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.

 

Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly repr

page: 79
420
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


IF the temps did reach even a 1000C in an hour, it is not enough time to transfer that heat to enough steel to cause complete failure.

The whole top section could have melted, it would still not cause the bottom section that was not on fire to collapse.

Those core columns were 4 inches thick. Even if the surface of the steel reached 1000C you still to transfer that heat through the 4" thick steel to heat the whole column through. Then you have all the sections that didn't reach that temp, or get hot at all. A building isn't going to completely, and instantly, collapse from a few heated columns, even IF they completely failed.

Why didn't the WTC collapse from the 1975 fire that started on the 11th and spread up to the 19th?

whatreallyhappened.com...

Why didn't the WTC collapse from the 1993 bombing that opened a 30m wide hole though four sub-levels?

en.wikipedia.org...

This is where you reply with 'they didn't have planes slam into them'




posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
IF the temps did reach even a 1000C in an hour, it is not enough time to transfer that heat to enough steel to cause complete failure.

Well we can check with NIST again for this, I mentioned the tests on a previous page, and could show you graphs, but suffice to say that indeed there was plenty of time for uninsulated steel to reach high temperatures. We can refer to the Cardington tests for this if you like as they are independent:


As you can see, as long as the steel is unprotected, then it will follow the fire temperature quite closely. This should also be pretty intuitive, as steel is a reasonable thermal conductor, most metals of this kind are. It's also potentially important to note that heat flux is dependent on the difference in temperature between two sections. It's not entirely unreasonable to do ballpark calculations for idealised steel sections, but I leave that to you to determine if it's needed.


The whole top section could have melted, it would still not cause the bottom section that was not on fire to collapse.

I really don't want to discuss anything more than just aircraft impact and fire at the moment, we'll get to the rest after we've sorted out disagreements about the start



Those core columns were 4 inches thick. Even if the surface of the steel reached 1000C you still to transfer that heat through the 4" thick steel to heat the whole column through. Then you have all the sections that didn't reach that temp, or get hot at all. A building isn't going to completely, and instantly, collapse from a few heated columns, even IF they completely failed.

I totally agree, the WTC's collapse was a long process which was only really discovered after the fact by analysing the photo evidence. You can see floors failing over time, windows breaking and fires moving around the structure. Like I said though, I don't want to argue this cause we'll just get sidetracked.


Why didn't the WTC collapse from the 1975 fire that started on the 11th and spread up to the 19th?

It attacked fully fireproofed steel, and was not as severe as the fire on 9/11 by quite a large margin.


Why didn't the WTC collapse from the 1993 bombing that opened a 30m wide hole though four sub-levels?

It didn't take out any core columns, which provided support for about half the gravity loads. I don't know what would happen if it had, I don't know if this has ever been simulated. Not sure it would cause collapse but it certainly would not be good for the building.


This is where you reply with 'they didn't have planes slam into them'

To be fair, could you blame me? It's true that they didn't have planes fly into them. This results in a lot of things, structural, electrical, plumbing and fireproofing damage, almost instant ignition of fires over several floors, and the addition of some extra fuel too.

The biggest difference is of course the fireproofing, and the fireproofing being dislodged is quite critical to NISTs case, which is why I included it in the previous list.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Of 270 examined core columns only three had temps of over 250C., and they showed no temps over 600C for any significant time.




Am I missing something? Is there an additional 270 core columns I'm missing somewhere? What I read in their report is:

"A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC1 and WTC2."

Of those:

"The original, as-built locations of 42 recovered perimeter panels and 12 recovered core columns were determined, based on markings and geometry of the columns."



Originally posted by exponent

Unfortunately those 270 weren't from actual fire regions, and NIST never actually recovered any column they predicted to have high temperatures, so if they had found some they would have had to correct their theory. I agree that this sucks and doesn't help NISTs case, but they can't be blamed for not inspecting steel they didn't have.



Of the 12 columns, "(t)wo of the core columns with as-built locations in the fire-affected floors were examined for paint cracking."


Also with the use of the number 270 I'm not sure if you two were talking about all columns or just the core, so I'm adding the exterior columns that were on the fire affected floors:

1. Panel K-1, WTC 1, column 210, flange and inner web of 98th floor region. This "experienced varying degrees of fire exposure for a minimum of 31 cumulative minutes in this area."

2. Panel K-2, WTC 1, column 236, 93rd spandrel. This had "fire exposure for nine cumalative minutes prior to collapse."

3. Panel N-8, WTC 1, column 143, seat and standoff plates of the 99th floor. This was "exposed to fire for a minimum of 18 cumulative minutes before collapse."


And yes I agree that NIST can't be blamed for not inspecting steel they didn't have, but I do believe they can be blamed for keeping so few samples that they could not be "considered representative of general conditions in the core."



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
And yes I agree that NIST can't be blamed for not inspecting steel they didn't have, but I do believe they can be blamed for keeping so few samples that they could not be "considered representative of general conditions in the core."

I don't know what this is really accusing anyone of, but I was perhaps a little too sparse with information in my previous post. It's true that NIST did recover a few columns from fire floors, but what I was trying to show is that these columns don't hurt NISTs simulation in any way, they don't contradict with it at all as far as I know.

Cheers for the correction, lets hope Bsbray or ANOK come back.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you think NIST actually proved something about the WTC collapses? If so, what?

Well lets start with the early and simple stuff. I think NIST proved sufficiently that:
  • WTC workstations would readily burn and produce temperatures significant enough to damage steel
  • These temperatures were maintained for a long enough period to affect the steel
  • Steel with damaged insulation would heat up very quickly
  • Insulation damage was very likely


Any disagreement?


No disagreement as long as you can show the tests/data NIST uses to justify these statements.

Is that too much to ask?



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
No disagreement as long as you can show the tests/data NIST uses to justify these statements.

Is that too much to ask?

They're all in the report, i've quoted some of them on the previous pages and detailed which reports to look at.

It would be pointless me excerpting extensive sections, as they're all free to download and there are plenty of summary versions with non-technical sections.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
No disagreement as long as you can show the tests/data NIST uses to justify these statements.

Is that too much to ask?

They're all in the report, i've quoted some of them on the previous pages and detailed which reports to look at.

It would be pointless me excerpting extensive sections, as they're all free to download and there are plenty of summary versions with non-technical sections.


I hardly find it pointless to post the data that justifies what you claim NIST shows.

I already know that the temperature and heat data you're talking about isn't as extreme as you're probably going to try to make it out later in the discussion, and I also know that they tested their "impacts knocked the fireproofing off" theory by shooting at spray-on fireproofing with a shot gun. So already you see why this has critical relevance.

If you don't want to carry your burden anymore, just drop your whole argument.


And more specifically when you post an image be sure to include a reference to the part of the report it came from so we can post the methodologies behind the data it shows and etc. Remember you can melt steel in a furnace, or with a generator with enough wattage, so where will we draw the line? We still have the Cardington tests to compare data.

edit on 12-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I already know that the temperature and heat data you're talking about isn't as extreme as you're probably going to try to make it out later in the discussion, and I also know that they tested their "impacts knocked the fireproofing off" theory by shooting at spray-on fireproofing with a shot gun. So already you see why this has critical relevance.

We've been through this before, and I've told you how you're misrepresenting the situation. I'm not about to go posting essentially the entire NIST report in this thread just so you don't have to go and download it and quote bits you aren't happy with.

If you want to disagree with something, disagree with it specifically, rather than acting as if it is above you to read a few pages of a document.

edit:

And more specifically when you post an image be sure to include a reference to the part of the report it came from so we can post the methodologies behind the data it shows and etc. Remember you can melt steel in a furnace, or with a generator with enough wattage, so where will we draw the line? We still have the Cardington tests to compare data.

I posted a result from the Cardington test above, sufficient to prove #3, agree or disagree?
edit on 12/4/11 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I didn't ask for the entire NIST report. That would be some 10,000 pages, mostly about totally irrelevant issues. I asked for the data that justifies the 3 or 4 claims you just made.

After the endless amount of time you spend bickering with me already, it's pretty telling that you don't even want to show how NIST justifies these claims.

Also did you notice that NIST never calls their hypothesis anything other than... a hypothesis? So what do you think there is to prove about that? That's the short way to end this "debate" but I take it that it's a little too direct and uncomfortable for you.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I posted a result from the Cardington test above, sufficient to prove #3, agree or disagree?


Sure, but Cardington's end results also completely contradicted NIST's hypothesis, and Cardington's data was pure data and observation, no hypotheticals.


The whole point of their studies was to see what happened, not to try to force a conclusion that a fire could collapse an entire steel-framed skyscraper and cause it to explode in all directions.
edit on 12-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I didn't ask for the entire NIST report. That would be some 10,000 pages, mostly about totally irrelevant issues. I asked for the data that justifies the 3 or 4 claims you just made.

Which occupies several hundred pages. Why are you so adverse to actually downloading it, reading it, and then telling me exactly what you disagree with? I have no interest in playing a ridiculous back and forth game where I have to guess what your complaint is. If you continue to just complain at me rather than engaging in actual discussion I won't bother responding. I want to focus on the facts, slowly, one group at a time, in order to not get distracted by exactly this sort of petty nonsense.


Also did you notice that NIST never calls their hypothesis anything other than... a hypothesis? So what do you think there is to prove about that? That's the short way to end this "debate" but I take it that it's a little too direct and uncomfortable for you.

You asked me what I thought NIST proved. I told you. Whether you want to say "provided the most likely scenario", "the most probable hypothesis" or what is up to you. I think these things are sufficiently proven that I can call them that.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Sure, but Cardington's end results also completely contradicted NIST's hypothesis, and Cardington's data was pure data and observation, no hypotheticals.

It was also an entirely different building under different fire conditions, so you'd be hard pressed to find someone involved who thinks it contradicts an entirely different study of an entirely different building.

If you want to point out specifics then I welcome that, but unless you have a quote from one of the people responsible then that statement is not one you can authoritatively make.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
Sure, but Cardington's end results also completely contradicted NIST's hypothesis, and Cardington's data was pure data and observation, no hypotheticals.

It was also an entirely different building under different fire conditions, so you'd be hard pressed to find someone involved who thinks it contradicts an entirely different study of an entirely different building.


It was a study of steel-framed construction in general. And it was proof that the structure would not collapse from any realistic fire.


I was more interested in some kind of proof from NIST. You do admit they still only had a hypothesis at the very end of all their work, right? No actual proof of anything?
edit on 12-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
It was a study of steel-framed construction in general. And it was proof that the structure would not collapse from any realistic fire.

Ok and as the WTC was designed with different principles and different structural elements, I think we can agree it can't apply to all buildings uniformly.


You do admit they still only had a hypothesis at the very end of all their work, right?

I think I would probably call it a theory.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Ok and as the WTC was designed with different principles and different structural elements, I think we can agree it can't apply to all buildings uniformly.


Even if what you say is true, and I don't see it indicated anywhere in the Cardington report, then your best case scenario doesn't do anything from NIST but back it away from the results of the Cardington test, which you have to admit are still completely contradictory.



You do admit they still only had a hypothesis at the very end of all their work, right?

I think I would probably call it a theory.

That's not what NIST called it.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Even if what you say is true, and I don't see it indicated anywhere in the Cardington report, then your best case scenario doesn't do anything from NIST but back it away from the results of the Cardington test, which you have to admit are still completely contradictory.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps you could restate it.


That's not what NIST called it.

I don't care?

I asked you for specific criticisms a while ago, I am not going to continue with these ridiculous questions. Please bring up specific things in the official story you disagree with.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
Even if what you say is true, and I don't see it indicated anywhere in the Cardington report, then your best case scenario doesn't do anything from NIST but back it away from the results of the Cardington test, which you have to admit are still completely contradictory.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps you could restate it.


Nah, it makes sense. You just don't want to notice.



That's not what NIST called it.

I don't care?


Yeah, that's pretty apparent at this point.


I asked you for specific criticisms a while ago



Well, NIST calls their own best guess a hypothesis, you call it something else. I don't really need to criticize that. It's a self-obvious statement.
edit on 12-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Ok and as the WTC was designed with different principles and different structural elements, I think we can agree it can't apply to all buildings uniformly.


Hmmm the Cardington test, tested steel, the WTC was made from steel.

There was nothing wrong with the WTC construction, it is a common method used in modern buildings.

It wasn't even unique when it was built.

So yes I would say it was applicable to the WTC.

www.civenv.unimelb.edu.au...



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Hmmm the Cardington test, tested steel, the WTC was made from steel.

Right, and that's where the similarities end. They used totally different load carrying strategies, different floor members, different connections, they were built in different countries under different building codes etc.

Some parts can be used for comparison, like you're right to say steel heats up pretty much uniformly without regard to the type of building, but this doesn't help anyone's point.


There was nothing wrong with the WTC construction, it is a common method used in modern buildings.

Some people disagree, in fact one of the oft-quoted sources of Truthers, James Quintire (I can never spell his last name) believes the fireproofing as-built was inadequate. This point has potential for merit, but I am not a building inspector so I can't say for certain.


So yes I would say it was applicable to the WTC.

I'm willing to entertain discussion, but for now can we focus on the points you raised? I think I showed quite well that unprotected steel does in fact heat up very quickly, even when you're using beam and not truss elements.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Have you ever considered the implications of changing NIST's own words when trying to argue on behalf of their report?

I wonder what a psychologist would have to say about that. I mean people don't normally resort to changing words in "scientific studies" to try to make some point do they?



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join