An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Hooper, what are you doing here? If you don't understand the issues better than this, what is the point? Take a good look at these photographs and ask if what you are looking at could possibly be the result of a gravity-driven collapse? If anything is obvious, it is that what we see here is not a collapse: jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...

reply to post by hooper

 

edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

Sorry, unlike you I have a very firm grip on how things work in te real world. All collapses are gravity driven, even those that are carefully planned and initiated by the use of external force. To look at a handful of photos on the internet and declare "controlled demolition" is pretty much the height of ignorance.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

All of these variables did not necessarily have a significant effect on the estimated impact damage to the WTC towers.

Done. That is all.

You think THAT is significant? You are actually capable of regarding that as an excuse to dismiss anything you want? Are you a LAWYER?

The NIST specifies the luggage in the airliners. That is probably an irrelevant variable. But the steel on every level can't be insignificant.

psik

Hooper, the fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt. NIST studied 236 samples and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures over 500*F and the other three not above 1,200*F. 500*F is the temperature of an ordinary office fire. No steel-structure high rise ever collapsed from fire before 9/11 or after 9/11. And it didn't happen on 9/11 either, Hooper. These are not opinions; they are facts.

Suppose the fires had actually been more intense and longer lasting. Not only did UL certify the steel used in the building to 2,000*F for three or four hours without suffering any adverse effects, but there was a massive fire in the North Tower on the 11th floor in 1975 at around 2,000*F which burned for three or four hours. None of the steel had to be replaced. So we have experimental evidence the UL certification was correct. These are not opinions; they are facts.

Suppose that the fires had caused the steel to weaken. Since the first were asymmetrically distributed, the wakening would have been asymmetrical, too. So, in this hypothetical scenario, there would have been some gradual sagging and tilting, but it would have been asymmetrical and partial, not the complete, total and abrupt destruction in 9 seconds, for the South Tower, and 11 for the North, according to NIST. These are not opinions; they are facts.

The intricate lattice structure of the building created an enormous heat sink drawing heat away from any specific point and precluding it from reaching a point of weakening or melting unless the whole building had reached that temperature, which, of course, did not happen. Below the 80th floor of the South Tower and the 94th of the North, those buildings were stone, cold steel. Neither could have collapsed through their points of greatest resistance. These are not opinions; they are facts.

Because the steel was thinner at the top (1/4" thick) and more massive at the bottom (6" in the subbasements), those top 16 floors represented only about 1.8% of the mass of the structure, while the lower 94 represented 98.2%. How could that tiny percentage of mass at the top overcome the overwhelmingly greater mass of the lower floors? The answer is, they could not. These are no opinions, they are facts.

Now either the fires burned long enough and hot enough for the steel to weaken, much less melt, or it did not. Either way, the building would not have collapsed. You claim that the points I have been making have been refuted. That, however, is not a fact but an opinion. If you want to redeem your credibility, let's see what you can do with the several points I have made here and now. Give it your best shot or admit you are wrong.

reply to post by hooper

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Hooper, the fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt.

Really? Do you have some studies that are published that can show this?
I have one that shows that fire in a typical hydrocarbon fire can and WILL cause steel trusses to fail.

Would you like them?

Originally posted by JimFetzer NIST studied 236 samples and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures over 500*F and the other three not above 1,200*F

You keep saying this. But, do you understand why NIST says this?

Originally posted by JimFetzer500*F is the temperature of an ordinary office fire.

Lie. It is NOT 500 deg. F. It is actually more like 1500 deg. F average. 1800 is not uncommon at all.

Originally posted by JimFetzer No steel-structure high rise ever collapsed from fire before 9/11 or after 9/11. And it didn't happen on 9/11 either, Hooper. These are not opinions; they are facts.

Maybe you can show the math for this? I mean, you know, like an actual paper that shows this to be factual? Published of course in a respectable journal?

I have dozens that support the commonly held narritive. What do you have?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Suppose the fires had actually been more intense and longer lasting. Not only did UL certify the steel used in the building to 2,000*F for three or four hours without suffering any adverse effects,

Can you point me to this standard from UL? Didn't Kevin Ryan get fired for stating this, when UL does not certify structural steel (IIRC)? Also, UL does NOT EVER say "three OR four hours" it is always a specific amount. 2 hours. 3 hours, 4 hours, whatever.

Also, is this a protected steel beam? Column? Truss? What is this for? Can you cite the certification number from UL?

Originally posted by JimFetzerbut there was a massive fire in the North Tower on the 11th floor in 1975 at around 2,000*F which burned for three or four hours. None of the steel had to be replaced. So we have experimental evidence the UL certification was correct. These are not opinions; they are facts.

First off, I thought you said that office fires burn at 500 deg. F, but yet, here you claim around 2,000 deg. F? Which one is it?

Secondly, do you have a source for this 2000 deg. F. temperature? I mean, not a conspiracy theory website. Like, a fire report from FDNY or another governing body?

Lastly, you do realize that this fire was fought, whereas the fires on 9/11 were NEVER fought, right?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Suppose that the fires had caused the steel to weaken. Since the first were asymmetrically distributed,

Correct.

Originally posted by JimFetzer the wakening would have been asymmetrical, too. So, in this hypothetical scenario, there would have been some gradual sagging and tilting, but it would have been asymmetrical and partial, not the complete, total and abrupt destruction in 9 seconds, for the South Tower, and 11 for the North, according to NIST. These are not opinions; they are facts.

It was.

There was.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The intricate lattice structure of the building created an enormous heat sink drawing heat away from any specific point and precluding it from reaching a point of weakening or melting unless the whole building had reached that temperature, which, of course, did not happen.

No, incorrect. The connection between the exterior columns and the trusses was able to sink maybe 100 mw. per hr. Not 100,000,000,000 to prevent the collapses.

Same with the interior connections. And the collapses were not because the outer or inner columns failed. It was because the trusses caused the inward bowing of the exterior columns due to the sagging of the trusses.

Originally posted by JimFetzer Below the 80th floor of the South Tower and the 94th of the North, those buildings were stone, cold steel. Neither could have collapsed through their points of greatest resistance. These are not opinions; they are facts.

Well, when you stop treating the lower floors like one solid piece, you might come to a better conclusion.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Because the steel was thinner at the top (1/4" thick) and more massive at the bottom (6" in the subbasements), those top 16 floors represented only about 1.8% of the mass of the structure, while the lower 94 represented 98.2%. How could that tiny percentage of mass at the top overcome the overwhelmingly greater mass of the lower floors? The answer is, they could not. These are no opinions, they are facts.

Again, stop treating the lower floors as one solid object. The upper portion only had to cause the failure of one floor. Then the next. Etc etc etc.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Now either the fires burned long enough and hot enough for the steel to weaken, much less melt, or it did not. Either way, the building would not have collapsed.

Strawman, nobody has ever claimed that the steel melted in the WTC. That is a strawman that the Truthers like to build.

Maybe you can write to the JOM and submit a discussion to Bazant et al.s paper. When will you be doing this?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
You claim that the points I have been making have been refuted. That, however, is not a fact but an opinion. If you want to redeem your credibility, let's see what you can do with the several points I have made here and now. Give it your best shot or admit you are wrong.

Same can be said to you. Don't ignore this post. Like I said, I have lots of papers for you that if you would like, I can post. One from the UK, and one on the SC Sofa store fire that killed 9 firefighters when the steel roof collapsed. Guess what the cause of the collapse was?

It wasn't thermite. Nor was it explosives.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Hooper, the fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt.

Really? Do you have some studies that are published that can show this?
I have one that shows that fire in a typical hydrocarbon fire can and WILL cause steel trusses to fail.

Would you like them?

I would like you to post them. It'll be a good comparison to NIST.

Otherwise NIST's own report shows that the columns lost negligible strength due to heating from the fire. That's why they came up with this nonsense about the trusses. Of course the fact that NIST failed to verify their own hypothesis doesn't mean no one else could verify it, which is why I want to see your sources to compare to NIST's hypothesis.

Originally posted by bsbray11

I would like you to post them. It'll be a good comparison to NIST.

Otherwise NIST's own report shows that the columns lost negligible strength due to heating from the fire. That's why they came up with this nonsense about the trusses. Of course the fact that NIST failed to verify their own hypothesis doesn't mean no one else could verify it, which is why I want to see your sources to compare to NIST's hypothesis.

Sure. Here are a few.

Here is the UK study done on steel trusses in fires.

fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk...

Done by the University of Sheffield, in the UK. One of the TOP engineering/fire protection schools in the world.

Here is the NIOSH report after the collapse of the SC Sofa fire.

www.cdc.gov...

Guess what? Collapse of lightweight trusses after just 37 minutes of fire. And it was FOUGHT.

Here is the links to the NIST side of the investigation.
www.nist.gov...

Specifically, this graphic shows that Jim is absolutely incorrect about his 500 Deg. F. claim.
www.nist.gov...

Originally posted by FDNY343
Sure. Here are a few.

Here is the UK study done on steel trusses in fires.

fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk...

So here's the abstract of this one:

A series of numerical analyses were conducted using
the FE package Vulcan, on the behaviour of the typical long-span composite floor truss in the fire. The
composite truss is considered under a variety of scenarios, varying the boundary conditions, the degree
of protection and loading. The time-temperature relationship of the steel truss components and the
LWC slab have been obtained using Eurocode formulae and thermal analysis software respectively.
The results are presented as graphs of deflections against time.

Not surprisingly, they don't perform any physical tests but also rely on computer modeling where they adjust several variables and just see what they can get.

I'm not exactly impressed right off the bat but we'll look at the data they present anyway.

First they have the bottom surface of a truss heated to about 900 C. Do they have proof that trusses reached this temperature? No. Is this an assumption? Yes. 800 C is about the upper limit of the temperature of an open-atmosphere hydrocarbon fire, ie the fire itself, short of brief flashover temperatures or some other special conditions that would need to be justified. NIST also did tests where they heated the bottom of a truss with a megawatt burner for a half hour and only got it to 700 C in these controlled conditions. So assuming that the steel itself was heated not only to 800 C but to 900 C by an uncontrolled, open-atmosphere fire is a little incredible. Given that, we continue on.

Well... I read it down through the conclusion. The conclusion happened to be about the trusses still. I hate to break it to you but the trusses were supposed to deflect the perimeter columns according to NIST, which was the critical action. This paper does not present data on the deflection of the perimeter columns, only the trusses, and only then through computer modeling and assuming various values.


So on to the next one...

Here is the NIOSH report after the collapse of the SC Sofa fire.

www.cdc.gov...

Guess what? Collapse of lightweight trusses after just 37 minutes of fire. And it was FOUGHT.

This paper is completely irrelevant to the WTC investigation for the same reason as your first link: it has nothing to do with the deflection of perimeter columns causing collapse.

Already I'm seeing you have either misunderstood NIST's theory, or else you have misunderstood what these pages describe, or maybe you just haven't put 2 and 2 together. They did early simulations that showed up to 5 floors of trusses could be completely gutted between the perimeter and core without significant deflection in the perimeter columns. Either way a sagging truss doesn't automatically equate to what happened to the WTCs according to any credible source, because those sagging trusses have to find a way to exert a significant horizontal "pulling" force on the exterior columns. This is what you want to prove with scientific literature. Not whether or not trusses will sag.


What else have you got?

Originally posted by FDNY343
Really? Do you have some studies that are published that can show this?
I have one that shows that fire in a typical hydrocarbon fire can and WILL cause steel trusses to fail.

Would you like them?

The amount of bull# flying about this issue is just so disgusting.

The Cardington and Broadgate Fires.
guardian.150m.com...

Modelling of the Cardington full-scale fire tests
www.vulcan-solutions.com...

Test Data: Cardington Fire Test
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

It is certainly curious how rarely Cardington gets mentioned in this.

psik

Call in the fire dept. FDNY. You've just been burned.

reply to post by JimFetzer


Does it have to be repeated... again... that the fires did not melt the steel. Any material that was molten in the aftermath was either lesser metals or concentrated amounts of steel, since there were severe gas-line ruptures causing fireballs under the rubble. Absolutely NO steel was molten before the collapse.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by FDNY343
Really? Do you have some studies that are published that can show this?
I have one that shows that fire in a typical hydrocarbon fire can and WILL cause steel trusses to fail.

Would you like them?

The amount of bull# flying about this issue is just so disgusting.

The Cardington and Broadgate Fires.
guardian.150m.com...

Modelling of the Cardington full-scale fire tests
www.vulcan-solutions.com...

Test Data: Cardington Fire Test
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

It is certainly curious how rarely Cardington gets mentioned in this.

psik

What do YOU think this info shows psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by JimFetzer

 

Does it have to be repeated... again... that the fires did not melt the steel. Any material that was molten in the aftermath was either lesser metals or concentrated amounts of steel, since there were severe gas-line ruptures causing fireballs under the rubble. Absolutely NO steel was molten before the collapse.

Would you mind providing a LINK supporting your CLAIM about gas line ruptures.

And wouldn't such breaks in the lines be cut off in a couple of hours at least. Do the even have automatic shut offs.

psik

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by FDNY343
Really? Do you have some studies that are published that can show this?
I have one that shows that fire in a typical hydrocarbon fire can and WILL cause steel trusses to fail.

Would you like them?

The amount of bull# flying about this issue is just so disgusting.

The Cardington and Broadgate Fires.
guardian.150m.com...

Modelling of the Cardington full-scale fire tests
www.vulcan-solutions.com...

Test Data: Cardington Fire Test
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

It is certainly curious how rarely Cardington gets mentioned in this.

psik

What do YOU think this info shows psikeyhackr

I expect anyone sufficiently interested to read for themselves.

If they have brains they think for themselves. I make a habit of it.

He asked for a source I provided it. I notice a lot of people here claim things, like broken gas mains, and then expect people to believe them just because they said it. And then not see holes in the assertion. Like gas companies are just going to let broken mains burn gas long enough to melt steel. RIDICULOUS!!!

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Do I have to post this link EVERY single time I mention the fire underground? I even did my research and found that gas fires in open air can reach temperatures of over 2000 degrees (can't remember specifically if it was celcius or fahrenheit, but at the moment, I'm short on time, so I won't waste it doing research that will just be ignored.

www.bowhunter.com...

...About then the first fireballs tumbled into the hole, filling his cramped space with searing heat and a radiant flickering light. That was the single moment Will admits that he almost gave up all hope. Please, God, he fervently prayed, don't let us burn to death!

"God truly was looking down on Sarge and me," Will says. "Somehow the gaps in the rubble pinning us were just right to create a kind of cross ventilation. One by one the fireballs burned down and sputtered out. It was hot and smoky and more fireballs kept falling in all around us, but I finally stopped worrying about us burning up.

....

"I kept yelling," Will remembers. "I'd yell '8-13!' which means an officer needs assistance. I kept hollering 8-13 over and over."

But no one came. More fireballs rolled into the hole, yet by this time Will had grown used to them. At least he no longer worried about being burned.

It goes on to describe how he was down there until 8 pm when he was rescued, and it doesn't specify when the fireballs stopped, but there was serious fire down there. There is your eyewitness account.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Do I have to post this link EVERY single time I mention the fire underground? I even did my research and found that gas fires in open air can reach temperatures of over 2000 degrees (can't remember specifically if it was celcius or fahrenheit, but at the moment, I'm short on time, so I won't waste it doing research that will just be ignored.

www.bowhunter.com...

...About then the first fireballs tumbled into the hole, filling his cramped space with searing heat and a radiant flickering light. That was the single moment Will admits that he almost gave up all hope. Please, God, he fervently prayed, don't let us burn to death!

"God truly was looking down on Sarge and me," Will says. "Somehow the gaps in the rubble pinning us were just right to create a kind of cross ventilation. One by one the fireballs burned down and sputtered out. It was hot and smoky and more fireballs kept falling in all around us, but I finally stopped worrying about us burning up.

....

"I kept yelling," Will remembers. "I'd yell '8-13!' which means an officer needs assistance. I kept hollering 8-13 over and over."

But no one came. More fireballs rolled into the hole, yet by this time Will had grown used to them. At least he no longer worried about being burned.

It goes on to describe how he was down there until 8 pm when he was rescued, and it doesn't specify when the fireballs stopped, but there was serious fire down there. There is your eyewitness account.

Well, whoopee do.

You think just because there was a fireball it was hot enough to melt steel? Isn't that what you were implying when you brought up broken gas mains? You didn't provide anything to indicate the necessary temperatures.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


So, to your mind, because you are adamant on your position that there was next to no heat in the rubble, you claim that raging fireballs for many hours had absolutely no effect at all on the steel? I mean, gas lines made the most sense to me to explain the fireballs. I don't see why it's so hard to imagine to you unless you are purposefully being obtuse.

Originally posted by Varemia
I mean, gas lines made the most sense to me to explain the fireballs. I don't see why it's so hard to imagine to you unless you are purposefully being obtuse.

All else aside, why do you think someone should automatically be satisfied with some other person on the internet's opinion on something as controversial as all the explosions at the WTC on 9/11? Or otherwise they're "obtuse" for not accepting your guesswork?


worldtradeconspiracy.com...

Look through those testimonies and you'll quickly see that one shallow excuse wouldn't even explain all of those testimonies theoretically, let alone with any actual proof.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by FDNY343
Really? Do you have some studies that are published that can show this?
I have one that shows that fire in a typical hydrocarbon fire can and WILL cause steel trusses to fail.

Would you like them?

The amount of bull# flying about this issue is just so disgusting.

The Cardington and Broadgate Fires.
guardian.150m.com...

Modelling of the Cardington full-scale fire tests
www.vulcan-solutions.com...

Test Data: Cardington Fire Test
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

It is certainly curious how rarely Cardington gets mentioned in this.

psik

The Cardington tests are great. You wanna know why? Look at the raw data. Try to understand what it means.

If you really want a suprise, look at the raw temperature data, expecially C487. When you figure that out, let me know what it comes out to in F. Hint: It is well over 500 deg. F as Jim has claimed that the max any open fire could burn.

You also need to look at the fuel being used, and the fact that the columns were 75% protected by SFRM.

Also, I direct your attention to Fig. 19 in the PDF you linked to.

Under it says "Compartment time-temperature response for position of maximum measured
temperature"

Guess what? Well above the 1000 deg. C was observed after just 50 minutes.

Guess what? Jim is debunked again.

Figure 20 continues the lashing. I am glad you posted this psy. It's tearing your claims to shread so far.

You do realize that you just shot yourself in the foot with this report, right?

You should definitely not post this report EVER again.

You should read this.

In the graphs readings have been discontinued at a value of 2500 microstrain. At this
level the steel will have yielded and so the results cannot be relied on. The actual yield
point is dependent on the grade of steel and the quality of the material. Data is available
to the client on the material properties for the Cardington building and is summarised in
table 3 below.

Do you know what it means what steel "yeilds"?

Get back to me when you figure this out.

Originally posted by FDNY343
Figure 20 continues the lashing. I am glad you posted this psy. It's tearing your claims to shread so far.

You do realize that you just shot yourself in the foot with this report, right?

You should definitely not post this report EVER again.

My claims of WHAT? What did I ever claim about the fire?

911research.wtc7.net...

The bottom line is that the fires went much longer than for WTC 2 on steel that was less thick than the south tower because the structure was not nearly as tall and IT STILL DID NOT COLLAPSE.

So you think you can score points on trivia while ignoring the BOTTOM LINE. Endless idiotic debating BULLSH!T.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Why I asked you what you thought about this Cardington Fire Test is YOU obviously thought it showed that a steel structure cant collapse due to fire.

Did the experiment use a 110 floor building NO!
Did they crash a plane into it NO!
Was a load equivalent to between 16-30 floors of the building dropped on the floors below NO!

So I will ask again what do you think your links show!!!


Here is a nice link for you, slide 9 shows a partial collapse of steelwork (with no plane crash!)
The others slides give data on loads on steelwork due to the fire! (WTC)

www.jcss.ethz.ch...