Proof that the Trusses Were Sagging

reply to post by turbofan


Was that so hard? Not what I asked for, but its a start. The document you linked to bases its figures on the NIST report, so you could as well have just linked me to that. So what does the NIST report say about it (which was of course totally ignored in the document you linked):

Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.

Ouch. Please try again.

reply to post by wmd_2008


What's your point about the bolts? It would contradict your 'truss sag theory' would it not?

Anyway, there's no need to debate whether the perimeter columns were pulled in, or how much heat was
in the impact zone.

The more important and over-ruling fact is molten metal was found.

If either you, or PLB care to debate the science behind the creation, and analysis of these spheres I welcome
you to either of my threads pertaining to this topic. As I mentioned before, you can hypothesize all you want
about temperatures, but your theories cannot explain the spheres (therefore your theory is invalid).

reply to post by turbofan


The problem is that you claim the temperatures could not be reached in the given timespan. Whatever anyone thinks about molten steel, dust etc is totally irrelevant for that specific claim. Either stop making that claim and just stick to those other subjects, or start supporting your claim. Another study that might be interesting to read:

www.sciencedaily.com...

Building fires may reach temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, or more than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, said Amit Varma, a Purdue associate professor of civil engineering who is leading the work

Another interesting point about the fires cooling, as you were claiming so rigorously:

When you have a floor supporting weight, the floor starts sagging from the heat," Varma said. "It expands, but it's got nowhere to go so it starts bowing down, which produces pulling forces on the building's frame. It starts pulling on the columns and then it becomes longer and permanently deformed. After the fire, it starts cooling, and then it starts pulling on the columns even harder.

Meaning that cooling could actually have worsened the situation.



edit:As for the other subjects, you can point me to your threads about them. I will read it and see if I can make a useful contribution. However, I am no expert on the subjects so all my contributions are whatever I find elsewhere on the Internet, so could also easily be found by yourself.

It seems even your own sources disagree with you.

The floor assemblies tests were important because they were supposed to prove the pancake theory. Yet, despite NIST using less fireproofing on the assemblies than was known to be on the steel in the Twin Towers, and despite their loading the floors with double the weight known to have been on the actual floors, it could not get an assembly to collapse.

The tests showed: Minimal floor sagging; 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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/903fc7aedd79.jpg[/atsimg]

What is not reasonable is the degree of sagging NIST used in its computer models compared with the amounts its physical tests showed. Whereas the 35-foot floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle after two hours in a high-temperature furnace, NIST's computer model showed a sagging of 54 inches.

NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires -- 590,000 MJ of energy
Office furnishings in the impact zone would have provided 490,000 MJ of energy. Using masses and specific
heats for materials heated, a maximum temp in the impact zone can be calculated. The result is less than 600
degrees F. Assuming fuel burned with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left the impact zone, no heat escaped by conduction, steel and concrete had unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Jet A-1; Jet A
Flash point: > 38 °C (100.4 °F)
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)
Freezing point: < −47 °C (−52.6 °F)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
Density at 15 °C (59 °F): 0.775 kg/L - 0.840 kg/L
Specific energy >42.80 MJ/kg

reply to post by turbofan

NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires -- 590,000 MJ of energy
Office furnishings in the impact zone would have provided 490,000 MJ of energy. Using masses and specific
heats for materials heated, a maximum temp in the impact zone can be calculated. The result is less than 600
degrees F. Assuming fuel burned with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left the impact zone, no heat escaped by conduction, steel and concrete had unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Finally you come with something that addresses the subject. You are slowly getting the hang of it. Here are some follow up questions:

Where can I find these calculations? Why was the temperature in the WTC significant lower than what was found in other building fires, without jet fuel?

Originally posted by -PLB-
Finally you come with something that addresses the subject. You are slowly getting the hang of it. Here are some follow up questions:

That's quite comical coming from someone who couldn't click a few links and browse PDF titles to find
the relevent documents. Remember, I had to hold your hand and link the pages?

Where can I find these calculations?

Interesting. The data is found in the NIST report (it's also quoted in the previous reply). You then have
to find the specific heat values for structural steel, and look up the formula on Google.

Actually, here it is. When you solve for Temp Final, the answer will be in degrees C:

Q(Heat added) = c(specific heat) x m(mass) x (temp final - temp initial)

For initial temperature, use the ambient temperature for that day.

Why was the temperature in the WTC significant lower than what was found in other building fires, without jet fuel?

Different bulding. Different fire code. Different fuel loading (as in combustible material) per square foot.

Yawn! - another pointless thread about demolishion theories that convinced no-one - because trufers insist on clinging to whatever is in the realms of possibility rather than probability.

What is beyond the realm of possibilty though is that a group of people would spend months or yrs planning such a risky, high stakes, secretive, complicated operation - and then plan to wait an hour for the worlds media to assemble, photograph it from every direction - and then set off detonators on every single floor! - well not to mention 100 tons of thermate, nuclear bombs in the basement and disintergrator beams just for good measure, whilst phoning 4,000 of thier Zio buddies the night before and making a pile of money shorting the stock markets to boot - then off to a nearby rooftop to hold a dance party!

Originally posted by turbofan
That's quite comical coming from someone who couldn't click a few links and browse PDF titles to find
the relevent documents. Remember, I had to hold your hand and link the pages?

You still havn't directed me to a study that supports your claim. I did not say you were already there, I said you are slowly getting the hang of it. There is a long way to go.

Where can I find these calculations?

Interesting. The data is found in the NIST report (it's also quoted in the previous reply). You then have
to find the specific heat values for structural steel, and look up the formula on Google.

Actually, here it is. When you solve for Temp Final, the answer will be in degrees C:

Q(Heat added) = c(specific heat) x m(mass) x (temp final - temp initial)

For initial temperature, use the ambient temperature for that day.

Why was the temperature in the WTC significant lower than what was found in other building fires, without jet fuel?

Different bulding. Different fire code. Different fuel loading (as in combustible material) per square foot.

edit on 17-11-2010 by turbofan because: clarify formula

The interesting question is what values you put into the equation. So where can I find these calculations? Or are you telling me that nobody actually did them and put them on the Internet? You were for a moment slightly improving, don't fall back in the "go look for yourself" mode now.

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Yawn! - another pointless thread about demolishion theories that convinced no-one - because trufers insist on clinging to whatever is in the realms of possibility rather than probability.

What is beyond the realm of possibilty though is that a group of people would spend months or yrs planning such a risky, high stakes, secretive, complicated operation - and then plan to wait an hour for the worlds media to assemble, photograph it from every direction - and then set off detonators on every single floor! - well not to mention 100 tons of thermate, nuclear bombs in the basement and disintergrator beams just for good measure, whilst phoning 4,000 of thier Zio buddies the night before and making a pile of money shorting the stock markets to boot - then off to a nearby rooftop to hold a dance party!

what's interesting is no one is making this stuff up, it's all documented media news, most from the main stream media themselves, yet their view is not in step with their conclusions. There was no debate on 9/11, they only declared it to be the way the government said it was and they stuck to it. Many of those people have given up the belief that 9/11 was the work of Osama Bin Laden. If they thought that, they'd probably be still after him. The American public is changing their minds about the war, as most of the war supporters either died in the war or have gotten booted from their military careers. No matter how you look at it, the media's views of a slow success was overestimated, as they underestimated the chaos that insued, all while ignoring key pieces of evidence from so called "tuffers" or whatever name you happen to decry upon the doubters.

Originally posted by -PLB-
When does the truth movement come with a theory? All your points have a reasonable explanation BTW.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is a thread that gives a complete theory as to how 9/11 was pulled off. Unfortunately it was placed in the hoax section because of a misunderstanding of the text.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

What's your point about the bolts? It would contradict your 'truss sag theory' would it not?

Anyway, there's no need to debate whether the perimeter columns were pulled in, or how much heat was
in the impact zone.

The more important and over-ruling fact is molten metal was found.

If either you, or PLB care to debate the science behind the creation, and analysis of these spheres I welcome
you to either of my threads pertaining to this topic. As I mentioned before, you can hypothesize all you want
about temperatures, but your theories cannot explain the spheres (therefore your theory is invalid).

Have a look at the drawing and the picture





Study then as see if you can work out why I refer to the bolts

Re molten metal truthers use this picture as evidence of Molten Metal.
Whats your opinion, DOES IT



11.50 pm here now back tomrrow re your spheres!

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Yawn! - another pointless thread about demolishion theories that convinced no-one - because trufers insist on clinging to whatever is in the realms of possibility rather than probability.

Excuse me? It is the so called debunkers who wear their tinfoil hat with pride and keep on trying to push their fantastic tale of special events and special circumstances and special science that only happened on that day. Tampering with the building prior to the attack is a far more reasonable explanation than a string of fantastic coincidences and unique events that only happened on 911 2001.

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Yawn! - another pointless thread about demolishion theories that convinced no-one - because trufers insist on clinging to whatever is in the realms of possibility rather than probability.

Excuse me? It is the so called debunkers who wear their tinfoil hat with pride and keep on trying to push their fantastic tale of special events and special circumstances and special science that only happened on that day. Tampering with the building prior to the attack is a far more reasonable explanation than a string of fantastic coincidences and unique events that only happened on 911 2001.

Did you check out the flame pictures you know the flames you said were not there!! YOUR tinfoil hat may have fell over your eyes then

Originally posted by -PLB-You still havn't directed me to a study that supports your claim. I did not say you were already there, I said you are slowly getting the hang of it. There is a long way to go.

You don't pay attention much do you? I already stated that the specific documents you seek DO NOT exist.
All we have are papers written againt the NIST report. Remember, nobody was allowed into Ground Zero
to perform an investigation. Did you forget that important fact?

NIST didn't even perform an investigation, so you wont see me begging for a study that doesn't exist. NIST
used photos and videos and a bunch of 9/11 'majik' to make up their theories.

The documents I presented fully handle whatever information you need; they clearly highlight faults in the
NIST theory.

The interesting question is what values you put into the equation. So where can I find these calculations? ]Or are you telling me that nobody actually did them and put them on the Internet? You were for a moment slightly improving, don't fall back in the "go look for yourself" mode now.

Aptitude is not your forte. Read my previous response again a few times and see if you can figure it out.

I even provided the formula because I KNEW you wouldn't look for it...yet you still reply asking for answers
which are right in front of you.

Maybe this is over your head? Ask a friend to help?

reply to post by turbofan


Whats up turbo no comment re my previous post or are you thinking its a trap look at both pictures in a logical way

1) The floor connections on the wall up-rights
2) The molten metal ? picture.

Well of to work now on a building site to TEST STRUCTURAL FIXINGS on concrete frame building REAL experience not internet experience BBL

PS Sphere's update later just for you!

Originally posted by turbofan

You don't pay attention much do you? I already stated that the specific documents you seek DO NOT exist.
All we have are papers written againt the NIST report. Remember, nobody was allowed into Ground Zero
to perform an investigation. Did you forget that important fact?

NIST didn't even perform an investigation, so you wont see me begging for a study that doesn't exist. NIST
used photos and videos and a bunch of 9/11 'majik' to make up their theories.

The documents I presented fully handle whatever information you need; they clearly highlight faults in the
NIST theory.

So on what basis exactly do you claim that the temperatures could not have been hot enough? Based on the opinion that the NIST investigation was insufficient? If so, that is a huge fallacy, and you should stop making that claim.

Aptitude is not your forte. Read my previous response again a few times and see if you can figure it out.

I even provided the formula because I KNEW you wouldn't look for it...yet you still reply asking for answers
which are right in front of you.

Maybe this is over your head? Ask a friend to help?

edit on 17-11-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)

I will repeat, the interesting questions is what numbers you put in the equation. How much steel and concrete exactly was heated and why? How much fuel exactly was available and where was it located exactly? If you take a look at the NIST report you will see each individual column had a different temperature. One got hot, another other didn't, yet another was somewhere in between etc. This makes it over all a very complex system to calculate.

What you want is a oversimplified representation of reality. But because you insist, lets start with giving me the numbers. How much energy was available according to you, and why, and how much steel was heated to which temperature according to you and why.

What really shows is that you are avoiding any real discussion. You refuse to link to anyone who already made these calculations so that we can discuss if the values he used were correct. Why is that exactly? Isn't that, the real science, the most interesting part of it all? The part where you can actually proof your are right?

reply to post by wmd_2008


Ooo, I can't wait for your update on the spheres!

I've looked at your photos but cannot imagine what your point might be about the bolts. You can
explain when you return.

As for your firefighter picture, I don't personally associate motel metal with that photo. There are several
others that I deem much more convincing. For example:

[url]http://www.infowars.net/pictures/Nov06/171106thermite.jpg[url]

Originally posted by -PLB-So on what basis exactly do you claim that the temperatures could not have been hot enough? Based on the opinion that the NIST investigation was insufficient? If so, that is a huge fallacy, and you should stop making that claim.

Nope. As explained before:

Available combustible materials & heat calcs.

What really shows is that you are avoiding any real discussion. You refuse to link to anyone who already made these calculations so that we can discuss if the values he used were correct. Why is that exactly? Isn't that, the real science, the most interesting part of it all? The part where you can actually proof your are right?

Again, you make me laugh.

Re-read my previous post. The data is within.

Hint: MJ doesn't stand for Michael Jackson

Hint: YOU need to look up some info on Google, or ask your friend WMD_2008...cuz he's a 30+ year ME!

Just to prove some of you are lazy and can't figure stuff out, I've e-mailed myself the calculations and figures.
It didn't take me long to find them. We'll see how long it takes YOU to press a few buttons and do some
research.

Note the time and date of this screen shot:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/68837b628dc8.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by turbofan


I am afraid you will have to continue playing this game on your own. I am only interested in a serious discussion, not this crap. Have a nice day.