What are the most glaring flaws in the Popular Mechanics "debunking" of 9/11?

reply to post by FDNY343


Here is one of my old posts that gets into more detail

Originally posted by getreadyalready
From the official NIST investigation documents. There are thousands of pages, so of course I will just pick out my favorite parts.

There was no evidence to indicate that the joining method, materials, or welding procedures were inadequate. The welds appeared to perform as intended

So, the impact did not do anything other than what was expected. There was no miraculous damage that was unexpected. In addition, on that same page it talks about how few of the exterior panels were damaged. They used precollapse photography and post collapse collected material to make their determination.

There was no evidence that fire exposure changed the failure mode for the spandrel connections.

That came from the same page, and they are talking specifically about the columns damaged by wing impact, as well as the columns above and below the impact. They do mention that many of the bolt-hole tear outs were more common in that area, but they attribute the added weight of the plane and the damage from the actual collapse as the reason for those bolt hole tearouts. The fire was not a factor. The impact was already accounted for during the design process. So if it wasn't the impact, and it wasn't the fire, then what was it?

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed to pre-collaps fires.

So, within WTC 2, direclty in the fire floors, there was no evidence of direct exposure to fire. Yet heat from fire is supposedly what compromised the integrity of the columns and led to the uniform collapse? How do you get heat with no fire?

Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and termperature condistions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of the steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterised. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited expopsure if any above 250 C, were found for the two core columns recovered from the fire-affected floors of the towers, which ahd adequate paint for analysis.

The yield strengths of the perimeter column steels generally exceeded the minimums by 10 to 15 percent. The tensile properties of the perimeter columns are consistent with literature estimates for average properties of construction steel plate during the WTC construction era.

So, it was designed and engineered to withstand the impact of an aircraft of this size. It was designed and engineered to withstand at least 12 hours of a major chemical fire, and it actually performed at least 10-15% better than it was engineered to do. The fire was not above 250 degrees Celsius, so no amount of time would have compromised the integrity of the beams, the beams microstructure did not show any compromise in integrity.........and yet they still came down?

This comes from the OFFICIAL REPORT! The guys that wrote this stuff, are the same guys that decided to summarize that the buildings fell as a result of fire?

I think they were doing their patriotic duty, following orders, protecting their families and reputations, and telling us the truth all at the same time.

They made the summary say what it was supposed to say, but they left the truth in all the technical jargon so people like me would dissect and find it!!

There are literally thousands of pages for you guys to see for yourself.

Here is the Mechanical and metallurgical Analysis Page

Here is the Home Page for WTC.NIST.GOV

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by FDNY343

 

I'll look for my post with citations. This one was just a recount of my many previous posts in other threads. The OP wanted some fodder for his conversation in another board, so I supplied the basics.

I will attempt to find some of my older posts that quote the actual NIST (thanks for correcting that) findings. It was their findings that the fire never reached anywhere near 2000 deg. If I remember correctly it was only about 800 degrees at its hottest, and the sustained temperature was 250 to 400 degrees. That is just my memory though, I haven't searched yet.

As you say, the black smoke is not an indicator of temperature, but it is an indicator of efficiency of the fire, and this fire was not "open air" it was severely damped. Therefore it was burning very inefficiently, and therefore the temperature was somewhat controlled, and the smoke was just one of the indicators of that.

Here is the UL Code for fire ratings

I am off to look for my previous posts that quoted the NIST and provided more specific requirements of the WTC.

Just one thing I want to address, and that is the "damped" fire.

This is ABSOLUTELY false. You will need to google the "chimney effect" or "smokestack effect" to understand why it was NEVER "damped".

I am going to assume that you are either in the UK, orfrom the UK, since your use of that word in this context is common in the UK.

I am assuming that you mean snuffed or suffocating. Correct?

reply to post by FDNY343


I am in the US. I don't know why I use that term? I'm sure it was part of my education somewhere along the way.

"Chimney Effect" would apply if there was a draw from a lower level, and then an outlet at a higher level that could create an air vortex from the super-heated air. Kind of a "blast furnace" situation. The impact zone of this fire was the only opening, the incoming and outgoing air were using the same hole in the building, so it created interference and turbulence. I don't believe there would have been a chimney effect. I have to admit I have never looked into that aspect, but if there was a chimney effect going on, I would think the NIST report would have shown much higher temperatures for the fires.

The fire suppression and design of the building is meant to obstruct the chimney effect, and most fire procedures call for shutting doors on the way out, and some buildings even have fire suppression walls or barricades that can be used. The UL code I linked to touches on the subject a little bit. I don't remember if it was in the page I linked to or another page when I was reading.

Again, I have not looked into the chimney effect previously, but I don't think it would apply here.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...and as it's already been pointed out to you many times before, WTC 7 collapsed from the inside out, with the penthouse falling down into the interior six seconds before the exterior of the structure did. No other controlled demolitions job on the planet has ever demolished a building in this way.

First off WTC 7 should never have collapse in the first place from fire. let alone into its own footprint.

What you describe is exactly how an implosion demolition works, as I pointed out in the thread you replied to. The Penthouse was the center of the building collapsing ahead of the outer sections, which leaves a space for the outer walls to fall INWARDS instead of outwards as they normally would due to resistance.

Where do you get 6 seconds from btw?

You of course know this, but it's obvious you want these conspiracy stories of yours to be real so you simply pretend you don't see it. This stunt may work on an ATS discussion board but you have to know you're going to get severely spanked if you try to bring this absurdity to any future investigation board.

See what? The obvious signs of controlled implosion demolition that results in all four outer walls on top of the collapsed building? That is not a conspiracy Dave it's known physics. You know this but it's obvious you want the OS story to be real so you simply pretend you don't see it.

To get the outer walls to be on top of the debris pile takes a controlled demolition to accomplish, how else is it possible? You can pretend the walls are not on top of the rest of the collapsed building but pictures don't lie Dave, only people do.

Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

(not a damn fool conspiracy site Dave)

Click this Dave, a demonstration of implosion demolition...
static.howstuffworks.com...

reply to post by FDNY343


One hour of hydrocarbon fire, even with chimney effect, is not enough to weaken thousands of tons of steel to the point of complete failure, period. Not even enough time for the heat to transfer to the steel.

What about the 1975 11the floor fire that burned for 3 hours, why didn't that weaken the steel and cause a global collapse? In fact they installed the sprinklers after this.

whatreallyhappened.com...

reply to post by getreadyalready
Did you report NIST to the FBI for making up lies about 911? Got some proof?

The WTC Towers were design for an impact of a 180 mph 707 low on fuel.
911, the towers were hit with 7 to 11 times the kinetic energy. E=1/2mvv (velocity squared).
The energy at impact equal to 1300 pounds of TNT and 2,093 pounds of TNT, which knocked off the fire protection making the steel not able to survive much time.
The fuel in the aircraft had the heat energy of 315 TONS of TNT each.
Jet fuel has 10 times the energy of Thermite.
Plastics burning the WTC had 14 times the heat energy of Thermite.
Paper burning in the WTC had more heat energy than Thermite.
The fires in the WTC had extra air due to the sever damage done by the impacts. Too much air.

If jet fuel was so cool burning why did people jump instead of burn up? I have talked to people in jet fuel fires, it was hot enough to melt the aircraft, and burn their skin. Saying jet fuel fires are cool, is false. How can you ignore 315 tons of TNT heat energy times two? Then the office contents beat the jet fuel in heat content.

The office fires did it, and gravity took over. Gravity is also the larges source of energy for controlled demolition.

We have jet impacts an order of magnitude bigger in impact energy than design, essentially destroying the fire proofing. Fire proofing for the core was wallboard dislodged by the impacts. The insulation under the floors was easy to dislodge by your fingers, let alone a aircraft all over the floor at 400 to 500 mph.

The office fires had enough energy to make the steel weak. Steel fails quickly in fire when not protected.

WTC7 fires were not fought all day, and the windows were broken by the WTC tower collapse letting in air to make the fires hotter.

We have impacts equal to 2,662,000 shotgun blasts for Flight 175 impact, 11 times greater in kinetic energy than the 180 mph 707 impact. BTW, studies after 911 confirm an aircraft at 200 mph would not do much damage to the WTC.

NIST report verified the WTC was built to standards which would resist fire. The impacts rendered the steel exposed and the jet fuel started the largest office fires on multiple floors in history. Steel can't retain strength in fire.

steel and masonry involved are required to withstand many hours of a hot chemical fire.

No masonry on the steel in the WTC. The building would not stand many hours after the impacts which destroyed the fire protecting. But you provided why WTC 7 took so long to fail. In a building with little damage and fires not fought it took many hours to fail, as you say.

NIST explains how the WTC collapse was initiated. You have offered no rebuttal backed with evidence. I stick with Robertson's take on the WTC collapse an crazy conspiracy theories.

Why waste time on those who did not design the structure of the WTC - so I asked Robertson for his ideas on why his structure failed in fire, fire which destroys the strength of steel. I am an engineer, I would ask the #1 expert.
www.nae.edu...
www.nae.edu...

What will Robertson say about your take on NIST? The chief structural engineer on the WTC says impacts and fires doomed his design. He is right, NIST backs him up, as do 99.99 percent of all engineers.

reply to post by iSunTzu


They didn't make up any lies, everything I stated came directly from their reports. The only thing that stinks is the official summary/stance that ran in the press. Their data is good.

What will Robertson say about your take on NIST? The chief structural engineer on the WTC says impacts and fires doomed his design. He is right, NIST backs him up, as do 99.99 percent of all engineers.

Really, because my degree is in Chemical Engineering, and I live in a town with 2 engineering schools, and I would say their opinions are about 50/50. Where do you get 99.99%? My father in law is a man of few words, and he is a Professional Engineer with 30+ years under his belt, and he says, "Ah, I dunno, haven't looked into it much, but I sure would be surprised if kerosene could bring down a steel frame building."

The impact had very little to do with anything other than it stripped some of the fire protective coating from the beams. The kerosene had very little to do with it because the report shows sustained temperatures were only in the range of 250 -400 C, so what was it that brought them down again?

If jet fuel was so cool burning why did people jump instead of burn up? I have talked to people in jet fuel fires, it was hot enough to melt the aircraft, and burn their skin. Saying jet fuel fires are cool, is false.

So human skin and a few millimeters of aircraft aluminum are supposed to be equivalent to hardened fire-treated steel beams? Beams can withstand multiple bullet strikes too, but the humans and the aircraft can't. "Cool" is relative. 250C is easily hot enough to kill a human in seconds, but it is nowhere near hot enough to plasticize steel beams. 2000C (which there is no evidence of) might have plasticized the steel after multiple hours, but it never got to that temperature and it didn't wait multiple hours.

Originally posted by ANOK
One hour of hydrocarbon fire, even with chimney effect, is not enough to weaken thousands of tons of steel

Strawman. It didn't. Read the NIST report and stop building strawman arguments.

Originally posted by ANOK

to the point of complete failure, period. Not even enough time for the heat to transfer to the steel.

What? I am assuming you mean the core columns, right?

Originally posted by ANOK

What about the 1975 11the floor fire that burned for 3 hours, why didn't that weaken the steel and cause a global collapse? In fact they installed the sprinklers after this.

whatreallyhappened.com...

I am well aware of the 1975 fire.

Here are a few things you seem to have forgotten.

1-No massive damage to the structure from an aircraft impact.
2-No instant fires fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel over 5 floors.
3-firefighters were working the fire within minutes of the alarm being raised.
4-Only contained 1 floor, and small portions of two others, and not the ones directly above or below.
5-SFRM was not damaged at the time. It was still fairly fresh, and as such, wouldn't have shown signs of delaminating.

But hey, good try though.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by iSunTzu

 

They didn't make up any lies, everything I stated came directly from their reports. The only thing that stinks is the official summary/stance that ran in the press. Their data is good.

What will Robertson say about your take on NIST? The chief structural engineer on the WTC says impacts and fires doomed his design. He is right, NIST backs him up, as do 99.99 percent of all engineers.

Really, because my degree is in Chemical Engineering, and I live in a town with 2 engineering schools, and I would say their opinions are about 50/50. Where do you get 99.99%? My father in law is a man of few words, and he is a Professional Engineer with 30+ years under his belt, and he says, "Ah, I dunno, haven't looked into it much, but I sure would be surprised if kerosene could bring down a steel frame building."

The impact had very little to do with anything other than it stripped some of the fire protective coating from the beams. The kerosene had very little to do with it because the report shows sustained temperatures were only in the range of 250 -400 C, so what was it that brought them down again?

If jet fuel was so cool burning why did people jump instead of burn up? I have talked to people in jet fuel fires, it was hot enough to melt the aircraft, and burn their skin. Saying jet fuel fires are cool, is false.

So human skin and a few millimeters of aircraft aluminum are supposed to be equivalent to hardened fire-treated steel beams? Beams can withstand multiple bullet strikes too, but the humans and the aircraft can't. "Cool" is relative. 250C is easily hot enough to kill a human in seconds, but it is nowhere near hot enough to plasticize steel beams. 2000C (which there is no evidence of) might have plasticized the steel after multiple hours, but it never got to that temperature and it didn't wait multiple hours.

edit on 9-3-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

No, the NIST report only says that this is what a SMALL SAMPLING of the steel that they could pinpoint the location of, was exposed to.

Also, your FIL is working from a failed premise. It was not the jet fuel that caused the collapse. It was the jet fuel, and the ensuing fires, and the damage, and the lack of any firefighting whatsoever that caused the collapse.

reply to post by FDNY343


Yes, but their "small sampling" included steel and panels from the directly impacted portion. Any other sampling would likely have shown even less heat damage.

And I know it was the ensuing fire and not the actual kerosene that caused the damage, but I contend no amount of kerosene fire could have caused the collapse, and certainly not within 2 hours! If they had battled this fire all day and night, then perhaps I would give the argument a little more credence, but not in 2 hours.

I don't know if your name means you are a fireman, or just honoring the fireman, but even before all of my combing through of the NIST report, I already had suspicions. NYC fireman are well-acquainted with high-rise fires. They know what to expect from these fires. They take their own safety very seriously, and there are times they cannot go into a building for fear of collapse. They were the experts on the scene at the time, and they chose to rush into the building. This shows, with their expert knowledge of high rise construction, their knowledge of the plane crash and ensuing fire, and multiple units supervisors and advisors on the scene, they still chose to rush in. They did not fear a collapse. They do this job 24/7, if there was any fear of a collapse, they would not have gone up all those stairs, and they would not have lost so many firemen. I think the NYFD response is the first significant clue that something other than a fire brought down the buildings.

Originally posted by ANOK
First off WTC 7 should never have collapse in the first place from fire

Why do you ignore the severe damage done to it? That damage totally destroys your silly conspiracy theory!

let alone into its own footprint.

But as you know, it never collapsed into its own footprint - why do you keep repeating that lie?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by iSunTzu

 

They didn't make up any lies, everything I stated came directly from their reports. The only thing that stinks is the official summary/stance that ran in the press. Their data is good.

What will Robertson ...? The chief structural engineer on the WTC says impacts and fires doomed his design. He is right, NIST backs him up, as do 99.99 percent of all engineers.

Really, because my degree is in Chemical Engineering, and I live in a town with 2 engineering schools, and I would say their opinions are about 50/50. Where do you get 99.99%? My father in law is a man of few words, and he is a Professional Engineer with 30+ years under his belt, and he says, "Ah, I dunno, haven't looked into it much, but I sure would be surprised if kerosene could bring down a steel frame building."

The impact had very little to do with anything other than it stripped some of the fire protective coating from the beams. The kerosene had very little to do with it because the report shows sustained temperatures were only in the range of 250 -400 C, so what was it that brought them down again?

If jet fuel was so cool burning why did people jump instead of burn up?..., is false.

So human skin and a few millimeters of aircraft aluminum are supposed to be equivalent to hardened fire-treated steel beams? Beams can withstand multiple bullet strikes too, but the humans and the aircraft can't. "Cool" is relative. 250C is easily hot enough to kill a human in seconds, but it is nowhere near hot enough to plasticize steel beams. 2000C (which there is no evidence of) might have plasticized the steel after multiple hours, but it never got to that temperature and it didn't wait multiple hours.

edit on 9-3-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

If you are going to say fires did not cause the WTC to collapse, then;
Ignore the heat energy of 315 tons of TNT from the jet fuel in each tower,
Ignore the heat energy of the office fires, that will help too.
Ignore the impacts 7-11 times greater than the design impact speed.
... ignore the fact 6 and 10 core columns were destroyed by the aircraft impacts equal in kinetic energy to 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT; the design impact was 186 pounds of TNT. Better ignore this.
www.nae.edu...
www.nae.edu...

Jet fuel burns, can reach temperatures of 1200 degrees, melting aircraft aluminum at 650 C. You can spread disinformation about 250 C, how cool the fires were, but the fact is the the adiabatic flame temperature of jet fuel is 2093 C. Try and explain how complicated it is, fire science. You say the jet fuel was burning at 250 C, jet fuel fires studies show 1200F, 650 C, melting aluminum. Your 250 C claims are quote mining NIST, cherry picking stuff as you want so it supports your claim.
www.dtic.mil...

Steel can't survive an office fire after the insulation is gone.

Jet fuel can burns up to 1200F, 650 C and melts Al, as a chem engineer you should know; right? The fires in the WTC were over 500-600 C, proof can be seen in photos with Al Cladding melted by fires inside the WTC; from office fires. Office fires range from 600 to 800 C, but you can say 250 C if you feel better to support your opinion steel does not fail in fire.

Wood beats Steel/Steel fails in fire...
What brought down the WTC towers? Where is your evidence? What did it? What did PM say?

Engineers, 99.99 percent agree it was impacts, fires and gravity. This is why your 50 percent have failed to make a difference and expose the fictional conspiracy plot. Your 50 percent are short on evidence, and have not read NIST. No one has refuted NIST. 99.99 of all engineers is a bigger number than your 50 percent who are now in the 0.01 percent who don't understand 911, fire, and structural engineering.

What do your 50/50 stuff engineers say? Where are their papers showing what happen? Have they refuted NIST conclusions yet?

You should know the eutectic for steel and not make the mistake of saying 2000 C is the melting point.
www.sv.vt.edu...

What is the cause? With all the professional support, the 50 percent of engineers you know; why have they failed to come forward to earn a Pulitzer Prize! It took the Post, a year, under two years, to expose Watergate. The 50 percent Engineers you have had 9 years? Do they have anything, or will it be another 9 years? Action, or fiction? What do they have and why are they unable to take action like the Post took; engineers, vs newspaper? Truth is, engineers know fire destroys the strength of steel quickly; the reason it has to be insulated against fire and heat.

The office fires were hot. Steel at 500-650 C is at half strength, office fires easily beat 500 C. Steel did not melt on 911. What is the melting point of steel? NIST tests showed steel rose to high temperatures.
wtc.nist.gov...
wtc.nist.gov...

The tests included bare steel and insulated steel. I see how it confuses people, but engineers have no excuse. People have to dig in to figure out the temperatures steel reached in the WTC. No one has refuted NIST with facts.

wtc.nist.gov...
NIST photos show no explosive blast evidence, no thermite.

No one said jet fuel brought down the WTC. NIST never said it. Did PM say it?

The chief structural engineer of the WTC is wrong to say impacts, fires, and gravity did it? Can you prove him wrong? Got a paper as extensive as NIST? What was your claim for the cause of the Collapse? What did PM get wrong?
www.popularmechanics.com...

www.popularmechanics.com...
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.

PM was right. Darn.

Prove the office fires in the WTC were 250-400 C. Office fire can reach over 800 C, and the WTC fires could have be as high as 1200 C. NIST was conservative, you did not read, and you are not using all of what NIST said.

What does steel do at 450 C, at 550 C, at 650 C, temperatures possible in the WTC fires.
Steel trusses are also prone to failure under fire conditions and may fail in less time than a wooden truss under the same conditions.
www.cdc.gov...
What is the adiabatic flame temperature of jet fuel?
en.wikipedia.org...

The Towers were not designed for impacts of 470 and 590 mph. (180 mph only)
The Towers were not designed for fires on steel missing insulation.

What did PM get wrong?

As the saying goes, "Be careful what you ask for; you may get it."

Thanks to everybody for providing so many very interesting responses.

Which I must now spend a lot of time trying to digest.

All this thinking makes my little head hurt.

reply to post by iSunTzu


One might think their biggest flaw was failing to explain how a lightweight aluminum wing can slice through structural steel without spreading serial numbered and identifiable aircraft parts all over Manhattan.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

wtc.nist.gov...

"Relatively light steel"? Relative to what, the core columns? Sure. But relative to aluminum wings?




The simple fact is no matter how fast a lightweight wing tip is traveling, it won't have enough mass, and density of material to sever structural steel. It is impossible for aluminum to behave that way, so the videos can't be real. And in fact, the perpetrators filmed how they did it.

Here's a thread which includes still frames showing the shaped charges carving the plane-shaped cartoon cutout:

letsrollforums.com...

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by FDNY343

 

One hour of hydrocarbon fire, even with chimney effect, is not enough to weaken thousands of tons of steel to the point of complete failure, period. Not even enough time for the heat to transfer to the steel.

With all that steel acting like a gigantic heat sink, the OS is an insult to any thinking person's intelligence.

Originally posted by Yankee451
With all that steel acting like a gigantic heat sink, the OS is an insult to any thinking person's intelligence.

We've had this discussion many times with the OSers but they still seem to forget about thermal transfer (transfer of thermal energy) and how it works. Of course they have to do this to continue with their silly claims, that they get from those 'damn fool conspiracy websites' like 911myths. Same reason they don't understand Newtons laws of motion, it would contradict their claims. No one can be that stupid right, lol? No normal person keeps on making the same mistake, and repeating known lies with so much confidence after being shown they're wrong.

They want us to believe that fire temperature equates to both room temperature and the steels temperature, while ignoring the time it takes for the heat to transfer to the steel. Also ignoring, as you point out, the heat sink effect of the steel, the fact that heat to any point of the steel would spread along its length and all the connected steel, slowing the overall heating of the steel. This makes it improbable that enough steel could fail from heat in an hour, no matter if the hydrocarbon fires were at their max temperature (another point they fail to realise is all burnable fuel has a max burn temp and will not just keep getting hotter). Also while I'm at it lol, the jet fuel would not have made the fires burn hotter, another OSer fallacy, as it burns at a lower temp than a hydrocarbon fire, but it would make anything it covered burn faster, thus shortening the time any one part of the steel would be in direct contact with fire, as the fire would be moving faster as fuel was used up.

Originally posted by Yankee451

The simple fact is no matter how fast a lightweight wing tip is traveling, it won't have enough mass, and density of material to sever structural steel.

Arguement from personal incredulity noted.

Originally posted by Yankee451
It is impossible for aluminum to behave that way, so the videos can't be real. And in fact, the perpetrators filmed how they did it.

Aluminum is quite possible of cutting steel if there is enough Ke available.

From the cockpit? Really? Where?

Originally posted by Yankee451
Here's a thread which includes still frames showing the shaped charges carving the plane-shaped cartoon cutout:

letsrollforums.com...

Incorrect, as I have told you before.

Cutter charges don't produce flames. They produce intense light, and massive booms. What you're seeing in those photos, is flames from the jet fuel escaping the towers.

Originally posted by Yankee451
With all that steel acting like a gigantic heat sink, the OS is an insult to any thinking person's intelligence.

Well, the problem with that assumption is that the connections between the floor trusses and the outer/inner columns would NOT have made any measurable difference.

Meaning, it wouldn't have prevented the sagging of the trusses.

I've done the math, and come up with an average figure of about 1,000 mw per hr.

This is a drop in the ocean compared to the heat energy of the fire.

Originally posted by ANOK

We've had this discussion many times with the OSers but they still seem to forget about thermal transfer (transfer of thermal energy) and how it works. Of course they have to do this to continue with their silly claims, that they get from those 'damn fool conspiracy websites' like 911myths. Same reason they don't understand Newtons laws of motion, it would contradict their claims. No one can be that stupid right, lol? No normal person keeps on making the same mistake, and repeating known lies with so much confidence after being shown they're wrong.

They want us to believe that fire temperature equates to both room temperature and the steels temperature, while ignoring the time it takes for the heat to transfer to the steel. Also ignoring, as you point out, the heat sink effect of the steel, the fact that heat to any point of the steel would spread along its length and all the connected steel, slowing the overall heating of the steel. This makes it improbable that enough steel could fail from heat in an hour, no matter if the hydrocarbon fires were at their max temperature (another point they fail to realise is all burnable fuel has a max burn temp and will not just keep getting hotter). Also while I'm at it lol, the jet fuel would not have made the fires burn hotter, another OSer fallacy, as it burns at a lower temp than a hydrocarbon fire, but it would make anything it covered burn faster, thus shortening the time any one part of the steel would be in direct contact with fire, as the fire would be moving faster as fuel was used up.

Why don't you explain it to me. Include your math please, and list any assumptions.

Just remember, you must also account for radiant heat and convection.

Get on it. I'll wait......

reply to post by iSunTzu


That was a good and fair post.

Prove the office fires in the WTC were 250-400 C. Office fire can reach over 800 C, and the WTC fires could have be as high as 1200 C. NIST was conservative, you did not read, and you are not using all of what NIST said.

What does steel do at 450 C, at 550 C, at 650 C, temperatures possible in the WTC fires.
Steel trusses are also prone to failure under fire conditions and may fail in less time than a wooden truss under the same conditions.

Here is the problem though. It is impossible to "prove" what temperature the fires were. We have the NIST report that says 250 to 400C was the highest sustained temperature, and they do so from samples taken from the impact area. We have youtube videos purporting to show heat signatures of around the same. We know the specifics of the fire, the accelerants and the air situation, and we have the smoke as evidence and it all seems to support the NIST reports estimate. We also have the firemen choosing to rush up almost 100 flights of stairs, and they were the fire experts on the scene. We also have hundreds or thousands of other fires from around the country and around the world that had hotter fuel sources and burned for much longer periods without collapsing. So, I think the NIST physical evidence, and the circumstantial evidence all point toward a relatively low temperature fire, for a relatively short period of time, in a building that was built to the highest possible fire code ratings because it was the tallest, most highly occupied building in the most dense urban area in the country. It seems self-apparent to me that fire should have been the last suspect in the collapse.

Like I said originally, if we igonre all of the improbabilities about the fire, and we decide that fire was responsible for causing metal fatigue, and if 6 out of 10 beams were damaged in the impact area, and if the stripped fire coatings made the fatigue happen quicker, then we still have to question the "pancake collapse." Fatigued metal beams would have been at so many differing levels of heat and fatigue depending on their amount of damage and their distance from the fire. Some beams would have shown no fatigue whatsoever. The impacted zone would have sagged (which it did for a brief time), and then it would have slowly given way at the most critical parts, but others would have held on and pivoted, torgued, rebounded as some beams gave way and other held. There would have been violent sways and brief moments where it held on before collapsing another beam or another floor. It is impossible that a few beams out of hundreds would have collapsed and immediately resulted in all the beams collapsing uniformly. And it is further impossible that the collapse of the top portion would have "pancaked" the next portion uniformly for almost 100 floors below. If this were a "pancake collapse" it would have been evident as each floor impacted the next and the chain reaction ensued one after another. Instead, they all failed simultaneously. How does that happen from the pancake theory? If you tell me it was the construction type, and one failure compromised the whole structure, first I will say you are wrong, and next I will say that would have caused it to "topple" not "pancake."

So, I believe the fire data speaks for itself, but if we choose to ignore the estimates of the experts and speculate about fire parameters that we have no proof for, then I still say fire does not lead to a pancake collapse, and a pancake collapse doesn't happen in a simultaneous fashion.

Choose any piece of the entire collapse puzzle and there is enough evidence to cause serious doubts about any one piece of the puzzle. Put all the pieces together and what are the chances of dozens of highly implausible things cascading into the event we all witnessed? I watched it live on television, and my coworker here watched it live from her office window in Manhatten! The building just went "limp" as she puts it and just collapsed onto itself like it had no bones. It went from a massive and rigid building to a bag of bones. I have personally spoken to people who were in Manhatten that day, and they all say the building just went limp. That is not a "pancake collapse."