F)
Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging.
Underwriters Laboratories found that there was no floor collapse.
"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 11th."NIST-p.143NIST-1-3 p.xli,101,132

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133




posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

And for the record, thats not the peer review process.


Technically, you're correct.

But you need to understand what a peer review is about. Typically, they're for checking the accuracy of methods - not results - of a study. For instance, if you're a drug company that is developing a new drug for preventing bone loss in women, and you want to publish the results in a medical journal, you'll end up getting a peer review *before they publish it.*

But since the NIST report isn't a study, but a report on what happened, and it wasn't published in a SE journal, no peer review would apply before publication.

In either case - whether it's peer reviewed before publication or not - nothing is preventing other professionals in the relevant field from critiquing it AFTER publication.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

That makes sense. But I thought some of the connections on each floor were welds.



I'm unfamiliar with the specifics also.

I would think that welds would transfer heat better though - just guessing.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob

There is my peer review?

Here is an example of what I mean...

releasing the plans has NOTHING to do with NIST


As stated above, a report typically doesn't use the peer review process prior to publication. They rely on consensus among the relevant engineering community to validate their findings.

Yes, this is their report, I've read it. And others may or may not comment on it. If there is a consensus about their findings, then you have their answer. To date, I don't believe there's been any formal comments on it, except on these types of message boards.

That's what i said. It depends on the owners of the plans. NIST is prohibited by law from releasing private property to the public. Feel free to purchase them from the owners. They are also not required to comply with your request.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob
we're getting off topic, but I proved my point...ANY evidence NIST has, GOES AGAINST their HYPOTHESIS

No, you only proved you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The tests NIST did with UL support their theory. Bolts being stronger than normal supports NISTs theory.

Please go back and read the actual report, your criticisms are based on ignorance rather than actual failure.


the 'OFFICIAL' story has been in place since the DAY AFTER...with NO investigation

Really? Can you show me who accurately described the 'official story' a day after 911?


and getting back to 7....how does SPOT fire cause total global collapse as fast as an abject can fall through the AIR?(9.8m/s^2)

It doesn't, the failure of large structural frames due to a large impact does. This is why WTC7 collapsed. I'm expecting that you paid as much attention to the report on this as you did the towers.

Don't you think it's quite embarrasing for you to just go around repeating claims you've heard on conspiracy websites when you haven't actually read the report and understood it?



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badgered1
I'm actually scared to use my oven at 500ºF now, lest my kitchen collapse.

Don't let truthers fool you, the official story doesn't say anything about steel suddenly being more vulnerable, this is just ridicule in an attempt to make the official story look silly



I'm no physicist, so please correct me here. If the fires were localized - regardless of how massive they were so superlatively reported to be - would there be no 'heat sink' effect from the steel that was connected, but not in the areas of the fires?

Yes, there certainly would be a heat sink effect. This is primarily mediated by the difference in temperature, and the surface area available.

As we're heating beams here, there is a massive amount of surface area exposed to fire, but only a very small amount (the connections) which is available to wick heat away. Some heat will be transferred, but the overall surface area available is miniscule, and steel itself is not a particularly strong conductor of heat.


If structural steel fails at 500ºF, as we are repeatedly advised by the media, all the steel in the building would have had to have been heated to similar temperatures to initiate a global collapse. Otherwise the non-heated steel would have had to have remained sound.

It did, the collapse of WTC7 was, like WTC1,2, a progressive collapse. The failure due to fire was the expansion of a floor section which broke the connection. This floor section then collapsed and damaged a floor or two beneath it.

This damage left a column (#79) unsupported over a few floors. I won't bore you with the details but the longer a column is unsupported, the lower the load it can carry. As a result, it failed, which resulted in the collapse of the eastern penthouse as seen in videos. The rest of the collapse followed on from this.


Of course we cannot know that it did/didn't as all the steel was removed very quickly from the site.

Indeed, but even if we had all the steel, it was not uniquely marked to indicate its originating location. Still, having more information is always good, and having the steel certainly couldn't hurt.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob

but all the "subsequent reports", are from the SAME people, or organization that ORIGINALLY worked on the NIST report...HOW is THAT a peer review? Little ONE SIDED...don't ya think?

It's obvious that in order to accelerate, you need....'OPEN SPACE' with NOTHING in the way



No, not really. Plenty of SE's and FE's from foreign countries with no possible connection to the US guv in any way have published their own papers on it. Quintere (FE) used to work for NIST and he criticized them - basically he says that he feels like the trusses would have failed from the fires only, regardless of whether or not the plane removed the fire insulation like NIST states in their report. He thinks that truss insulation should be much better. So there's counter evidence that anyone who is connected, or used to be connected to NIST, won't dare to disagree with their findings.

No, he said " no structural components". "Open space" is your interpretation of what that means. What he really means, is that in their report they explain how 7 stories of internal floors failed just as the global collapse began. It's also an engineering fact that as steel fails in compression, to put it simply, it just lets go and doesn't give much resistance to what it's been supporting. In this case, I've read that the failing/buckling columns could only give appx 1% of their original resistance due to the long, 7 story length.

What Sunder's saying is that once they buckled, they were no longer acting as structural components.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
In this case, I've read that the failing/buckling columns could only give appx 1% of their original resistance due to the long, 7 story length.

What Sunder's saying is that once they buckled, they were no longer acting as structural components.


What I find funny is that if you search under my username (e^n) on the old Loose Change forums. I was requested to explain how I understood WTC7s collapse from the preliminary report a good year or two ago.

I gave a surprisingly accurate answer considering NIST had not released much information at the time, and indeed my answer encompassed a small section of close to freefall descent due to the failure of a braced frame section.

Of course, I was a little wrong, and I was quite a lot wrong when it comes to the initiating event, but I find it funny that a layman such as me could accurately gauge the collapses from the preliminary report alone, and yet there are truthers who proclaim tha it is impossible without even reading either report.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by hgfbob
we're getting off topic, but I proved my point...ANY evidence NIST has, GOES AGAINST their HYPOTHESIS

No, you only proved you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The tests NIST did with UL support their theory. Bolts being stronger than normal supports NISTs theory.

Please go back and read the actual report, your criticisms are based on ignorance rather than actual failure.


the 'OFFICIAL' story has been in place since the DAY AFTER...with NO investigation

Really? Can you show me who accurately described the 'official story' a day after 911?


when did Bazant have his paper again?.....9-12-01


and getting back to 7....how does SPOT fire cause total global collapse as fast as an abject can fall through the AIR?(9.8m/s^2)


It doesn't, the failure of large structural frames due to a large impact does.


ummmmm....WHAT large impact...7 wasn't hit by a plane, and falling debris didn't contribute to the collapse...WTC 3,4,5,6 had debris fall DIRECTLY on them....not one had total global collapse....and WHAT do YOU mean "it doesn't" fall at 9.8m/s^2 (are you actually resorting to lying?),

-[NICSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0 s.

It means that as soon as the kink is formed, the ENTIRE building is falling as fast as an object can fall...with NO resistance...NOTHING to slow it

DO YOU UNDERSTAND

and as far as progressive collapse...if there WERE a progressive collapse, WE WOULD SEE IT...there is TOO much weight with the other PH and the HUGE HVAC unit, THEY WILL NOT STAY when vertical support is removed...THAT is PROVEN by the EAST PH falling in when it's vertical support was removed....Progressive collapse occurs when a primary structural element fails, resulting in the collapse of adjoining structural elements, which in turn causes additional collapse. The resulting damage is DISPROPORTIONATE to the original cause...the EPH falling in, WOULD NOT CAUSE a total global collapse of the ENTIRE building, EVENLY at a free fall ACCELERATED rate...THAT WE ALL SEE

the ONLY way the ENTIRE building can ACCELERATE, WHICH IT DID, is with a CLEAR PATH...NOTHING in the way...if there is something there, it HAS to offer resistance, hence, NO free fall ACCELERATION ...as soon as the kink is formed, no mater WHAT position the roof is in, EVERYTHING falls at a rate equivalent to the acceleration of gravity...what causes this?

WHAT causes EVERY perimeter column, which the facade IS attached to, to have AT LEAST 105' VANISH...INSTANTLY, along with ALL the others, to achieve the EVEN decent of the building, AT A FREE FALL ACCELERATED RATE,...

THAT WE ALL SEE



This is why WTC7 collapsed. I'm expecting that you paid as much attention to the report on this as you did the towers.

Don't you think it's quite embarrasing for you to just go around repeating claims you've heard on conspiracy websites when you haven't actually read the report and understood it?



These are MY words,(30 years in building)..any other info is from the NIST reports, and Bazant
YOUR the one who should be embarrassed, DELIBERATELY lying in lieu of an agenda



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by hgfbob

but all the "subsequent reports", are from the SAME people, or organization that ORIGINALLY worked on the NIST report...HOW is THAT a peer review? Little ONE SIDED...don't ya think?

It's obvious that in order to accelerate, you need....'OPEN SPACE' with NOTHING in the way



No, not really. Plenty of SE's and FE's from foreign countries with no possible connection to the US guv in any way have published their own papers on it. Quintere (FE) used to work for NIST and he criticized them - basically he says that he feels like the trusses would have failed from the fires only, regardless of whether or not the plane removed the fire insulation like NIST states in their report. He thinks that truss insulation should be much better. So there's counter evidence that anyone who is connected, or used to be connected to NIST, won't dare to disagree with their findings.

No, he said " no structural components". "Open space" is your interpretation of what that means.

What he really means, is that in their report they explain how 7 stories of internal floors failed just as the global collapse began.


lol...do YOU understand what NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS, means?.....Do I have to answer it for YOU?

They DON'T explain how 7 stories worth of vertical support, DISAPPEARS....POST IT...they ONLY STATE that it happened, 105',... there is NO explanation as to HOW it happens, across the ENTIRE building, AT THE SAME TIME...and , HOW does this ALL happen, within a second, to have EVERY vertical support FAIL, at the SAME TIME, to get the EVEN decent WE ALL SEE



It's also an engineering fact that as steel fails in compression, to put it simply, it just lets go and doesn't give much resistance to what it's been supporting. In this case, I've read that the failing/buckling columns could only give appx 1% of their original resistance due to the long, 7 story length.

please post YOUR source


What Sunder's saying is that once they buckled, they were no longer acting as structural components.


if there is SOMETHING there, it HAS to offer resistance...NO free fall ACCELERATION



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420

And for the record, thats not the peer review process.


Technically, you're correct.

But you need to understand what a peer review is about. Typically, they're for checking the accuracy of methods - not results - of a study. For instance, if you're a drug company that is developing a new drug for preventing bone loss in women, and you want to publish the results in a medical journal, you'll end up getting a peer review *before they publish it.*

But since the NIST report isn't a study, but a report on what happened, and it wasn't published in a SE journal, no peer review would apply before publication.

In either case - whether it's peer reviewed before publication or not - nothing is preventing other professionals in the relevant field from critiquing it AFTER publication.

Start here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You don't just write a paper, study or not, deny peer review, and expect it to be taken as "the word". Let alone aversion of the scientific method.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

You don't just write a paper, study or not, deny peer review, and expect it to be taken as "the word".





Yes, this is what I've been saying.

Consensus among SE's/FE's say that it is correct however.

Like I said, there's nothing stopping anyone from critiquing a paper after it's published.

Anders Bjorkman is trying to get a paper published in a journal at this moment. ASCE? I forget.

The point here is that they will not refuse to publish on grounds that they disagree with his conclusions. As long as his scientific method is sound, then it should get published. After that, consensus among SE's will say whether or not his conclusions were correct. They will critique it, and point errors, if any.

Then, if the consensus among SE's is that he is wrong, it will be rejected. And his paper won't become "the word".

As a side note, I don't think you're aware how a peer review actually works. The reviewers take the info *that the author gives them* and make sure that the conclusions given actually fit the info *that the author gives them*.

Do you see the *weak link* there?

Consensus, arrived at after publishing, is what matters.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I'm sorry but what consensus? I've asked you to post it but you fail to. Link me to anything other than your logic and Then we can move on.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob

if there is SOMETHING there, it HAS to offer resistance...NO free fall ACCELERATION


It did.

About 1%, which insufficent to slow down the decent to any extent that could be seen in a youtube video.

Let me ask you this - Chandler said, or rather his graphs say, that it exceeded freefall acceleration. Since that's impossible, doesn't that speak to the accuracy of doing an analysis from a video?



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by hgfbob

if there is SOMETHING there, it HAS to offer resistance...NO free fall ACCELERATION


It did.

About 1%, which insufficent to slow down the decent to any extent that could be seen in a youtube video.

Let me ask you this - Chandler said, or rather his graphs say, that it exceeded freefall acceleration. Since that's impossible, doesn't that speak to the accuracy of doing an analysis from a video?


Its CLEARLY possible. Throw a ball at the ground, you just accomplished "the impossible".

Please don't debate physics when you are point blank wrong.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

I'm sorry but what consensus?



The consensus that agrees with the NIST report's cause/effect of the TT/7 's demise.

Consensus means that the vast majority of SE's/Fe's don't have a problem with it.

This should be self evident, given the lack of disagreement among professionals.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Its CLEARLY possible. Throw a ball at the ground, you just accomplished "the impossible".

Please don't debate physics when you are point blank wrong.


For a ball, sure. But you "threw" it.

What "threw" 7?



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420

I'm sorry but what consensus?



The consensus that agrees with the NIST report's cause/effect of the TT/7 's demise.

Consensus means that the vast majority of SE's/Fe's don't have a problem with it.

This should be self evident, given the lack of disagreement among professionals.


Where are you getting your information? You clearly don't know how many structural engineers have read the NIST report, you clearly don't know how many have read the supporting and and contradictory resulting reports.

You assume that all or most SE's read the NIST report and are in agreement because they are not speaking out as a whole.

I believe that is called makus upstuffis.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

You assume that all or most SE's read the NIST report and are in agreement because they are not speaking out as a whole.



And you're assuming that they haven't.

But it doesn't matter how many have read it.

What matters is that from the ones that have, the consensus is that the report is valid.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
And you're assuming that they haven't.
I do not make that implication

But it doesn't matter how many have read it.
It certainly does.]

What matters is that from the ones that have, the consensus is that the report is valid.
No source = No thanks



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join