Fire and Steel

[TheRedWorm]

No, I'm not starting a new heavy metal rock band, instead, I am starting this thread for the benefit of Bofors. his/her contention is that fire cannot weaken steel, therefore WTC 7(?) was brought down by thermite coated C4, or something.

As usual, this thread is free for everyone, and if I misstated Bofor's position, please call me on it.

[Gravy]

I don't know who Bofors is yet, but if he believes that he's gunning for trouble.

Fire Safety Engineering and the Performance of Structural Steel in Fires (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/firesafetyengineering%26theperformanceofst)

[uruk]

Strange. If fire cannot weaken steel why is flame retardant/insulation required on steel structures in buildings?

Drat!. Gravy's always on top of things

[TheRedWorm]

Although, to be fair, I may have misrepresented his position. I only wanted to not derail the "what motivates truthers" thread.

[Disbelief]

Carried over from the other thread.


Why do you equate "hasn't happened" with "can't happen?"

Obviously these are not always equivalent, but in the case at bar the effectively are. I mean, steal-framed buildings can not globally collapsed under possible fire conditions and this is proved by the fact that they have not.

Why? Because you say so? It is in no way proven, and in fact is disproven by the WTC collapses. You also seem to forget about plane damage.


Why fire proof steel buildings?

As far as the application of abestos and such, I think it primarily has to do with preventing trusses from sagging, the framing itself (I-beams, H beams and such) does not need it (or get it).

That's it? The only reasons? Preventing a collapse never played into the picture?

[Gravy]

Obviously these are not always equivalent, but in the case at bar the effectively are. I mean, steal-framed buildings can not globally collapsed under possible fire conditions and this is proved by the fact that they have not.

From my links above:
Large multistory steel-framed factory buildings quickly collapse due to fire (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/kadertoyfactoryfire%3Astructuralsteelquick)

[Unsecured Coins]

404'd, G Man.

[uruk]

You'd figgure that trusses help support the structure. What would happen to the structure if enough of the trusses sag and lose strength?

I guess he also is not aware of steel ware houses collapsing due to fires.
I think there is an article out there about a ware house that stored toilet paper collapsing due to a fire.

[RedIbis]

From my links above:
Three multistory steel-framed factory buildings quickly collapse due to fire Go (http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0)

Document Not Found

[Arus808]

Document Not Found


This shows how much effort truthers will put in to research:

Archive at good ol' archive.org:

CASE STUDY: THE KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE (http://web.archive.org/web/20070303100300/http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0)

[Gravy]

404'd, G Man.Good thing I had archived the article. I made a page for it and other articles about the Kader factory. Link works now.

[Gravy]

This shows how much effort truthers will put in to research:

Archive at good ol' archive.org:

CASE STUDY: THE KADER TOY FACTORY FIRE (http://web.archive.org/web/20070303100300/http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0)Thanks.

[beachnut]

Document Not Found
Only for 9/11 truth movement believers.

The fires stuff is secret, so people like Dylan can sell not so smart people videos of lies on 9/11. If people understood fire destroys the strength of steel, Dylan could not sell his lies. A sucker born every second.

[Minadin]

Right, the Windsor building was a steal-reinforced-concrete structure. It is a different type of building than the WTC's steel-framed structures so it really is not good comparison. However, steel-framed structures perform better than cheaper steal-reinforced-concrete in fires:

Before examining the partial collapse of the Windsor building more closely, we note that steel-framed and steel-reinforced-concrete-framed structures behave very differently in fires.

Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.

Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html)

In fact, the reason the why the Windsor did partially collapsed in the fire was becuase it was cheap steal-reinforced-concrete as opposed to steal-framed like the WTC buildings.

Better comparisons with the WTC buildings are:

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
The First Interstate Bank Fire
The 1 New York Plaza Fire
Caracas Tower Fire

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html)





I am not sure what you are talking about here. Steel structure, including perimeter columns on the left, is visible in this photo: http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9692/windsor6yw3.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9692/windsor6yw3.jpg)

Holy cow. You're an architect / engineer for 9/11 "truth", Bofors? Did you learn anything in school, or do you just get your information from conspiracy websites? As an architect / engineer who had to send in copies of his degrees to join the group, (by which I assume you mean that you at least graduated) you must have taken some university courses in statics, structural systems, and strengths of materials. Right? So, you should be able to answer this relatively simple structural question related to the comparison you make above:

Which performs better - retains the greatest portion of its original strength the longest - in a typical building fire?

A). A steel framed building.
B). A heavy wood timber framed building.

And, why?

For the purpose of this example, please assume that other than the materials of construction, the buildings and fires are essentially the same, with no extraordinary differences between the two structures. Also assume that there have been no additional fire protection measures taken, such as spray-on insulation or sprinkler systems.

Based on what you've said above, I don't think you have the best understanding of structures and materials, as you seem not to understand the purpose of reinforcing steel in structural concrete, or the properties of steel in general. But, we'll see.

[Alferd_Packer]

One Meridian Plaza: much smaller building, masonry reinforced core area.

First Interstate Bank: exceptionally thick fireproofing applied to the building. This was credited with limiting the damage to the structure.

1 New York Plaza: The only info I have on this one is that it involved two floors, and 130 steel beams and 20,000 SF of concrete had to be replaced.

The Caracas tower consisted of a reinforced concrete "macro-frame" (every 5th floor was reinforced concrete) with steel infill.

[Alferd_Packer]

As far as the application of abestos and such, I think it primarily has to do with preventing trusses from sagging, the framing itself (I-beams, H beams and such) does not need it (or get it).

AHHHHH --- - The stupid, it burns!!!!!

[uruk]

God, I hope bofors is not employed in the construction industry.

[Minadin]

God, I hope bofors is not employed in the construction industry.

He claims to be a member of AE911, the Richard Gage farce of a conspiracy theorist group among alleged building design profesionals:

It is not a scam. I had to send copies of my degrees to join.

However, if he is an engineer or architect, he certainly doesn't seem to bring much to the table in the area of techincal expertise:

In general, fire does cause steal to "fail". A steal wood burning stove does not "fail" buy using it anymore than a frying pan "fails" on a gas stove.

Same old conspiracy arguments we get from the ones who admit they have no expertise. And seriously, steal? Did you rob a Wal-Mart? Yet, it's not an isolated typo, as you can see:

The point is that the structural framing steal never fails do to fire in a mannar that causes anything approaching global collapse of the structure.

Except for in all the cases that it has in the past, which is the reason we have codes that dictate how and where to use fire protection in steel buildings. I can't see how anyone who has spent more than 2 years in architecture school or even taken a structural engineerig class could say the above. No degree required.

Obviously these are not always equivalent, but in the case at bar the effectively are. I mean, steal-framed buildings can not globally collapsed under possible fire conditions and this is proved by the fact that they have not.

Not only is this patently false, but apparently, in Bofors' world, absense of evidence is evidence of absense. Neat logic.


As far as the application of abestos and such, I think it primarily has to do with preventing trusses from sagging, the framing itself (I-beams, H beams and such) does not need it (or get it).

I'm not sure what his point is here. If the fire's heating the steel enough to cause it to sag, isn't that an issue for other steel members as well? I mean, since it's your theory that the steel quickly wicks away the heat to cooler portions of the structure, because it's such a good conductor.

Also, what the heck are H-Beams? The term I-Beam is a common (vernacular) term for a Wide Flange Steel Beam, which we usually refer to a a W-Section. Real I-Beams haven't been made for quite a while. People who aren't in the industry use that because they don't know any better. There's also a H-Section, but that's not a steel section you'd use for a beam. It's a column section, designed mainly for axial loading.

[Mr. Skinny]

An H beam is just an I beam turned on it's side, I think. Not a very commonly used term though, to my knowledge.

[FramerDave]

Back in June there was a horrible fire at a furniture store in Charleston, SC. Sadly, nine firefighters were killed.

I passed by it when I was visiting in early July and one could very clearly see substantial metal beams that had been part of the structure on top of the debris, bent and twisted like taffy. So we have a steel framed structure, collapsed in a fire fed by furniture, in which steel beams can clearly be shown to have softened, lost their strength, deformed and collapsed. Sound like any other incident we've seen in the last, oh, six years or so?

I'll be in Charleston again in November. If it's all still there and if I don't feel too ghoulish I'll try to get some pictures.

Here's a link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19301684/ In the picture you can clearly see the collapse of the roof, showing why firefighters hate trussed systems like that.

[beachnut]

Obviously these are not always equivalent, but in the case at bar the effectively are. I mean, steal-framed buildings can not globally collapsed under possible fire conditions and this is proved by the fact that they have not.

As far as the application of abestos and such, I think it primarily has to do with preventing trusses from sagging, the framing itself (I-beams, H beams and such) does not need it (or get it).
You think? The beams in the WTC had to be covered with fire protection to meet code. You are not even close on your statements about anything 9/11.

Steel is not like a heat sink, Al is used as a heat sink. Go ahead and melt your CPU, install a steel heat sink.

Concrete protects the steel from heat. Who is telling you the false information you have been posting. You seem like you fell into a swam of 9/11 truth lies and been brainwashed you to repeat random junk about 9/11.

Thousands of steel frame structures have failed in fire; you are not very good at this.

Steel has to have fire protection or it fails in fire very quickly; much quicker than structural wood in certain cases. Like steel fails quickly in fire you have quickly failed to produce correct facts about steel.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Back in June there was a horrible fire at a furniture store in Charleston, SC. Sadly, nine firefighters were killed.

I passed by it when I was visiting in early July and one could very clearly see substantial metal beams that had been part of the structure on top of the debris, bent and twisted like taffy. So we have a steel framed structure, collapsed in a fire fed by furniture, in which steel beams can clearly be shown to have softened, lost their strength, deformed and collapsed. Sound like any other incident we've seen in the last, oh, six years or so?

I'll be in Charleston again in November. If it's all still there and if I don't feel too ghoulish I'll try to get some pictures.

Here's a link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19301684/ In the picture you can clearly see the collapse of the roof, showing why firefighters hate trussed systems like that.

It's worth pointing out that those trusses were hardly holding up anything. just the froof... that's it. Nowhere near the kind of loads the WTC structural members were holding up when they failed.

The "fuel" for that fire wasn't any different from the fuel in the WTC either. Just furniture... lots and lots of furniture. Just like what you see packed into a modern "cubicle farm" office layout.

[bonavada]

I think there is an article out there about a ware house that stored toilet paper collapsing due to a fire.

HERE YOU GO (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm)

conclusion. fire weakens steel, causes collapse.

ETA excellent footage of this fire HERE (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/herefordandworcester/realmedia/fire?size=4x3&bgc=C0C0C0&nbram=1&bbram=1&checkedBandwidth=bb&checkedMedia=ram&subtitles=hide&alreadySeen=1)

i wonder why the firemen seemed relunctant to tackle this blaze? could it possibly be because the structure was steel-framed and that it might collapse? hmmmmm.

ETA 2 looking at it again though the power lines crossing directly over the fire may have had a bearing on the use of water there ooops.

BV

[gumboot]

If fire (heat) can't weaken steel, how do they smelt it?

-Gumboot

[Bell]

If fire (heat) can't weaken steel, how do they smelt it?

-Gumboot

They don't melt it, they mind-bend it.

[gumboot]

One Meridian Plaza: much smaller building, masonry reinforced core area.


It's worth pointing out that despite the concrete and masonry in the building, and the evenly spaced structural columns (rather than focused at the core and perimeter like with WTC1, 2 and 7), and despite floors supported by heavy horizontal beams rather than just lightweight truss assemblies, photos in the report on the One Meridian Plaza fire indicate these beams sagged by as much as three feet between columns due to heat.

-Gumboot

[1337m4n]

He claims to be a member of AE911, the Richard Gage farce of a conspiracy theorist group among alleged building design profesionals:

Same old conspiracy arguments we get from the ones who admit they have no expertise. And seriously, steal? Did you rob a Wal-Mart? Yet, it's not an isolated typo, as you can see:


How comfortable would you be working in a building designed by an architect who can't spell "steel"?

I'm amazed this man has a job.

[1337m4n]

Obviously these are not always equivalent, but in the case at bar the effectively are. I mean, steal-framed buildings can not globally collapsed under possible fire conditions and this is proved by the fact that they have not.



Not only is this patently false, but apparently, in Bofors' world, absense of evidence is evidence of absense. Neat logic.



It's worse than that. He's actually using circular logic, if you examine the claim closely enough:

Claim: WTC did not collapse due to fire.

Evidence (tier 1): Steel buildings cannot collapse due to fire
Evidence (tier 2): No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire

However, the WTC itself was a steel building. This would refute the tier 2 evidence. So to counter this claim we must tack on a third tier of evidence:

Evidence (tier 3): The WTC did not collapse due to fire.

Basically, his proof that the WTC didn't collapse due to fire, is that it didn't collapse due to fire.

And if you think about it, this really applies to ALL Truthers making the "first time in history" argument. They're ALL using circular logic.

[TheRedWorm]

I always personally loved the "first time in history" arguments. By that brand of logic, no one on the planet could have been born. Goofiness.

[apathoid]

If fire (heat) can't weaken steel, how do they smelt it?

-Gumboot


Thermite?

[1337m4n]

I always personally loved the "first time in history" arguments. By that brand of logic, no one on the planet could have been born. Goofiness.

Extend the Truther logic, and you eventually get: The entire Universe does not exist. Try it.

[Jono]

Anecdotal curiosa, I'm an ex surface engineer working as a smithy. Steel portions of a building caught in flames can, do and have collapsed due to fire. They bend, twist and curve without much force during intense office fires. There just isn't any sound professional nor halfwitted reason to oppose this well know and established fact, let alone for a multi-faceted and multi-portioned steel building like the WTC's were.

It's not exactly one large solid hunk of metal structure, rather it can be likened to a proportionate and paralleled steel-puzzle... and as so, the pieces of the puzzle are dependant on the in-between integrity (which at a few hundred degrees alone suffers notably).

No offense to americans, but why do so many conspiratorial views turn into such overblown and fantastical movements? Perhaps that is not even true, allthough it's an impression I keep getting.

[beachnut]

Anecdotal curiosa, I'm an ex surface engineer working as a smithy. Steel portions of a building caught in flames can, do and have collapsed due to fire. They bend, twist and curve without much force during intense office fires. There just isn't any sound professional nor halfwitted reason to oppose this well know and established fact, let alone for a multi-faceted and multi-portioned steel building like the WTC's were.

It's not exactly one large solid hunk of metal structure, rather it can be likened to a proportionate and paralleled steel-puzzle... and as so, the pieces of the puzzle are dependant on the in-between integrity (which at a few hundred degrees alone suffers notably).

No offense to americans, but why do so many conspiratorial views turn into such overblown and fantastical movements? Perhaps that is not even true, allthough it's an impression I keep getting.
The truth movement has such a small following. Only handfuls out of millions of professionals; and those can be considered nut cases on 9/11 topics. They are such a small group no one knows about them. They are a news item due to their nut case status of stupid ideas.

In American they are a fringe group so small and insignificant. Tiny pockets of people with crazy ideas on 9/11.

[Architect]

Like the OP, I'm more than happy to have a technical debate with anyone who rests under the dubious misapprehension that structural steelwork is inherrently fireproof.

I have yet to meet a Truther who will rise to this challege.

[Jono]

The truth movement has such a small following. Only handfuls out of millions of professionals; and those can be considered nut cases on 9/11 topics. They are such a small group no one knows about them. They are a news item due to their nut case status of stupid ideas.

In American they are a fringe group so small and insignificant. Tiny pockets of people with crazy ideas on 9/11.

Yes, well if this is indeed correct then it is reassuring. Isn't it true that notable parts of conspiratorial flocks like "truthers" tend to entertain a wide and plethoric flavour for other, equally bewildering, theories as well?
In my experience, like accidents, such views comes in company with others.

[BenBurch]

This is a setup for a "Sherman's Necktie";

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/necktie.jpg

Union raiders would tear up Confederate railroad tracks and then stack up the railroad ties into a bonfire and drape the steel over the fire. Once the steel was good and hot it was weakened enough for it to be bent into a U shape or a "fish" shape around a nearby tree or post, or just bent in half.

Here are some of the results, both in historic images and in a present-day museum collection;

http://ngeorgia.com/images/shermannecktie.jpg

http://ngeorgia.com/images/shermansneckties2.jpg

Here is a VIDEO of one being made by re-enactors; http://www.quantumtour.com/entity/mcallister/video/1/

Here is a slightly shorter version on youtube; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg

[Minadin]

This is a setup for a "Sherman's Necktie";

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/necktie.jpg

Union raiders would tear up Confederate railroad tracks and then stack up the railroad ties into a bonfire and drape the steel over the fire. Once the steel was good and hot it was weakened enough for it to be bent into a U shape or a "fish" shape around a nearby tree or post, or just bent in half.

Here are some of the results, both in historic images and in a present-day museum collection;

http://ngeorgia.com/images/shermannecktie.jpg

http://ngeorgia.com/images/shermansneckties2.jpg

Here is a VIDEO of one being made by re-enactors; http://www.quantumtour.com/entity/mcallister/video/1/

Here is a slightly shorter version on youtube; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg

It's such a great conductor of heat, that steel, that those men are able to hold the ends in their hands without being burned, yet it's hot enough in the center to a) be bent relatively easily around that tree, and b) catch the bark of the tree on fire almost immediately.

Similarly, from Gravy's page on WTC7 lies, here's an image of steel beams draped over the still unburned portion of a wooden beam:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/woodbeambentsteel.jpg/woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg

Fire and gravity did that.

[BenBurch]

Blacksmithing would be very difficult if steel were a good conductor of heat.

[bofors]

No, I'm not starting a new heavy metal rock band, instead, I am starting this thread for the benefit of Bofors. his/her contention is that fire cannot weaken steel, therefore WTC 7(?) was brought down by thermite coated C4, or something.

As usual, this thread is free for everyone, and if I misstated Bofor's position, please call me on it.

I am calling you on it.

Of course fire can "weaken" steal.

[bofors]

How comfortable would you be working in a building designed by an architect who can't spell "steel"?

I'm amazed this man has a job.

Oh please... grow up.

By the way, I am not architect but an engineer with degrees in materials science.

[bofors]

It's worse than that. He's actually using circular logic, if you examine the claim closely enough:

Claim: WTC did not collapse due to fire.

Evidence (tier 1): Steel buildings cannot collapse due to fire
Evidence (tier 2): No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire

However, the WTC itself was a steel building. This would refute the tier 2 evidence. So to counter this claim we must tack on a third tier of evidence:

Evidence (tier 3): The WTC did not collapse due to fire.

Basically, his proof that the WTC didn't collapse due to fire, is that it didn't collapse due to fire.

And if you think about it, this really applies to ALL Truthers making the "first time in history" argument. They're ALL using circular logic.

Try this instead:

Hypothesis: Steel-framed buildings can not globally collapsed under plausable building fire conditions.

Proof: No steel-framed buildings have globally collapsed from fire.

[Terry]

Good ed, are you doing it on purpose to be annoying? the word is steel.

[leftysergeant]

Try this instead:

Hypothesis: Steel-framed buildings can not globally collapsed under plausable building fire conditions.

Proof: No steel-framed buildings have globally collapsed from fire.

No other on that scale, because there were no similar buildings of that type on that scale involved in fires.

Buildings of similar construction on a smaller scale collapse globally quite often, the Kader factory in Thailand being the best example of this.

[Gravy]

What the hell are they teaching in materials science classes in Sweden?

Bofors, I think you missed post #6.
Large multistory steel-framed factory buildings quickly collapse due to fire (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/kadertoyfactoryfire%3Astructuralsteelquick)

[bofors]

Why? Because you say so? It is in no way proven, and in fact is disproven by the WTC collapses.


And I accused of circular logic??? Come on...

The cause of WTC collapses is the question here, they can not be used as proof that plausible fire can globally collapse building without cirucular logic.

[leftysergeant]

And I accused of circular logic??? Come on...

The cause of WTC collapses is the question here, they can not be used as proof that plausible fire can globally collapse building without cirucular logic.

Two posts immediately before this one prove you wrong.

[bofors]

Good ed, are you doing it on purpose to be annoying? the word is steel.

Look, I am a terrible speller.

I usually use the built-in global spell checking of Apple's OS X operating system, but I was posting from a Vista computer in this forum because it was more convenient.

Since spelling is such a big deal here, I just switched back OS X so I can fix my spelling errors before I post.

[Gravy]

And I accused of circular logic??? Come on...

The cause of WTC collapses is the question here, they can not be used as proof that plausible fire can globally collapse building without cirucular logic.Please explain specifically why you believe NIST's explanation of the tower collapses and their working hypothesis of WTC 7's collapse initiation are not plausible.

Remember, be speciflc, and address what they actually say, not what you imagine they say. Thank you.

[Gravy]

Look, I am a terrible speller.Oh. I thought you were Swedish. When you post, spell check should automatically underline in red the words it doesn't recognize.

But seriously, you're taking materials science and don't know how to spell "steel?" I have great trouble believing that.

Edit: that you're studying materials science, that is.

[bofors]

Bofors, I think you missed post #6.
Large multistory steel-framed factory buildings quickly collapse due to fire (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/kadertoyfactoryfire%3Astructuralsteelquick)

Ok, I have looked at this case a little, but I see no pictures of the supposed collapse. However, I did find this:

The Building's Structural Integrity
Probably the most notable difference between the Triangle and Kader fires is the effect they had on the structural integrity of the buildings involved. Even though the Triangle fire gutted the top three floors of the ten-storey factory building, the building remained structurally intact. The Kader buildings, on the other hand, collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures. A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070305145938/www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0&ssect=1


So:

(1) The "Triangle" fire is yet more evidence that steal buildings do not globally collapse.

and

(2) If the "Kadar" buildings did actually globally collapse, it is because unlike the WTC buildings their steel was not "fireproofed".

[bofors]

Oh. I thought you were Swedish. When you post, spell check should automatically underline in red the words it doesn't recognize.

But seriously, you're taking materials science and don't know how to spell "steel?" I have great trouble believing that.

Edit: that you're studying materials science, that is.


Does this help?

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/2323/bacheloriw9.jpg
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4853/um1usnewsbg7.jpg

[bofors]

You'd figgure that trusses help support the structure.


Sure.


What would happen to the structure if enough of the trusses sag and lose strength?


I can tell you what certainly would not happen. The building would not disintegrate at free fall speed like we observed in the WTC twin towers and building 7.

[Terry]

Does this help?

Not really. At most it suggests you ought to know better.

[Gravy]

Double post.

[Gravy]

Does this help?

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/2323/bacheloriw9.jpg
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4853/um1usnewsbg7.jpgHell no. It makes me despair for the U.S. higher educational system.

A materials engineer who can't spell "steel" and who can't understand why steel-framed buildings need thermal protection?

That's the most depressing thing I have heard in ages.

So, when can we expect your detailed critique of the NIST reports?

Second time: please address what they actually say, not what you imagine they say.

Fair enough?

[Gravy]

Ah, bofors, I see that you're a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Are you ready for debate? I am, and I was an English major with no advanced degrees.

[bofors]

Holy cow. You're an architect / engineer for 9/11 "truth", Bofors? Um.. yes. By the way, what are your qualifications here?

Did you learn anything in school, or do you just get your information from conspiracy websites?

As I indicated in the post, the text I block quoted was from Jim Hoffman, a former MIT materials scientist and author of:

http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://www.wtc7.net/


As an architect / engineer who had to send in copies of his degrees to join the group, (by which I assume you mean that you at least graduated)


Not only did I graduate, I received the Andrew A. Kucker award for outstanding engineering research:

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/467/kucher2yk9.jpg

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/4112/kucherzd5.jpg


you must have taken some university courses in statics, structural systems, and strengths of materials. Right?


Sure, I took mechanical engineering stactics and dynamics. I also took two general material science coarses which cover materials strengths topics and a graduate level materials mechanics coarse. I also took graduate level ceramics and polymer courses which covered topic in mechanics with respect to these specific types of materials in great detail.


So, you should be able to answer this relatively simple structural question related to the comparison you make above:

Which performs better - retains the greatest portion of its original strength the longest - in a typical building fire?

A). A steel framed building.
B). A heavy wood timber framed building.

And, why?

For the purpose of this example, please assume that other than the materials of construction, the buildings and fires are essentially the same, with no extraordinary differences between the two structures. Also assume that there have been no additional fire protection measures taken, such as spray-on insulation or sprinkler systems.


(A) - the steel framed building retains its strength longer than wood because wood does not dissipate (absorb or conduct) heat well (physics of heat conduction) and wood burns (chemical reaction with environmental oxygen) at a much lower temperature than steel melts.


Based on what you've said above, I don't think you have the best understanding of structures and materials, as you seem not to understand the purpose of reinforcing steel in structural concrete, or the properties of steel in general. But, we'll see.

Well, like Jim Hoffman, my specialty is in polymers not metallurgy or civil engineering materials. But none of that is needed to understand 9/11, only a very basic understanding of physics. Unfortanately people here do not seem to have such a basic understanding of physics (or rather are ignoring what should be intuitive).

[Bell]

And I accused of circular logic??? Come on...

The cause of WTC collapses is the question here, they can not be used as proof that plausible fire can globally collapse building without cirucular logic.

Just the same as they CAN'T be used to proof fire CAN'T bring down steel buildings because it has never happened before.

[Bell]

I can tell you what certainly would not happen. The building would not disintegrate at free fall speed like we observed in the WTC twin towers and building 7.

:hb:

[bofors]

A materials engineer who can't spell "steel" and who can't understand why steel-framed buildings need thermal protection?


Sorry for my spelling problems, I am a little dyslexic. Why you think that has any bearing on my comprehension of 9/11 and WTC building demolitions, I do not know.

I am not sure what you are talking about here (meaning what statement of mine to which you are referring), but steal-framed buildings do not "need" thermal protection any more than they "need" water-sprinklers (by the way the WTC twin towers did not originally have water-sprinklers). Thermal protection, which I assume by the way you mean fireproofing like asbestos, simply provides additional safety. Your own reference to the Kadar proves this is not necessary.


So, when can we expect your detailed critique of the NIST reports?

Second time: please address what they actually say, not what you imagine they say.

Fair enough?

I am sorry but a detailed critique of the NIST WTC report is not necessary. We can dismiss it on its face for some rather obvious reasons.

[bofors]

Just the same as they CAN'T be used to proof fire CAN'T bring down steel buildings because it has never happened before.

No, it is not the same.

Arguing that no "fire-proofed" steel-frame structure has globally collapsed prior 9/11 due to fire, gives good reason to question that it happened on 9/11.

EDIT: added "due to fire"

[bofors]

:hb:

That's right, I said "disintegrate at free fall speed".

[Gravy]

By the way, I am not architect but an engineer with degrees in materials science.

In general, fire does [sic] cause steal to "fail". A steal wood burning stove does not "fail" buy using it anymore than a frying pan "fails" on a gas stove.

Please explain, as quantitatively as you can, using as much of your materials science knowledge as you need to, why you believe that the thermal response, loads and stresses that wood stoves and frying pans undergo are good analogs for the thermal response, loads, and stresses that structural steel in a skyscraper in a fully-involved fire undergoes.

I wait with bated breath. Thank you.

[Bell]

No, it is not the same.

Arguing that no "fire-proofed" steel-frame structure has globally collapsed prior 9/11, gives good reason to question that it happened on 9/11.

Because NOTHING can happen for the first time, right? :rolleyes:

[Gravy]

(A) - the steel framed building retains its strength longer than wood because wood does not dissipate (absorb or conduct) heat well (physics of heat conduction) and wood burns (chemical reaction with environmental oxygen) at a much lower temperature than steel melts.Would you like to reconsider that answer? (This is not a trick question.)

[Bell]

That's right, I said "disintegrate at free fall speed".

I thought the free fall argument died with the release of Loose Change. Oh, that's right, recycle the same old debunked troofer crap again and again (and again etc.)

[Gravy]

Arguing that no "fire-proofed" steel-frame structure has globally collapsed prior 9/11, gives good reason to question that it happened on 9/11.

I'm going to ask this once more, and once more only:

bofors, will you NOW begin discussing your SPECIFIC objections to NIST's SPECIFIC conclusions about why the towers collapsed?

If you're not ready, that's fine. You came here prematurely. Go back and read up. We'll be here. But if you don't know the specifics about NIST's studies, I'm baffled as to how you arrived at the conspiracist position.

Which is it? Ready, or not?

[Gravy]

(1) The "Triangle" fire is yet more evidence that steal buildings do not globally collapse.Please briefly explain the difference in the damage, fires, construction, and fireproofing between the Asch building, where the Triangle Shirtwaist company was located, and the three towers that collapsed on 9/11.

Big hint: 90 West Street.

Thank you.

[e^n]

I can tell you what certainly would not happen. The building would not disintegrate at free fall speed like we observed in the WTC twin towers and building 7.

Look bofors, people have taken an offensive stance towards you because it is relatively common in the 'truther' community to claim you have the qualifications or knowledge required and then make simple spelling mistakes or misuses of 'beams' vs 'columns' etc which show they may be lying.

If you are indeed as you say I cannot understand why you would argue in this manner. The WTC towers did not 'disintegrate' at freefall speed, they collapsed progressively at approximately 2/3 to 3/4 the acceleration of an object in freefall.

Lets start with what seems the most important question. I assume you are aware of the amount and quality of fireproofing in the twin towers, in your educated opinion what forces and/or damage would be required to remove this? You can find details on adhesive and cohesive strength in the NIST report.

[beachnut]

Sure.

I can tell you what certainly would not happen. The building would not disintegrate at free fall speed like we observed in the WTC twin towers and building 7.Too bad you are wrong as you talk.

Thanks for providing your school stuff; I will be getting free beer from the Michigan guys for the next 10 years. They will never live this down, a Michigan engineer is woo woo with idiot ideas on 9/11. WOW! Only 9/11 truth could earn me beers for years! Thanks again for being so truthy.

Oh this is great. I wonder what the professors will say when they see you failed to learn anything about engineering. Sad.

[rwguinn]

Does this help?

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/2323/bacheloriw9.jpg
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4853/um1usnewsbg7.jpg

Maybe you can get a refund.
Your employer is certainly due one.

[TheRedWorm]

I am calling you on it.

Of course fire can "weaken" steal.



Then I retract what I said and apologize for it. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

[Gravy]

In dealing with bofors' incredible torrent of wrong, I forgot to address this one, which is the most basic.

Hypothesis: Steel-framed buildings can not globally collapsed under plausable building fire conditions.

Proof: No steel-framed buildings have globally collapsed from fire.

I hope that during your time here you will come to understand what a serious error of reasoning this is.

I again impress on you to address the specific damage, fire conditions, and available fire suppression in the WTC buildings, not in hypothetical or actual buildings with grossly dissimilar conditions.

If you return here, you will be expected to adhere to that simple, logical condition. If you cannot, then you must reconsider your position.

The accusations you are making are incredibly serious. Please treat them as such.

[bofors]

Please explain, as quantitatively as you can, using as much of your materials science knowledge as you need to, why you believe that the thermal response, loads and stresses that wood stoves and frying pans undergo are good analogs for the thermal response, loads, and stresses that structural steel in a skyscraper in a fully-involved fire undergoes.

Sorry, I do not think that frying pans and wood stoves are "good analogs for the thermal response, loads, and stresses that structural steel in a skyscraper in a fully-involved fire undergoes."

However, they are good examples to convince people that the WTC buidlings did not fall because fire melted the steal and also to give people a rough idea about steal's inherent fire-resistent capability.

Mark, you seem to focus on irrelevant minutia while completely missing (or ignoring) the obvious big picture.

[Terry]

But surely as a structural engineer, you know that steel's stiffness and yield strength are significanty reduced at quite low temperatures?

[BenBurch]

Bofors,

Oh My!

A wood stove is cast iron. Cast iron melts at around 1500 C. Steels melt at around 1350 C. A wood stove is designed to exchange heat with the room. Over many years the designs have evolved to make efficient use of the energy of the wood. This it does quite well. And that keeps the iron cool enough to retain enough strength to keep being a stove.

I shouldn't have to tell you this.

EDIT: Above numbers from memory, Cave Canem. woof!

[Redtail]

Because NOTHING can happen for the first time, right? :rolleyes:

:jaw-dropp That means I'm a 35 year old virgin!!!!! GAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!

[leftysergeant]

(A) - the steel framed building retains its strength longer than wood because wood does not dissipate (absorb or conduct) heat well (physics of heat conduction) and wood burns (chemical reaction with environmental oxygen) at a much lower temperature than steel melts.

Quick! Get out of here and pack your bags. You need to go tell this to the head of every fire service academy in the world. They have been teaching it the other way around for at least the last forty years, since I went through fire fighting training at Chanute AFB in 1966.

Steel begins to expand, and is thus subject to begin to warp and to break joints, FAR below the temperature at which wood catches fire.

You and Gage deserve each other.

[uruk]

Sure.



I can tell you what certainly would not happen. The building would not disintegrate at free fall speed like we observed in the WTC twin towers and building 7.

Wow. that truely is a gem of insight there. A perfect example of an unqualified statement.

[bofors]

bofors, will you NOW begin discussing your SPECIFIC objections to NIST's SPECIFIC conclusions about why the towers collapsed?


I have not even bothered to look at one page of the 10,000 page NIST report because I believe that it is a complete waste of time and does almost nothing to explain the events of 9/11.

Richard Gage, Jim Hoffman and numerous other competent, credible people have looked at the NIST report determined that it is garbage. Jim Hoffman outlines his critique here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

Furthermore, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the NIST Fire Science Division has called for an independent review of the NIST World Trade Center study:
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/12

Moreover, NIST admitts that it is "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" of the WTC:
http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/508.html
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

Finally, NIST's John Gross is lying about existence of molten metal at the WTC site: www.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY When I asked to explain himself in face of numerous contradicting facts, he refused.


So, I am not sure what you mean by NIST's "specific" conclusions about why the towers collapsed, because as far as I know NIST has failed to propose any mechanism for the collapse of the tower. Instead, NIST merely created a computer model for a proposed collapse initiation and that fails to actually initated a collapse without severly tweaking the parameters.

If you want to debate NIST's "specific" conclusions, I suggest you start by listing them here. Otherwise, you can start an attack on my NIST position by criticizing Jim Hoffman's writing here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

[uruk]

Does this help?

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/2323/bacheloriw9.jpg
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4853/um1usnewsbg7.jpg

Odd that you went to a web site to post an image of a lambskin. Don't you have a scanner?

[rwguinn]

Sorry, I do not think that frying pans and wood stoves are "good analogs for the thermal response, loads, and stresses that structural steel in a skyscraper in a fully-involved fire undergoes."

However, they are good examples to convince people that the WTC buidlings did not fall because fire melted the steal and also to give people a rough idea about steal's inherent fire-resistent capability.

Mark, you seem to focus on irrelevant minutia while completely missing (or ignoring) the obvious big picture.
Who (with any credibility whatsoever) on Ed's green earth ever said the "Steal" melted?
at 800C, Steel (note spelling) of any type has a reduction in yield strength of 50%, and at 1000C, 60% (40%of original) (MIL-HDBK-5J, fig 2.3.1.1.1)
Amasingly enough, if the structure had remained intact, at 1000C, the building yields (fails) even if the original design was at a SF of 2.5

Of course, you probably figure the ends failed in "Sheer"

[Gravy]

Sorry, I do not think that frying pans and wood stoves are "good analogs for the thermal response, loads, and stresses that structural steel in a skyscraper in a fully-involved fire undergoes."

However, they are good examples to convince people that the WTC buidlings did not fall because fire melted the steal and also to give people a rough idea about steal's inherent fire-resistent capability.I see. They're not good analogs to prove your point, they're just good examples to prove your point.

That's Stundie #2 for the evening.

Not to mention that your point is absolute nonsense. You honestly don't understand the difference between the roles, properties and requirements of stoves/frying pans and structural steel? Honest? If you do, then please briefly state them.

Next since you FINALLY raised a specific point,

bofors, please point me to the portion of the NIST reports, or any official report that states that fire melted structural steel in the WTC buildings, or that melting steel contributed to the buildings' collapses.

If you cannot do that, then retract your statement and learn from it. Fair enough?

Mark, you seem to focus on irrelevant minutia while completely missing (or ignoring) the obvious big picture.Irrelevant? Your lack of understanding of basic physical processes, and of the investigations into the WTC collapses, is as fundamental as it gets, chief.

I said it would be the last time, but I'll give you one more chance: are you prepared to to discuss your detailed objections to the specific conclusions made by NIST?

Please answer yes or no.

[bofors]

Please briefly explain the difference in the damage, fires, construction, and fireproofing between the Asch building, where the Triangle Shirtwaist company was located, and the three towers that collapsed on 9/11.

Big hint: 90 West Street.

Thank you.

I have got a better idea, let's talk about the obvious and frankly more important details of the WTC collapses first. Again, you are getting in details that are frankly irrelevant in face of the "smoking gun" evidence.

To understand the WTC collapses, here is what primarily matters:

(1) The collapses were symmetric, straight-down and the buildings did not otherwise tip over.

(2) The collapses occur at near free-fall speed.

Although there is a lot more data which prove the WTC building were downed with controlled demolitions, these two points which are indisputable are all that is needed to make the case.

If after considering these two points, you do not that the controlled demolition theory is most likely explanation for WTC building collapses, you either have a very poor understanding of basic physics or have some other conflicting agenda.

Mark, your case, I think the answer is both. You seem to be in chronic denial of the obvious, so I think you lack a basic, intuitive understanding of how things work and also you have had apparently no serious education in physics or engineering. Furthermore, since you have go so far out of your way to try to "debunk" the only credible theories of the WTC collapses, for social and psychological reasons, I really doubt that you will be able to admit that you are wrong at this point.

Unfortunately, you continue to mislead others to the wrong conclusion in this very serious matter.

[Gravy]

I have not even bothered to look at one page of the 10,000 page NIST report because I believe that it is a complete waste of time and does almost nothing to explain the events of 9/11. I see. So why are you here?

[Gravy]

Anybody remember our last illustrious visitor from AE911truth, audio engineer Plug Dumb, er, Doug Plumb?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2698691#post2698691

What a bunch of fools.

[beachnut]

Sorry, I do not think that frying pans and wood stoves are "good analogs for the thermal response, loads, and stresses that structural steel in a skyscraper in a fully-involved fire undergoes."

However, they are good examples to convince people that the WTC buidlings did not fall because fire melted the steal and also to give people a rough idea about steal's inherent fire-resistent capability.

Mark, you seem to focus on irrelevant minutia while completely missing (or ignoring) the obvious big picture.
You are not very smart on steel. Steel fails in fire quickly.

Even mentioning the steel as melting means you are just full of junk and your degree is worthless since you resort to BS about the WTC. Millions of engineers can see how the WTC fell due to impact, fire and failure. You and 0.00067 percent of engineers are not able to use your education to come up with rational ideas on 9/11. You are with a few nuts in the 9/11 truth movement; bet you don't go around talking this up at the office. Better get use to being a failure after coming up with the kind of ideas you have on 9/11.

Failure comes to mind when I see your ideas on 9/11. No engineer ever said the WTC had melted steel. So when you say it; you prove you are making up BS about 9/11.

Thanks for posting your school stuff; This is free beer at the next Michigan Game. Your poor school. Your ideas on 9/11 are not very knowledgeable and can not be used to support your education claims. You are really not a good example for engineer. How can you dishonor engineering by being so full of junk on 9/11?

You did not even bring facts.

[bofors]

Odd that you went to a web site to post an image of a lambskin. Don't you have a scanner?

:confused: Umm.. yes I have a scanner, that is how I generated the digital image I posted (duh).

[Pardalis]

(1) The collapses were symmetric,

You must mean "symetrical".

straight-down

yyyeah?...

and the buildings did not otherwise tip over.

What would have caused them to tip over?

(2) The collapses occur at near free-fall speed.

Sure, so?

Although there is a lot more data which prove the WTC building were downed with controlled demolitions, these two points which are indisputable are all that is needed to make the case.


Please do make your case.

[Gravy]

I have got a better idea, let's talk about the obvious and frankly more important details of the WTC collapses first. Again, you are getting in details that are frankly irrelevant in face of the "smoking gun" evidence.YOU brought up the Triangle fire as an example of why the towers shouldn't have collapsed. YOU. How soon you forget!
The "Triangle" fire is yet more evidence that steal buildings do not globally collapse.

Now answer the questions I asked about it. They are exceedingly simple. I even gave you a big hint. Here it is again:

"Please briefly explain the difference in the damage, fires, construction, and fireproofing between the Asch building, where the Triangle Shirtwaist company was located, and the three towers that collapsed on 9/11.

Big hint: 90 West Street."

Can you do it? Are you the Little Engineer that Could, unlike the hideously incompetent Richard Gage and his AE911Truth flunkies?

Then do it. YOU raised the issue, and YOU need to understand why it's so fundamentally important.

[Alareth]

Sure, fire doesn't damage steel at all

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h43000/h43072.jpg
http://www.t2tanker.org/ships/panmass2.html

See also, Piper Alpha.

[bofors]

I see. So why are you here?

I am here to explain to people what happend at the WTC buildings. Furthermore, since you are here, I want to try to stop you from continuing to mislead others on this very serious issue. I mean, you seem to be the primary reason why people here are so confused and you are misinforming are large of people on the Internet.

[Gravy]

I am here to explain to people what happend at the WTC buildings.Without any knowledge of the investigations? You 9/11 deniers sure do fascinate me. Does it not concern you that your questions and objections may have been answered already, and that you're just wasting other peoples' time?

Ah, well. After you answer the Triangle questions, start a new thread and lay out your case. Fair enough?

Furthermore, since you are here, I want to try to stop you from continuing to mislead others on this very serious issue. I mean, you seem to be the primary reason why people here are so confused and you are misinforming are large of people on the Internet.I'll gladly accept corrections to things I've gotten wrong. You can start another thread for that. Fair enough?

Then proceed. You've got work to do.

[ElMondoHummus]

(1) The collapses were symmetric, straight-down and the buildings did not otherwise tip over.


Dr. Frank Greening has authored a paper analyzing the "tip-over" scenario, located here:

http://911myths.com/WTC2TIP.pdf


What appears to happen is that the tilting upper section was continuously crushed near the 80th floor by its own momentum so that the rotation was no longer that of a rigid body. Eventually the "hinge" at the northeast corner failed and the descending block took on a more vertical motion. Interestingly, once the hinge failed, and the pivot became frictionless, the motion of the center of gravity is predicted to become vertical, causing a shift in the rotational axis. Unfortunately, however, details of this stage of the WTC 2 collapse were obscured by smoke, dust and flying debris.


On top of that, a significant amount of the towers did indeed not "go straight down". The damage to buildings blocks away, including 30 West Broadway and the Verizon buildlings demonstrate this point.


(2) The collapses occur at near free-fall speed.


It's actually a fair bit slower. But, let's not get into numbers right now; we'd be talking single-digit seconds and fractions of seconds, and at that point, it's rather silly to discuss what is "slow" and "fast". Instead, let's take this route: To argue that the collapse happened faster than it was supposed to, you have to presume that the floors would stop a significant amount of time for each impact. Ignoring the fact that the global collapse scenario was more complex than that and involved the failure of the perimeter columns - which also happened to decrease the amount of per-floor support available - and therefore doesn't invoke the "pancake" scenario where the upper mass impacts on the masses below, pausing at each floor - that also implies that there's not enough potential energy in the top mass to overcome the resistance of the lower floors, or that the resistance of the lower floors is significant enough to "pause" the collapse at each floor until support structures fail. That scenario was addressed in several papers. One, by Bazant, Greening, et. al. is hosted here:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

... and Dr. Frank Greening has also authored another paper "ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE ", located here:

http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf

A further report by Bazant, Greening, Jia-Liang Lee, and David Benson, more generally dealing with overall questions of the collapse, can be seen here:

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf

I mention this because potential energy issues are addressed in this paper. Potential energy, after all, is at the base of the conspiracy claims that the towers could not have collapsed at the rate that they did without demolitions severing the supports, and this paper demonstrates that they weren't necessary.

If I may, I have a question for you: Steel loses a significant amount of it's strength at temperatures well within the range that can be found in common housefires, let alone in large-scale fires such as the ones found in the twin towers. Given the loss of load bearing capacity, why isn't global collapse possible for the WTCs? You're making a rather general statement, and for purposes of debate, it would be helpful to have more specificity. What about the WTC should have prevented the global collapse that was witnessed on 9/11?

Thank you.

[bofors]

What would have caused them to tip over?


Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

The answer is entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

The idea that the WTC buildings fell straight down from asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires blatantly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

In short, it is not possible to get an ordered reaction (here: straight-down collapse) from a disordered stimulus (here: asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires).

[beachnut]

I am here to explain to people what happend at the WTC buildings. Furthermore, since you are here, I want to try to stop you from continuing to mislead others on this very serious issue. I mean, you seem to be the primary reason why people here are so confused and you are misinforming are large of people on the Internet.
You have zero facts and evidence to support your ideas on 9/11 ...

[Pardalis]

The answer is entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

The idea that the WTC buildings fell straight down from asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires blatantly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

How does that relate to gravity?

[Terry]

In short, it is not possible to get an ordered reaction (here: straight-down collapse) from a disordered stimulus (here: asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires).

Are you seriously trying to say that the final state of the collapsed towers was highly ordered?

[uruk]

:confused: Umm.. yes I have a scanner, that is how I generated the digital image I posted (duh).

My bad. I didn't realize the web page was a separate image

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

The answer is entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

The idea that the WTC buildings fell straight down from asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires blatantly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

In short, it is not possible to get an ordered reaction (here: straight-down collapse) from a disordered stimulus (here: asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires).

In reference to the papers I linked in my own post above:

http://911myths.com/WTC2TIP.pdf
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf

... how is it not possible? By invoking entropy, you suggest that there is not enough energy available in the towers to allow for such a collapse as what happened on 9/11. But the papers linked above suggest that there is.

Also, what is ordered about the collapse? Simple viewings of videos of the collapse suggest it was indeed a very chaotic event. Straight-down collapse in and of itself isn't indicative of an ordered event, especially considering that this is a gravity-driven collapse we're discussing here.

[beachnut]

Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

The answer is entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

The idea that the WTC buildings fell straight down from asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires blatantly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

In short, it is not possible to get an ordered reaction (here: straight-down collapse) from a disordered stimulus (here: asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires).
You are really not a very good engineer as you make up lies about 9/11. Fraud is what you are not doing. False ideas on 9/11.

Please show me the straight down collapse of the WTC. WTC1 and 2 were about 2 acres in foot print; I found they left debris over 19 acres. OOPS our engineer with nut case ideas on 9/11 (as posted) thinks 19 acres are straight down on the 2 acres of WTC foot print. Are you really an engineer? Thermo and what? You did not take thermo; or did he? Votes?

More beer, when I meet up with the guys from Michigan. Beer, think beer.

[negativ]

I've been browsing this forum for a relatively long time. I first came to the JREF forums during the Dover PA "intelligent design" trial, because this was an excellent one-stop shop for up-to-the-minute coverage of the trial itself and behind-the-scenes gossip. I never had the first clue that there was even such a thing as a "9/11 Truth Movement" until that fateful day when someone posted about Loose Change.

Since then, I have learned more about 9/11, Al-Qaeda, architecture, Islam, the FAA, NORAD, and a nearly interminable list of other disciplines than I would ever have thought to learn about on my own.

I have always enjoyed delving into the collective minds of Truly Hard-Core Crazy social movements. Scientology, Jonestown, Aum Shinrikyo, and Heaven's Gate, to name but a handful. I recognize in myself a tendency towards weirdness. I'm about half a chromosome away from believing every single Area 51 / MJ-12 / Zeta Reticuli / Roswell / Bob Lazar-type claim ever made. In fact, I would actually enjoy believing in most of those things, if ever I found a really good and solid reason to do so. "I Want To Believe", as Agent Mulder's poster says, but not without really good reasons.

But it seems to me that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are a breed apart even from those. If you take all their claims and try to reconcile them with observable reality, you are left to wonder why the world doesn't look like this:

NEWYIPRa4Rg

(by the way, try to convince yourself that was made by the same guy who gave us Jarjar Binks! I double-dog dare ya!)

Maybe that IS in fact how some Truthers see the world. It amazes me that so many people seem to genuinely believe that they are the ONLY ONES who have seen through the lies. They alone (http://youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww) have figured out the HORRIBLE, WORLD-CHANGING TRUTH. They have exposed every last one of the world's most respected journalistic, academic, and industrial institutions as being willing participants in the most audacious fraud human society has ever seen.

And yet, they're alive. Even now, they're sitting on their collective and individuals asses under no threat from anyone. They alone know the BIGGEST SECRET EVER, and... nothing. At the same time, Buddhist monks in Burma (not generally known for a tendency to detonate themselves in coffee shops or saw the heads off of Western journalists and missionaries) are being slaughtered in their streets because they decided to insist that their government sucked.

I'd like to pretend that I had a really spiffy conclusion that would tie this up in a nice little bow, but I don't. Sorry.

[Gravy]

bofors, to keep this thread from continued derailing, I started two threads in which you can expound on your claims whenever you're ready.

Materials engineer and AE911truth member John Anderson, AKA bofors, makes his case. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97153)

John Philip Anderson, aka bofors, takes on Mark Roberts, aka Gravy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97154)

[uruk]

I have got a better idea, let's talk about the obvious and frankly more important details of the WTC collapses first. Again, you are getting in details that are frankly irrelevant in face of the "smoking gun" evidence.

To understand the WTC collapses, here is what primarily matters:

(1) The collapses were symmetric, straight-down and the buildings did not otherwise tip over. Since the collapse initiated with the upper floor section falling straight down into the floors below, where would the lateral forces come from to cause the building to tip over to one side?

(2) The collapses occur at near free-fall speed.
How about momentum and moving mass increasing as the debris that was once a floor above impact into the floor below which then gets destroyed and adds to the moving mass that then impacts to the floor below etc..


Although there is a lot more data which prove the WTC building were downed with controlled demolitions, these two points which are indisputable are all that is needed to make the case. How about providing some of that data.

If after considering these two points, you do not that the controlled demolition theory is most likely explanation for WTC building collapses, you either have a very poor understanding of basic physics or have some other conflicting agenda. Please provide some of those explinations, and evidences. You false dichotomies are showing.

Mark, your case, I think the answer is both. You seem to be in chronic denial of the obvious, so I think you lack a basic, intuitive understanding of how things work and also you have had apparently no serious education in physics or engineering. Furthermore, since you have go so far out of your way to try to "debunk" the only credible theories of the WTC collapses, for social and psychological reasons, I really doubt that you will be able to admit that you are wrong at this point.

Unfortunately, you continue to mislead others to the wrong conclusion in this very serious matter.[/QUOTE]

So far you've only come up with only amaturish CT statements and provided no evidence or even any arguments at all. Just unqualified statements.

[bofors]

Without any knowledge of the investigations?


Mark, as I stated above, I have some knowledge of the investigations, specifically the relevant parts of the NIST and FEMA reports.


You 9/11 deniers sure do fascinate me. Does it not concern you that your questions and objections may have been answered already, and that you're just wasting other peoples' time?

I have an excellent understanding of science and engineering, I have spent years doing computers simulations and my work is published. I have been looking at WTC collapses for months. I have heard all the 9/11 "debunker" arguments on the WTC topics, like those from yourself (and frankly, I think it is you who is the "denier"). It is quite obvious that these arguments are fundamentally flawed.

I have discussed this subject with everyone I know, which includes many people with doctoral level educations, they have looked at this subject and agree with my analysis. Presentations by Richard Gage and Steven Jones prove beyond any doubt that controlled demolitions brought down all three WTC buildings. There is no possibility that I am wrong here.


Ah, well. After you answer the Triangle questions, start a new thread and lay out your case. Fair enough?

Ok, since you are insisting on discussing this Triangle topic, I will try to respond to your questions, but it will probably be tomorrow.

[Pardalis]

There is no possibility that I am wrong here.

A man of science... :rolleyes:

[A W Smith]

Mark, as I stated above, I have some knowledge of the investigations, specifically the relevant parts of the NIST and FEMA reports.



I have an excellent understanding of science and engineering, I have spent years doing computers simulations and my work is published. I have been looking at WTC collapses for months. I have heard all the 9/11 "debunker" arguments on the WTC topics, like those from yourself (and frankly, I think it is you who is the "denier"). It is quite obvious that these arguments are fundamentally flawed.

I have discussed this subject with everyone I know, which includes many people with doctoral level educations, they have looked at this subject and agree with my analysis. Presentations by Richard Gage and Steven Jones prove beyond any doubt that controlled demolitions brought down all three WTC buildings. There is no possibility that I am wrong here.



Ok, since you are insisting on discussing this Triangle topic, I will try to respond to your questions, but it will probably be tomorrow.

please bring facts and figures to the table. Your argument from authority wont fly here. Especially if you cant even spell steel. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3097254&postcount=74)

[Corsair 115]

Presentations by Richard Gage and Steven Jones prove beyond any doubt that controlled demolitions brought down all three WTC buildings.Perhaps then you can answer this question:

Where are the very loud booms which are traditionally associated with demolition charges going off? On every video I have seen of the twin towers' collapses, the audio does not record at all the sounds of demolition charges. Given that the sounds generated by demolition charges are very loud and very distinctive, why are the sounds missing from every video of the event?

For that matter, why do none of the many persons in the area report hearing these loud and distinctive sounds?

Please do not bother posting links to some people in the area who reported that they heard things which sounded like explosions before or during the collapses - it is not even remotely the same thing. Demolition charges are very loud and very distinctive and would have been heard clearly by everyone within many blocks of the WTC and would have been clearly recorded on the audio track of every video camera in the area.

So where are the sounds of the demolition charges?

[uruk]

I have not even bothered to look at one page of the 10,000 page NIST report because I believe that it is a complete waste of time and does almost nothing to explain the events of 9/11.

Richard Gage, Jim Hoffman and numerous other competent, credible people have looked at the NIST report determined that it is garbage. Jim Hoffman outlines his critique here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

Furthermore, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the NIST Fire Science Division has called for an independent review of the NIST World Trade Center study:
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/12

Moreover, NIST admitts that it is "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" of the WTC:
http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/508.html
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

Finally, NIST's John Gross is lying about existence of molten metal at the WTC site: www.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY When I asked to explain himself in face of numerous contradicting facts, he refused.


So, I am not sure what you mean by NIST's "specific" conclusions about why the towers collapsed, because as far as I know NIST has failed to propose any mechanism for the collapse of the tower. Instead, NIST merely created a computer model for a proposed collapse initiation and that fails to actually initated a collapse without severly tweaking the parameters.

If you want to debate NIST's "specific" conclusions, I suggest you start by listing them here. Otherwise, you can start an attack on my NIST position by criticizing Jim Hoffman's writing here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

If you've never read the NIST how do you know what you are arguing against?
Your arguments against the NIST are based on what other people have said?
And it seems you only canvased the negative or critical reviews. Isn't that being a little loppsided? How about checking out if thier criticizims are vaild. You are supposedly an engineer, don't you check and verify.
Or did you go into this thing with your mind made up?

[beachnut]

Mark, as I stated above, I have some knowledge of the investigations, specifically the relevant parts of the NIST and FEMA reports.

I have an excellent understanding of science and engineering, I have spent years doing computers simulations and my work is published. I have been looking at WTC collapses for months. I have heard all the 9/11 "debunker" arguments on the WTC topics, like those from yourself (and frankly, I think it is you who is the "denier"). It is quite obvious that these arguments are fundamentally flawed.

I have discussed this subject with everyone I know, which includes many people with doctoral level educations, they have looked at this subject and agree with my analysis. Presentations by Richard Gage and Steven Jones prove beyond any doubt that controlled demolitions brought down all three WTC buildings. There is no possibility that I am wrong here.

Ok, since you are insisting on discussing this Triangle topic, I will try to respond to your questions, but it will probably be tomorrow.
Me thinks you are a liar -I have not even bothered to look at one page of the 10,000 page NIST report because I believe that it is a complete waste of time and does almost nothing to explain the events of 9/11. Or you are a hearsay repeater!

Sorry, but months of WTC study mean you are not prepared. It has been 6 years now and ideas like yours are only shared by nut case groups like AE9/11Truth.

Richard Gage copied all his work from other nut cases. Good job on that one.

Jones made up Thermite WTC story out of thin air 4 years after the fact; he was fired for his lies and he made up his own journal to post his lies. Another really good indicator you are full of junk on 9/11. Good job on this expert nut case too. I would love to see how you think thermite was used, and/or explain the entire CD story so even an Engineer like myself can understand? I would also want to know how you ignore the 1300 and 2066 pounds of TNT impacts of 11 and 175. Please explain why uncontrolled fires can not weaken steel to destroy the WTC after those big impacts! And please tell me how 10,000 gallons of fuel did not help start the biggest office fires I have ever seen in 55 years?

You have nothing. I think school was a waste of time and you failed to live up to being an engineer. Such a waste.

[Gravy]

Mark, as I stated above, I have some knowledge of the investigations, specifically the relevant parts of the NIST and FEMA reports.No, you have no clue what's in the reports. You even think that melted steel is the official cause of the collapses. That's as ignorant as it gets.

I have an excellent understanding of science and engineering, You have displayed a lack of understanding in these subjects that would make a high school freshman blush.

You don't have a foggy idea about a clue about why buildings stand up and fall down. You think a skyscraper built of structural steel and concrete should behave like frying pans, wood stoves, and toppling trees.

You have no concept of fire protection engineering.

Your misunderstanding and misuse of the term "entropy" is exactly the same as that of Steven Jones, which was voted "Worst misuse of a scientific term in the history of the internet" on these forums.

You think an unprotected steel frame would outlast a timber frame of the same strength in a fire.

You are unable to advance any argument, much less a rational, coherent one that incorporates good science, or any science.

You're a materials engineer who cannot spell the word "steel" even after being repeatedly corrected.

I have no idea why you're not utterly embarrassed by the deliberate ignorance you've spewed here. I am embarrassed for you. Truly.

I have spent years doing computers simulations and my work is published. You fail to understand that when you repeatedly invoke your professional credentials, you will be expected to display professional standards of research and scholarship. Your offhand dismissal of an entire body of experts who studied in depth the matters about which you are wholly ignorant but are wholly prepared to decree have been solved by your amazing powers of ratiocination, shows that you could not possibly be farther from being a professional. Your casual accusations against real professionals are childish and disgraceful.

I have been looking at WTC collapses for months.Yet you couldn't be bothered to even read NIST's FAQ. How sad. Instead, you rely on fantasy sites run by desperate frauds – and transparent, inept frauds at that – like Richard Gage. Throwing your hat in with people who are constitutionally incapable of getting anything right is an outstanding, adult decision.

I have heard all the 9/11 "debunker" arguments on the WTC topics, like those from yourself (and frankly, I think it is you who is the "denier"). Obviously not. You couldn't answer the simplest of questions here.

It is quite obvious that these arguments are fundamentally flawed. Your thread awaits. Make your case.
Materials engineer and AE911truth member John Anderson, AKA bofors, makes his case. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97153)


I have discussed this subject with everyone I know, which includes many people with doctoral level educations, they have looked at this subject and agree with my analysis. Presentations by Richard Gage and Steven Jones prove beyond any doubt that controlled demolitions brought down all three WTC buildings.Their presentations prove beyond a doubt that they are sad charlatans living out a sick fantasy.

There is no possibility that I am wrong here. Another man of "science" who doesn't understand the necessity of falsifiability. It gives me no pleasure to watch cultists clinging to the wreckage after their ship of fools has run aground. I find this all very, very depressing.

[leftysergeant]

Actually, the fact that you find the arguments opf Richard Gage so compelling leads me to doubt that you are really up to analysing any of the evidence regarding CD, or that you have any clue how it is done.

Gage himself shows himself to be an utter fool by claiming that there were squibs visible at the top corner of WTC 7, when there clearly are not. He ointrs out not one single shred of evidence of cutting charges going off at any time in WTC 7.

So how in the world do your lot find any indication of CD other than the nearly straight collapse of the building? Are you saying that it is impossible for a building to collapse? Is a building going to remain standing with major structural elements missing and fires raging inside?

If misalligned steel beams can stand upright on their own, why do we need to spend so much money on engineers to figure out where the columns should be placed or how they should be connected one to the other? It just makes no sense that a building as badly damaged as WTC 7 should have withstood the fires.

Gage is leading people down a very twisted path to oblivion in their professions. He's a laughing stock. You don't need to be an engineer to see that. Any soldier or fire fighter with the proper experience can see that.

[Minadin]

Um.. yes. By the way, what are your qualifications here?

I am an actual architect. You know, someone who designs buildings, and has to integrate the structure with the building systems (damn engineers) with the interior design (damn interior designers) to try to make the building look and work like our clients intended? You can look up my qualifications here by using the search function, but if it makes you feel important I'll scan my degree and / or business card for you.

Sure, I took mechanical engineering stactics and dynamics. I also took two general material science coarses which cover materials strengths topics and a graduate level materials mechanics coarse. I also took graduate level ceramics and polymer courses which covered topic in mechanics with respect to these specific types of materials in great detail.

That's wonderful, you should be able to answer my questions, then. By the way, since it's about as relevant as some of the things you've listed above, I took 6 semesters of photography and 8 semesters of Spanish.


(A) - the steel framed building retains its strength longer than wood because wood does not dissipate (absorb or conduct) heat well (physics of heat conduction) and wood burns (chemical reaction with environmental oxygen) at a much lower temperature than steel melts.


As Regnad Kcin would say: Dear Truther, you are 100% wrong.

The worst thing is that you could have easily avoided being so wrong by looking at the copious examples in this very thread. Gravy posted information in post #2 that would have taken you on the correct path, if you were at all interested in the truth. BenBurch posted good examples of the things described in Gravy's post, and then I even re-posted an image from Gravy's page which I thought was fairly informative.

Essentially, this was an open-book test. And you still failed.

"Finally, the fire resistance of wood can be improved by painting or impregnation with suitable chemicals. Suprisingly, heavy timber can withstand fire better than unprotected steel construction. Heavy timber burns slowly and resists heat penetration. The uncharred inner portion of the timber retains its structural strength, and if the fire is promptly put out, may continue to carry the load for repairs to be carried out."

Building Construction for Architects and Engineers, Dr. B. Benjamin, Materials of Construction, page 42.

You lose.



Well, like Jim Hoffman, my specialty is in polymers not metallurgy or civil engineering materials. But none of that is needed to understand 9/11, only a very basic understanding of physics. Unfortanately people here do not seem to have such a basic understanding of physics (or rather are ignoring what should be intuitive).

You seem to be lacking a basic understanding of a lot of the subjects you wish to tackle. Perhaps you should educate yourself first so as not to appear so foolish. As to intuition? The above example of steel versus timber beams was given to us very early on in our structural curriculum to inform us that "common sense" (intuition) meant exactly squat. I'm sure that a lot of people who aren't schooled in the area (laymen) wouldn't think to fireproof a steel and masonry building - after all, rocks and metals aren't combustible, right? That's what I used to think, too; when I was ignorant.

[Minadin]

I have discussed this subject with everyone I know, which includes many people with doctoral level educations, they have looked at this subject and agree with my analysis.

http://xkcd.com/258/

Mouse over and read the alt-text.

[boloboffin]

Why did Richard Gage remove the sound of explosions from the clip he loops of an Oslo, Norway controlled demolition?

This clip is present on three different slides of his "self-guided" PowerPoint presentation.

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-14.php

There is even a gap in the sound at the very end of the clip while the building is still falling.

And yet another recording of this same demolition clearly has loud explosions happening just as the building begins to fall.

ZAyyHQQXX_0

The explosions start at :22 in that clip.

What Gage is doing is conditioning his audience. He KNOWS that there are no loud sound of explosions in ANY clip of the 3 WTC buildings falling. He therefore takes out the sound of explosions from the Oslo CD, moves the sound up to the beginning of the clip to mask this, and then loops it over and over again to make people think that the Oslo CD was just like the WTC buildings falling.

Outright chicanery. Richard Gage is a liar.

[Minadin]

He's also an idiot. Which makes him a bad liar, I guess. No offense toward your investigative skills intended. I just don't see how anyone who paid any attention in required classes for the expertise he claims could even begin to think that he has any sort of authority.

[gumboot]

Hypothesis: Steel-framed buildings can not globally collapsed under plausable building fire conditions.


Other people are all over this like white on rice, so I won't worry too much. I only had one question really.

The above statement is very curious. I'd like to know, if it's not too much trouble, precisely what constitutes plausible building fire conditions?

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

To understand the WTC collapses, here is what primarily matters:

(1) The collapses were symmetric, straight-down and the buildings did not otherwise tip over.

(2) The collapses occur at near free-fall speed.


Neither of the above statements are true. We're off to a bad start. How can one investigate a building collapse when one is not even capable of recognising the specific phenomena that is occurring?

-Gumboot

[leftysergeant]

His diddling of the sound track on the video shows him to be only slightly more ethical than a skid road bum with a brick at the window of a liquor store. He is deliberately lying in support of a massive fraud intended to sow discontent with the government.

Did I mention he makes stupid freaking remarks as well?

He's a disgusting example of a human being.

Okay, so I finally took the time to go past the first idiotic statemnt in his power point presentation. That would be the FIRST point:

Symetrical collapse- all columns cut at the same time."

Mega BS! There is a gap of at least five seconds from the collapse of the first mechanical tower to the collapse of the next. It is another five seconds between the collapse of the second mechanical tower and the movement of the north side of the building. The top of the building disappears from view at 6.5 seconds, but, since we cannot see the ground level in any videos, I want to know how much longer it was until everything stooped moving. Don't give me 6.5 seconds total. We don't know that.

Now, clearly, if one of the mechanical towers totally disappears into the interior of the building, we can safely assume that the columns that held it aloft were severed.

But the other tower is still there on the roof for several seconds.

So, your idiot leader is wrong all day on that one.

The next point is a big porky lie, too. "Sights and sounds of explosions?" Vaguely explosion-like sounds, breaking-type sounds, collapsing type sounds, sounds similar to the crashing (not explosive-driven) sound that the building in the posted video makes as it crumbles, but no cutting charges.

And no window glass flying out horizontally in a single video. There was still glass in the windows on the north side of the building as it falls. we can see them breaking and just falling out of the frames.

Not one puff of smoke out the north side.

Now, if you are such a great engineer, perhaps you can tell me what sort of explosives will cut steel columns without over-pressurizing the interior of the building and sending all that thick black smoke in there shooting out sideways, taking out windows with it? Have you discovered someone capable of building a hushabomb?

Again, doofus is wrong all day.

Hoo-BOY is the next one a doozy!

"No characteristics of destruction by fire."

That is just plain idiotic. There were fires on more than half of the floors, many floors in an almost constant state of flash-over, for longer that the fire codes require the steel withstand.

He's not only wrong all day on this one, he's dumb all day.

And this one is totally weaslly:

"Government documentation."

He took a bunch of statements, excerpted them out of context and totally obliterated any clear meaning. I have no idea what he is trying to say. Probably the average rube would have no idea, either. Most engineers wouldn't. A twoofer who wants to believe will assume that he knows what Gage is saying and just accept it without question.

I, being literate in two languages and trained to a degree in arson investigations, can tell that he is a babbling fool. I am glad, considering his language skills, that he is not primarily an instructor. I would feel a need to wear a hard hat in any city where his students work, lest a piece of some structure come unfastened and bean me.

We've already discussed, and i have dismissed, "Free-fall speed of collapse." That he did not combine this with the first big hash-up is just further proof of his lack of language skills, and, considering his position, reflects badly on his actual, as opposed to supposed. level of intelligence.

I'm just an educated old fireman and I can make a point more clearly than that on just about anything that doesn't involve math or business administration. I expect an engineer to speak more clearly about matters of structural performance.

Then we get around to his monsterously stupid argumentum ad authoritam, in citing Danny Jowenko. I have to wonder about him, too. He probably never looked at a video with sound, just got to look at debris maps and whatever the WeAreChumps..er..Change people handed him. I have to wonder if he ever saw the video with the honking great slabs of walls from the north tower falling on the roof, or the divot they took out of the parapet.
Jowenko did not even know, until about five minutes before he made his ill-advised comments, that the buildings all fell on the same day. Not a very useful authority.

But it gets worse. He is one of thsoe sloppy, lazy idiots who sees square "squibs" at the top of the building and calls it mis-timed explosive charges. Now, had the moron just looked carefully at a picture of the other side of the building, he might have noticed that these apear at points at which the debris from the north tower had already removed parts of the building. This is, moreover, the one attempt he makes to show us explosive ejecta and he screwed it up with both hands. Unfreaking believeable stupidity.

Then he goes off about molten metal flowing "like lava," He does not offer us any proof of this other than a supposed quote from Mark Loiseux taken from, of all places, a neo-Nazi rag called the American Free Press. Does this fool not vet his sources? If AFP reports a drought coming, I'm building an ark. They are not even fit to line the bottom of a bird cage, although what a parrot would leave on it there would improve the quality of the content. Has it occured to him that among the contents of the site that were preserved for the museum were no huge pigs of cast iron from the basement?

And would he please explain to us how molten steel from a thermite charge would retain its heat for a month or more? Thermite is hot for minutes at most, then starts to cool like any other cast iron. This is, of course, accelerated when you mix it with tons of churning concrete as we saw in the collapse of the towers. There is no way it re-aggregates itself in the rubble pile like the metal droid from the Terminator sequel.

He does offer us a shot of the "meteor" from Hangar 17. His apparent muse, the long-unemployed S, jones showed that same thing to the world, with the same color manipulations and offered it as proof that there was molten metal.

Gage points out "aluminum doesn't rust." No problem there. It's about the only thing the fool got right. Problem is, the meteor isn't even all metal. Will somebody tell the blithering idiot that it's CONCRETE? It still has the rebar sticking out of it, it has floor trusses and pans layered in it and there is carpeting and paper with still-legible print on it all over there place. I did not think it was possible for a sloppier scientist than Jones to gain any public acclaim and along comes Gage to prove me wrong.

Then he comes out with "foreknowledge of the colapse" as evidence of CD. He quotes the fire chief as supporting that position. Okay, the chief knew it was coming down because another building fell on it and set it afire. That does not prove CD. It proves that pieces of sky scraper that fall on other sky scrapers do structural damage.

The chief did a hundred times more real science on site than Gage has done since the attack. the chief measured the faces of the building wioth a surveyor's transit and found that it was starting to lean.

Now, having analysed what Gage offers for proof, and having found him scoring zero out of a possible nine points, I need to go read something that will restore the IQ points I felt dropping out of my ears while reading his BS. He's a fraud and a fool, and I would tell him that to his face should we ever meet, and I would not be nearly as polite as i was here, where inappropriate language would get me banned.

I wouldn't even apologize for the smell of kimchi on my breath.

[PixyMisa]

Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

The answer is entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

The idea that the WTC buildings fell straight down from asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires blatantly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

I'm sure the scientific community will be fascinated by your novel interpretation of this well-established law of physics.

Now, in the real world, falling down is what things normally do. If the towers had fallen sideways, that would have violated the Second Law; and if they had fallen up, the First Law.

In short, it is not possible to get an ordered reaction (here: straight-down collapse) from a disordered stimulus (here: asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires).
Newsflash: The force of gravity sums to a single vector, and that vector points pretty much towards the centre of the Earth. We refer to this as "down".

[Architect]

I am an actual architect. You know, someone who designs buildings, and has to integrate the structure with the building systems (damn engineers) with the interior design (damn interior designers) to try to make the building look and work like our clients intended? You can look up my qualifications here by using the search function, but if it makes you feel important I'll scan my degree and / or business card for you.



Two of us on the same site?! It must be a conspiracy!!! What would architects know about buildings ?!?!?! :eek:

[Gravy]

Essentially, this was an open-book test. And you still failed.

Best description of 9/11 truthers that I've seen.

[Jono]

Presentations by Richard Gage and Steven Jones prove beyond any doubt that controlled demolitions brought down all three WTC buildings. There is no possibility that I am wrong here.


Now that I would have to disagree with, save for the last bit. I do believe that no factual clarification can sway your decision about the WTC's.
Gage, he doesn't put forth any real new information on the table that hasn't been addressed numerous times, he cites technical papers written by the theology professor Griffin and derives from chemical analazys of Steven Jones etc etc, all have been addressed, hence Gage doesn't counter the critique laid upon the claims he's purporting.

For example, he puts forth the "free fall" fallacy, showing a video to a demolitions expert from one angle where obviously ignores the other material available that (in the case of WTC7) the building leaned toward the south and collapsed moreso in that direction due to the path of least resistence. He makes no word of this at all.
Gaged said "fires do not blow up buildings", erhh well did I miss something here, a WTC blowing up or? He also said, what can be called the Titanic-fallacy, that the building was too strong to have heat cause sinks in the structure, this is not just wrong, it's fraudulent.

[Pardalis]

Two of us on the same site?! It must be a conspiracy!!! What would architects know about buildings ?!?!?! :eek:

There are never enough architects, but too many kooks.

[Gravy]

Why did Richard Gage remove the sound of explosions from the clip he loops of an Oslo, Norway controlled demolition?

This clip is present on three different slides of his "self-guided" PowerPoint presentation.

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-14.php

There is even a gap in the sound at the very end of the clip while the building is still falling.

And yet another recording of this same demolition clearly has loud explosions happening just as the building begins to fall.

ZAyyHQQXX_0

The explosions start at :22 in that clip.

What Gage is doing is conditioning his audience. He KNOWS that there are no loud sound of explosions in ANY clip of the 3 WTC buildings falling. He therefore takes out the sound of explosions from the Oslo CD, moves the sound up to the beginning of the clip to mask this, and then loops it over and over again to make people think that the Oslo CD was just like the WTC buildings falling.

Outright chicanery. Richard Gage is a liar.Excellent find, bolo.

[T.A.M.]

Are you surprised he would manipulate the evidence to condition his audience...The cult of invalidity.

TAM:)

[Architect]

There are never enough architects, but too many kooks.

With a comment like that, there must be THREE of us here! Government Shills! Sheeple!!!!

[Newtons Bit]

Two of us on the same site?! It must be a conspiracy!!! What would architects know about buildings ?!?!?! :eek:

Architects are just exterior designers as far as skyscrapers are concerned anyways.

:D

[Alareth]

I designed a house in my 3rd year of drafting class. Do I count?

[Terry]

I wanted to be an architect, but my mum said I couldn't draw well enough, so to forget about that. Near enough for conspiracy theories, right?

[MikeW]

Why did Richard Gage remove the sound of explosions from the clip he loops of an Oslo, Norway controlled demolition?

This clip is present on three different slides of his "self-guided" PowerPoint presentation.

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-14.php
Interesting. Look at the source code for the page and this line jumps out:

<!-- C:\911-PPT\S-Jones-PPT\oslodemo-cut2PFC.wmv -->

That file isn't available on the site, but Googling for oslodemo takes us to http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/index.php?dir=BYUStevenJones/Flash/ , where there's a file called oslodemo-cut2.mpg. That appears to be a longer version of the same footage, only with no audio. So I'm wondering, have they added the entire audio track from somewhere else?

[leftysergeant]

So I got to checking out some of the other "evidence" on that site and discover OMG! they used whacky old Judy's discombobulator ray gun on another building to test it before they did the WTC. Check it out.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/BYUStevenJones/Flash/southwark_towers(trim).mpg

Did you see that? The towers dustified as they fell. There was a building-shaped cloud of dust standing after the had dropped about half-way down.

[Architect]

Architects are just exterior designers as far as skyscrapers are concerned anyways.
:D

Says the number cruncher in the corner-that's why so many engineers just go ahead and do it all themselves (no, ehm, wait, just a mo, I'll think of one in a moment, urm, eh.....let me come back to you on that)

:p

[Architect]

Did you see that? The towers dustified as they fell. There was a building-shaped cloud of dust standing after the had dropped about half-way down.

Man, that word used by the Truthers really annoys me....IT'S NOT A REAL WORD....although I have to say it wasn't nearly as appalling as the English eejit on the radio today who used the word "securitised" instead of "secured". ARGH!!!

[/rant]

[Alareth]

Man, that word used by the Truthers really annoys me....ITS NOT A REAL WORD....although I have to say it wasn't nearly as appalling as the English eejit on the radio today who used the word "securitised" instead of "secured". ARGH!!!




Didn't you receive your Judy Wood to English dictionary from NWO distribution?

[Architect]

Didn't you receive your Judy Wood to English dictionary from NWO distribution?

Oh man, they must have left out all the Gaelic speakers again!

[leftysergeant]

Sometimes, I wonder whether Judy knows what she just said.

[Thunder]

I love how with one breath, Truthers say "the WTC was turned to dust...hence it must have been a controlled demolition!!!"....and then with the other breath they say "why did the authorities sell off the 400,000 tons of steel from the WTC?".

So which is it? Did the WTC get turned to dust.....or not?

This is why Truthers are seen as fools all over the country. Because they have no story, no theory, no explenation.

[boloboffin]

Thanks, Gravy. Yes, that was a sample. :D

[rwguinn]

Architects are just exterior designers as far as skyscrapers are concerned anyways.

:D

I always thought that they were like the "Designers" (As opposed to design engineers) who are always wanting to hang parasitic weight and "look good" "pretty stuff" on my fully-functional structure...:D:D:D:boxedin:

[Elizabeth I]

Architects are just exterior designers as far as skyscrapers are concerned anyways.

I always thought that they were like the "Designers" (As opposed to design engineers) who are always wanting to hang parasitic weight and "look good" "pretty stuff" on my fully-functional structure...:D:D:D:boxedin:

As someone who has to work in buildings designed by architects, could I ask what y'all have against closets? And cabinets?

[Architect]

As someone who has to work in buildings designed by architects, could I ask what y'all have against closets? And cabinets?

Speak to the quantity surveyors and clients. They're the ones that always decide to omit them.......

:eye-poppi

[Alareth]

Speak to the quantity surveyors and clients. They're the ones that always decide to omit them.......

:eye-poppi


Do you know where I can get a copy of "Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quantity Surveying"?

[Architect]

The RICS?

[Bell]

The RICS?

No, the RITZ (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6124307318636229694)!

[tsig]

I am here to explain to people what happend at the WTC buildings. Furthermore, since you are here, I want to try to stop you from continuing to mislead others on this very serious issue. I mean, you seem to be the primary reason why people here are so confused and you are misinforming are large of people on the Internet.

See, that's where you are wrong. I knew why the buildings collapsed long before I was even on the internet, much less heard of JREF or Gravy.

IMHO You sound more like a preacher come to share the good news than an engineer.

BTW I have not read a single one of your posts but I know they're all wrong.

[tsig]

Oh man, they must have left out all the Gaelic speakers again!
Gaelic is woo enough as it is.

I mean, do you really expect the rest of us to believe those sounds are a language?

Or is "Gaelic speakers" just a brand name?

JAQ.

[rwguinn]

Gaelic is woo enough as it is.

I mean, do you really expect the rest of us to believe those sounds are a language?

Or is "Gaelic speakers" just a brand name?

JAQ.

Thought I saw them in Fry's between the Bose and Klipsch....

[boloboffin]

This is from a thread that got closed. I just couldn't let this go unanswered, and I think it will fit in generally with this thread.

My example was a sledgehammer hitting a pie taking the path of least resistance. I remarked that CD CT is trying to tell us that the hammer bounces off the meringue. An exaggeration, to be sure, but all the elements are there.

I'm afraid I can't help you with poorly construed examples. Are you claiming that objects moving through a system do not always take the path of least resistance? It's a yes/no question, as opposed to anything involving hammers or pie.

There is nothing in my example that suggests the sledgehammer does not take the path of least resistance through the pie.

You guys are saying that the path of least resistance is not through the pie, but over where the pie is not. I am aware that the pie offers more resistance to the sledgehammer than empty air, but I and you are at a loss to explain how the pie is going to deflect the hammer over to that least resistance space.

This is exactly what's going on with the towers. The calculations show that the resistance of the structure below could not divert the upper falling mass from plowing right on through to the ground. Yes, the air beside the towers would provide much less resistance to the falling upper mass than the structure below. But the structure below possesses no comparable force to be able to deflect the falling mass there.

[Gravy]

deep44 is relying on Wikipedia for his knowledge of physics. Like most truther knowledge of physics, that amounts to "things don't fall through hard things." Yes, they do, when the path through the hard thing is the path of least energy change.

[gumboot]

The stupid thing about the "path of least resistance" is that even a building in the process of being demolished offers more resistance than empty air, so even if it was a CD, by their reckoning the stop still should have tipped off.

-Gumboot

[Dave Rogers]

The idea that the WTC buildings fell straight down from asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires blatantly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

In short, it is not possible to get an ordered reaction (here: straight-down collapse) from a disordered stimulus (here: asymmetric airplane crashes and subsequent random fires).

Bofors, I replied to this in another thread because I was getting a little confused by the multiple threads on the same topic. Please take a look at the post by following the link below. The key point I want to make is that you're confusing symmetry with entropy, and they are in fact fundamentally different, though sometimes partly related, physical concepts.

Thanks for posting your argument, because I've realised it points to a key misunderstanding in the higher intellectual levels of the truth movement. It's always difficult to follow arguments based on a misunderstanding that one does not possess, because it's difficult to realise that the person arguing lacks the same level of understanding. I think I understand your thinking more clearly now, and can show you where it's in error.

Dave

[Minadin]

I'm guessing that bofors has decided to abandon this thread. Is that the case?

[leftysergeant]

Like most truther knowledge of physics, that amounts to "things don't fall through hard things." Yes, they do, when the path through the hard thing is the path of least energy change.

Isn't that the same kind of logic that dictates that you can't blow your brains out with a cotton bullet?

[funk de fino]

I watched Crimewatch in the UK last night and predict UK truthers will be up in arms about the claims made about an arson attack that they covered.

It was claimed that the fire at the house reached temperatures of 700 degrees.

Crimewatch is on the BBC

OMG, NWO, Disinfo, Jill Dando was murdered because she was going to become a whistleblower

[gumboot]

On the matter of fire temperatures...

State Highway One north of Hamilton has reopened after a fiery collision between a fuel tanker and truck brought traffic to a standstill for nine hours.

...

Emergency workers had earlier used foam to put out some of the 33,000 litres of burning fuel that escaped from the tanker.

Those battling the blaze faced temperatures of up to 1000 deg C. The fire completely gutted both trucks, which were burnt down to their skeleton framing.

...

Hamilton chief fire officer Gary Talbot said it took about 20 minutes for the right resources to arrive, and it was a further 20 minutes before the blaze was brought under control.

"The biggest risk was radiated heat. The general attack had to be from a distance of 25 to 50m away."

Source - The New Zealand Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10472902)

33,000 litres is a tad under 8,000 US gallons, and 1,000 degrees C is 1800 degrees F.

-Gumboot

[Dave Rogers]

On the matter of fire temperatures...

Those battling the blaze faced temperatures of up to 1000 deg C. The fire completely gutted both trucks, which were burnt down to their skeleton framing.




Yes, but as you can see the steel didn't melt, therefore 9/11 was an inside job.

Dave

[peteweaver]

4th April 2005 Geest pasta factory at Barton on Humber catches fire,
most of the factory collapses.

[Bell]

4th April 2005 Geest pasta factory at Barton on Humber catches fire,
most of the factory collapses.

They don't build factories out of pasta like they used to.

[Newtons Bit]

As someone who has to work in buildings designed by architects, could I ask what y'all have against closets? And cabinets?

Sometimes, after complaining about how an architect is making my design task so difficult, I remember that there is a reason why they were hired in the first place. If engineers designed buildings they'd all be square with mono-sloping roofs, no windows and only one door.

[rwguinn]

Sometimes, after complaining about how an architect is making my design task so difficult, I remember that there is a reason why they were hired in the first place. If engineers designed buildings they'd all be square with mono-sloping roofs, no windows and only one door.
You say that like it is a bad thing...:D

[BenBurch]

Sometimes, after complaining about how an architect is making my design task so difficult, I remember that there is a reason why they were hired in the first place. If engineers designed buildings they'd all be square with mono-sloping roofs, no windows and only one door.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Dymaxion_house.jpg

[Bell]

Sometimes, after complaining about how an architect is making my design task so difficult, I remember that there is a reason why they were hired in the first place. If engineers designed buildings they'd all be square with mono-sloping roofs, no windows and only one door.

Those kind of buildings worked well in the former communist countries!

[Gravy]

4th April 2005 Geest pasta factory at Barton on Humber catches fire, most of the factory collapses.

...And the conspiracists miss another obvious conspiracy:

One food industry executive, who touched wood as he spoke, said: "There are two types of food company: those that have had a fire and those that are going to have a fire."More conspiracy:Last October a fire at Premier Foods' factory in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, caused a temporary shortage of Branston pickle. ...While sales of Piccalilli Relish soared. Qui bono, indeed!

A week later Direct Table Foods' bacon factory, a few hundred yards from Premier's, was destroyed by fire....Resulting in the deaths of two downwind Bury St. Edmunds residents, who were unable to outrun the tsunami of drool that destroyed much of Risbygate Street.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6261fa22-bb74-11d9-911a-00000e2511c8.html?nclick_check=1

[peteweaver]

Another food industry fire occurred last month:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7076175.stm

Four firefighters were killed when part of a roof collapsed onto them :(

The worst firefighting disaster in the UK since the 1970's.

[FactCheck]

Did anyone else notice Bofors never answered the slightest of technical questions? His answers were (And I paraphrase) "Of course I understand! See, I graduated college for this stuff!". It has become clear to me this guy is not who he says he is. Anyone can scan someone else's credentials and say its theirs. Yet another conspiracy con man exposed.

I find it an insult to my intelligence when someone says "Unfortunately, you continue to mislead others to the wrong conclusion in this very serious matter." then says "Arguing that no "fire-proofed" steel-frame structure has globally collapsed prior 9/11 due to fire, gives good reason to question that it happened on 9/11."

Misleading (Lie) 1) He suggest the impact levels of the WTC had fireproofing. Something which would be impossible given the fireproofing of the lower floors came off just in the collapse. Lets play "Where's the fire proofing on GZ" (http://www.debunking911.com/gz.htm)

Misleading (Lie) 2) He either suggest there was other "tube in a tube" designed buildings which had airliners rammed into them at 500 MPH and didn't collapse or he left that nugget of information out on purpose to mislead people into thinking the WTC damage was just like any other building on fire. For WTC 7 he must be suggesting there are other buildings which were 47 stories tall and hit by another building. He also suggests these buildings all had a cantilever core over an electrical substation.

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

The loose change forum is filled with gullible people. I believe that's where you'd rather spend your time.

He also keeps saying the buildings fell straight down. THEY DID NOT! They fell apart and here is unquestionable PROOF.

http://www.debunking911.com/columnd.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

He either thinks we are that stupid or he is that smart.