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.

 

WTC construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers

page: 27
16
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

To understand this you need to know the physics of fire,



We can di better than explain the physics of fire.

We can give results from experimental fires, carried out by world wide respected professional fire engineers.

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

The info on this website trumps any statements that you might make about how heat wicks away, etc.

If you think it is wrong, and you are right, then show your work. Explain how the physics of the fires in the towers couldn't heat the steel to cause it to fail in the way that NIST has explained.

Failure to do so is an admission that you have no idea what you're talking about.




posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
In the quest for truth, it should be your first goal to educate those among your group that haven't the foggiest notion of what they speak. To fail to do this means you're not a truther, but a falser.....


1. I don't belong to any "group".

2. Please quote where Anok says these things directly.

3. I don't belong to any "group".



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
In the quest for truth, it should be your first goal to educate those among your group that haven't the foggiest notion of what they speak. To fail to do this means you're not a truther, but a falser.....


1. I don't belong to any "group".

2. Please quote where Anok says these things directly.

3. I don't belong to any "group".


Umm , about that Nutter...

We were going to invite you to the group.

But we ran out of Secret Decoder Transponder Rings

(they are on back order)



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


You do know that they are talking about the gas temperature above the fire and near the steel and not the steel itself right?


is the gas temperature in the fire compartment or near the member [°C];


www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...


Now, you have to show that enough temperature to weaken the steel can be transfered to the steel in the time given from the gas (air).

That is where this paragraph comes in:


According to the nominal fire curves, the Eurocodes provide some heat transfer parameters for thermal analysis to structural members such as convection factor, emissivity of fire and surface emissivity of members. The structural response of the members in fire can be calculated. This ‘simple’ performance-based approach will generally allow more economical buildings to be designed and constructed compared to those designed using the prescriptive approach.



I'd like to see these heat transfer parameters that the Eurocode provides before I can take what you say as gospel. Remember that the air temperature and the temperature of the steel are 2 completely different things.

Unless you think you can melt a steel pin with a Bic lighter flame?

A Bic lighter's flame is at around 2000 F. Steel melts well below this temperature. Do you think you can melt a steel pin with a Bic lighter?



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter


Now, you have to show that enough temperature to weaken the steel can be transfered to the steel in the time given from the gas (air).




Didn't read what I wrote, eh? I said the website contains info......

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Pg9/40 has an easy to understand graph for you.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Thank you for the link. I will see what I can surmise.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter


2. Please quote where Anok says these things directly.




www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Don't be silly, the fact that the towers collapse wave was accelerating and not slowing proves there was no resistance."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"NOBODY had claimed it was FREE-FALL, why do you all still keep claiming this?

It has always been NEAR free-fall, big ass difference... "


Both of these quotes are in this thread, posted within a day or 2 of each other.

Proceed.......



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 



The heat that transfers to the steel will also be transferred through the length of the steel, thus cooling the steel.


So the next time I want to cool a piece of steel I guess I should throw it in a fire? I would love to see you make ice cubes.


Oh dear, I hate to keep repeating this but you are again just showing you have no clue what I said, none at all.

What I meant by 'cooling the steel' is, the spot that is getting HOT from direct contact with the fire will NOT continue to get HOTTER, the steel will absorb and dissipate the heat away from the hot spot along it's whole length and thus COOL that hot spot, which will maintain an equilibrium at a certain temp until the whole length of the steel reaches the same temperature.

Do you get it now? If I make it simple you don't understand, if I make it more complex you still don't understand. Engineers know what it means when you say cooling in the context I am using it. This is what I mean when I say you need to learn some basic stuff before you can understand what it being discussed, this is not supposed to be school but a discussion on the WTC construction and it's resilience. But we can't do that because we have to spend pages trying to explain basic physics and engineering principles to be able to even start to intelligently discus the topic.



Edit, yeah another point you might not be understanding is that objects in a fire will not be at the same temp at the fire itself. Also fires do not continue rising in temperature the bigger they get, objects on fire will always reach a max temp depending on oxygen source.
You feel more heat because there's more fire but the fire is not going to be hotter than it's fuel will burn at. When the max temp of a burning fuel is quoted generally it means the max temp under the best conditions, which you very rarely get in real life, only in controlled situations like a furnace. Office fires get no hotter than your fire place at home, and are cooler than a candle flame.

[edit on 1/28/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Don't be silly, the fact that the towers collapse wave was accelerating and not slowing proves there was no resistance."


Well, I disagree with this statement. I'll let Anok give an explanation. I don't think he ment what he said there, going by his posts in the past.

But, if he did mean what he said there, I disagree 100%.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

"NOBODY had claimed it was FREE-FALL, why do you all still keep claiming this?

It has always been NEAR free-fall, big ass difference... "


I don't see what is wrong with this statement. I'll have to look back, but I was busy looking at the linked paper you gave me first.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Don't be silly, the fact that the towers collapse wave was accelerating and not slowing proves there was no resistance."


Well, I disagree with this statement. I'll let Anok give an explanation. I don't think he ment what he said there, going by his posts in the past.

But, if he did mean what he said there, I disagree 100%.



Thank you. that's all I was asking for. No need to confront the poor soul.

Oh, he meant it. He's confused about the whole issue.

I understand now what you were saying about there being a deceleration component, but the net being positive acceleration.

He will run away from this.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
A Bic lighter's flame is at around 2000 F. Steel melts well below this temperature. Do you think you can melt a steel pin with a Bic lighter?


Hey good one, better than my steel and garden fire idea.

Here's an article on open air burn temperatures...

www.doctorfire.com...


Flame temperatures in room fires

There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hrs. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.


Construction steel testing is based on these tests. These guys think they're gonna erect towers made from material that will just fail from fires in an hour. Funny it's never happened before.

[edit on 1/28/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
The towers fell at 0.8g acceleration. Been awhile so I might be a little off on that figure.

BUT BUT BUT, in order for the towers to have overcome the natural slowing effect of resistance then collapse wave must have accelerated, because the collapse does not slow down.

UNLESS you can agree that the resistance was REMOVED ahead of the collapse wave by an another energy force you are refusing to consider...



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
I was busy looking at the linked paper you gave me first.


More to learn here if you're interested:

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...


Lots of good test results in those various publications.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

He will run away from this.


C'mon we know it's only debunkers who run from the truth...

When are you going to answer some of the points I keep making?
Have you figured out how to explain thermal energy transfer yet, how many time have I asked that? I haven't seen you running to answer it and try to even prove me wrong.




posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Have you figured out how to explain thermal energy transfer yet?



What's the point? It's been proven that you demonstrate a severe lack of education regarding acceleration rates and resistance. I really don't think you'd have the knowledge to be able to discern the right answer.

Besides, real world scientific teast trump theoretical models.

Or do you accept the NIST report, since it employs a high degree of modelling to arrive at its conclusions?



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


This is starting to get away from the generalised topic of 'resilience' but you've lately been making a big deal of heat transfer in steel which is directly related to thermal conductivity.

I've done a considerable amount of working with steel and other metals over the decades so I don't need to experiment to know that steel is a relatively poor thermal conductor in comparison other common metals which is the reason I can heat one end of a steel rod to white heat or higher while holding the other end with comparatively minimal insulation to protect my hand.

Structural steel such as that used in the WTC towers has a thermal conductivity roughly 10% that of copper and stainless steel is even worse than that so, if you're suggesting that the heat would be conducted away faster than a fire could apply it, better think about it a little more


[edit on 29/1/2010 by Pilgrum]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



the spot that is getting HOT from direct contact with the fire will NOT continue to get HOTTER,


Well it will continue to hotter to a point of equilibrium. In other words it WILL continue to get hotter put not indefinetly.


This is what I mean when I say you need to learn some basic stuff before you can understand what it being discussed, this is not supposed to be school but a discussion on the WTC construction and it's resilience.


Well, I would love to sit and learn more but I have to go inspect some thermite welds, but when I get back you can teach me more about heat and steel.


Office fires get no hotter than your fire place at home, and are cooler than a candle flame.


What the hell is an "office" fire?? Are you telling me that all offices are exactly the same and burn at the same temperature and contain the same flammable materials, in the same quantities? I am sitting in an "office" right now. 20 feet away from me is 200 gals of highly flammable and volatile liquid compound, it is in here because its too cold outside for storage. Yet, if it were to catch on fire your telling me this "office" would burn at exactly the same temperature and the same rate for the same amount of time as an office where the 200 gallons of highly flammable material were substituted with 200 gallons of water for the water cooler.

In other words, stop with the BS. There is no such thing as a standard "office" fire. No more than there is a standard length of string.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join