FREE TAPATALK APP

SBrown · 29th May 2006, 05:00 PM

Hi I ran across this and after reading through it found it an interesting piece. Just wondering what others thought of it, my math skills are a bit rusty.
[modm]edited for rule 4 violation

Consider this a warning. Further violations of the user agreement may result in suspension. [/modm]

original text here.

RandFan · 29th May 2006, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown

Hi I ran across this and after reading through it found it an interesting piece. Just wondering what others thought of it, my math skills are a bit rusty.

You didn't provide a link or attribution.

dissonance · 29th May 2006, 05:07 PM

I found the original here.

SBrown · 29th May 2006, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

You didn't provide a link or attribution.

So for you to analyze it you first need to know who wrote it or where it came from?

Will that change how you respond to it?

Mercutio · 29th May 2006, 05:11 PM

Assuming even distribution is a neat trick. I wonder if the author would agree that someone who has one foot in a pot of boiling water, and another foot frozen solid in ice, is on average perfectly comfortable.

The analysis is flawed from the very premises. We know already that there were beams, from the floors that were hit, that were not exposed to temperatures sufficient to weaken them. Others, of course, were exposed to quite sufficient heat. Once these were effectively removed, the load on the unweakened beams was tremendously different.

Rob Lister · 29th May 2006, 05:14 PM

More importantly, why is the attribution mixing the total mass of the building's steel and concrete structure with the steel and concrete structure of the floors actually hit.

An exercise in futility, reading it or debating it.

Ducky · 29th May 2006, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown

So for you to analyze it you first need to know who wrote it or where it came from?

Will that change how you respond to it?

Actually, to avoid violation of Rule 4 you would need to cite it and cut to proper fair use lengths.

But of course, you knew that because you read the user agreement for the forum, right?

Gravy · 29th May 2006, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown

So for you to analyze it you first need to know who wrote it or where it came from?

Will that change how you respond to it?

Sylvia, sometimes people get testy here because Conspiracy Theorists tend to "dump and run," without staying to discuss what they've dropped off. I hope that's not the case with you. Mutton-Head a few days ago made the effort to discuss, but he was taking on a lot of issues at once, so it's good that you've limited this post to one issue. My math also isn't great. What specifically did you find interesting about the info you posted?

WildCat · 29th May 2006, 05:18 PM

And where is this "FEMA report"?

dissonance · 29th May 2006, 05:20 PM

Unless I missed it, they don't include the stuff in the buildings that would have burned (papers, furniture). I have no idea how that affects the calculations, but I assume it's important.

Gravy · 29th May 2006, 05:22 PM

You all type too fast.
I wanted to see if Sylvia recognized the equal distribution problem. I also wanted to see if she had read the NIST report, which concluded that the towers probably would not have collapsed had they not been severely damaged by the impact of the planes.

RandFan · 29th May 2006, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown

So for you to analyze it you first need to know who wrote it or where it came from?

Will that change how you respond to it?

No. No.

XXX · 29th May 2006, 05:26 PM

A few things come to mind...as others have mentioned as well.

Doesn't mention the structural damage to the building.
Assumes an even distribution of heat
The fire that resulted after the jet fuel was gone from all the other things that burned is the fire that really took down the towers.

As far a technical errors, I'm not an expert so correct me if I'm wrong, but don't objects also absorb heat at different rates? It seems that maybe that has not been taken into account.

SBrown · 29th May 2006, 05:27 PM

Apparently I broke some rule and now apparently my name is in violation. I guess the best thing would have been to just keep this to myself. The link that was provided is not where I found this, I found it on a private site and I was trying to hunt down who wrote it or where they found it. LOL

R.Mackey · 29th May 2006, 05:30 PM

Agree, you need to quote your source. It is not polite to steal other people's work without attribution. For all we know, you are taking it out of context. (Addendum: As others have noted, the source material can be found here. All quotes below are taken from that message. The author has chosen a pseudonym.)

While we're waiting for that, there are a number of amateur oversimplifications in this derivation that need to be corrected. Still, I appreciate the unknown author showing some math for a change -- this is head and shoulders above the usual "but I know what it should look like" crap typical of WTC deniers. Because the math is shown, it is easy to see where they went wrong, and together we can make some progress.

As I've posted before, a good baseline paper is "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation,", Eagar and Musso, JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 8-11, readable online here: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

Now, let's pick this apart.

Originally Posted by Unknown Source

What we propose to do, is to pretend that the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction.

One can find much better estimates of the actual fuel present, since the amount put on the plane was logged... No matter, laziness on the author's part does not change the final outcome.

Quote:

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

You'll notice in my reference that it is accepted that the fire was not optimal, and burned quite a bit cooler than it could have under ideal conditions. This is not news, but the author is correct in pointing this out.

Quote:

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:
39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

And here it falls apart. The author is assuming that the entire floor had to be heated to some particular temperature. Wrong! The heating was uneven. In fact, if you check my source, the uneven heating was one of the major contributors of the collapse.

Because the fire wasn't even, the author of your piece has grossly overestimated the thermal inertia of the affected materials. The estimate is therefore invalid.

Quote:

So, if we assume a typical office fire at the WTC, then the jet fuel could have only added 280 - 25 = 255° C (at the very most) to the temperature of the fire. [...]

We have found that it is impossible the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor beyond 280° C (536° F).

These two paragraphs, only a few lines apart, are inconsistent. Off the top of my head, I would buy that the jet fuel might only add 250 C or so to an "ordinary" (fully involved, engulfing everything on several floors) office fire... but that "ordinary" office fire is plenty hot on its own. So, say, 250 C added to a baseline of several hundred degrees C. I'd buy that.

But in the summary paragraph, the baseline office fire is forgotten. The jet fuel by itself might not have, but it wasn't by itself, nor did it have to heat the entire solid mass of the floor. So the summary conclusion is irrelevant to the real problem.

We all accept that the fire temperature was sub-700 C or so, even at its hottest parts. This derivation hasn't proven otherwise.

And now in the final act, the agenda becomes clear:

Quote:

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?

I haven't seen a legitimate article that claimed "1500° C," nor was such a temperature necessary. The author needs to substantiate that the "lying media" in fact lied.

The Cardington experiments may or may not have been at all relevant to the WTC situation. I can build a steel structure that won't collapse even at much higher temperatures, say if I'm building a bank vault -- does that mean that all steel buildings should withstand that kind of treatment? Absolutely not.

So in conclusion, this analysis is flawed, and it is easy to see where and why. I would prefer to respond to the original author, but you would have prevented me from doing so.

ETA: Added link to original article, now that it has been found.

WildCat · 29th May 2006, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown

Apparently I broke some rule and now apparently my name is in violation. I guess the best thing would have been to just keep this to myself. The link that was provided is not where I found this, I found it on a private site and I was trying to hunt down who wrote it or where they found it. LOL

Excuse me?

case sensitive · 29th May 2006, 05:31 PM

Sylvia are you a young Sylvia Browne?

RandFan · 29th May 2006, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown

Apparently I broke some rule and now apparently my name is in violation. I guess the best thing would have been to just keep this to myself. The link that was provided is not where I found this, I found it on a private site and I was trying to hunt down who wrote it or where they found it. LOL

1.) Take a few minutes and read the rules.

2.) Don't take personal that which isn't meant to be personal.

3.) Don't assume motives of others without cause.

4.) Welcome to the forum.

SBrown · 29th May 2006, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Agree, you need to quote your source. It is not polite to steal other people's work without attribution. For all we know, you are taking it out of context.

Interesting I never did claim this. Like I said I ran across it. Don't worry have your frenzy on attacking me as a group if it makes you feel better.

Damn all I did was ask about it, you guys are looney.

Rob Lister · 29th May 2006, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown

Interesting I never did claim this. Like I said I ran across it. Don't worry have your frenzy on attacking me as a group if it makes you feel better.

Damn all I did was ask about it, you guys are looney.

And off you go?

Gravy · 29th May 2006, 05:39 PM

Sylvia, you asked for opinions on your post. You received some. Now it's your turn. See how this works?

RandFan · 29th May 2006, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown

Interesting I never did claim this.

Never claimed what? Whether you claimed something or didn't claim anything is beside the point.

XXX · 29th May 2006, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown

Interesting I never did claim this. Like I said I ran across it. Don't worry have your frenzy on attacking me as a group if it makes you feel better.

Damn all I did was ask about it, you guys are looney.

Maybe slight misunderstanding here. I don't think they are claiming that you stole it and tried to pass it off as your own. They are saying that when you cut and paste an entire piece of work like that and don't include who it's attributed to that in effect becomes stealing it without giving them their due. Not stealing it as in direct theft. If I post an entire chapter of a book on here without attribution, I'm not trying to steal it of course, but my having done so in, in principal, is theft of that material.

Ducky · 29th May 2006, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown

Interesting I never did claim this. Like I said I ran across it. Don't worry have your frenzy on attacking me as a group if it makes you feel better.

Damn all I did was ask about it, you guys are looney.

You posted in an unclear manner someone else's work, and you seem to not understand the rules of the forum. The response is just as frenzied as if I had gone to the loose change forum and posted outside their rules (except we don't ban outright.)

Now, you should reread the forum rules and user agreement, and then ask your question and cite sources as asked in the agreements.

WildCat · 29th May 2006, 06:06 PM

I'd still like to know where this "FEMA Report" is CT'ers keep talking about...

R.Mackey · 29th May 2006, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown

Interesting I never did claim this. Like I said I ran across it. Don't worry have your frenzy on attacking me as a group if it makes you feel better.

Damn all I did was ask about it, you guys are looney.

Citing references is the way things are done, and was also explained clearly in the rules of this Forum. Learn it, live it, love it.

Calling us all "looney," etc., is also not very polite.

Pidge · 29th May 2006, 06:42 PM

Someone has published a paper in the Jornal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society dealing with temperature of the burning jet fuel, and failure methods of the support steel.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation by Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso

(I think the quantity of jet fuel available they quote - 90,000L, is probably on the high side)

Points I was going to raise

It's naive to assume uniform heating of the materials on the floor.

It's naive to assume the floors are empty of fixtures, fixttings and furniture - there's say (3960m²*100kg/m²=) 396,000kg per floor of other materials, significant quantities of which would be combustible, unless the tenenat had managed to complete a fit out with non-combustibles.

An aside - office floor loading limit capacities are usually around the 300kg/m². So 100kg/m² is a reasonable average. How do I know this? because is really screws up a computer room planning when you put it into a floor in a building with office-rated floors - computer equipment racks are about 1.5m² of floor area, weight around 120kg each, and you can get well over 330 kg of gear into them without too much effort, and without completely filling them.

Also see the Wikipedia article on the WTC for some details on the construction of the WTC.

WildCat · 29th May 2006, 06:48 PM

Of course NIST did extensive testing and modeling of the WTC fires, but since every single structural engineer in the world has been paid off and new grads are also being paid off we can discount their findings.

R.Mackey · 29th May 2006, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by Pidge

Someone has published a paper in the Jornal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society dealing with temperature of the burning jet fuel, and failure methods of the support steel.

Great minds think alike. There are more thorough treatments out there, but I too find this paper to be an excellent overview. I learned several things from it.

Hamradioguy · 29th May 2006, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by dissonance

Unless I missed it, they don't include the stuff in the buildings that would have burned (papers, furniture). I have no idea how that affects the calculations, but I assume it's important.

Very important! And yes, the study IS flawed. I've mentioned this in other posts- Buildings using steel trussed construction similar to the WTC have often failed in fires. Ask a firefighter if you don't believe it. More firefighters than I care to think of have died or been injured when the steel trussed roofs they were on failed under fire conditions. And no jet fuel was involved, just "ordinary combustibles".

Not all the jet fuel burned, and what did burned fairly quickly. That heavy black smoke we all saw wasn't the jet fuel, it was the contents of the buildings- computer cases, desks, chairs, carpets and all the stuff found in an office. It burns hot, it burns for a long time and it produces lots of black smoke. For some reason the CTers seem to obsess on jet fuel and conveniently forget that there was "lots of stuff that burns" in the WTC.

Timothy · 29th May 2006, 07:45 PM

The NIST report and appendices contain a number of detailed analyses related to this question:

1. Dispersal of fuel and debris in each collision
2. Tests of how much energy, heat, etc. a typical WTC workstation produces when set on fire.
3. Heat and temperature distribution on each floor.

The basic problem with the OP report ... far too simplistic modeling, and the lack of inclusion of the fuel *in* the towers which were a significant contributor.

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

- Timothy

Pardalis · 29th May 2006, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown

Hi I ran across this and after reading through it found it an interesting piece. Just wondering what others thought of it, my math skills are a bit rusty.

original text here.

What did you find interesting about it?

Soapy Sam · 29th May 2006, 09:07 PM

Having actually watched oilfield firefighters use controlled explosions to snuff a wellhead fire, I can't help wondering if the explosives the Gummint concealed in the walls might not have actually extinguished some of the internal fires...
But they probably included incendiaries, right?
Those Gummint guys think of everything.

Which reminds me. George and Dick go into a restaurant.
Cheney orders a burger. Bush asks for a "Quickie". The waitress slaps his face and asks if he thinks he's Bill Clinton.
Dick leans over and whispers "Quiche, George. It's pronounced 'quiche' "

SBrown · 29th May 2006, 09:07 PM

I was warned that there was some "elitists" attitudes here.

I posted this "article" because this was posted as a rebuttal on a thread that I started on a private forum. I could not link to the forum and I was waiting to get the source from the poster(who I had asked for earlier). So I posted it here to get some feedback and some information on something I really am not that up to speed on. Instead all I received was a bunch of attacks on how I was breaking the rules and such. Then I get a PM on how I need to change my name because it is against the rules??? Why was this not brought up when I registered a few weeks ago?

All I got here was hits and paranoia. Not by everyone of course, a few were very civil, but a majority that even came up with a good counter, they first started off with negativities directed at me.

Pardalis · 29th May 2006, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown

I was warned that there was some "elitists" attitudes here.

I posted this "article" because this was posted as a rebuttal on a thread that I started on a private forum. I could not link to the forum and I was waiting to get the source from the poster(who I had asked for earlier). So I posted it here to get some feedback and some information on something I really am not that up to speed on. Instead all I received was a bunch of attacks on how I was breaking the rules and such. Then I get a PM on how I need to change my name because it is against the rules??? Why was this not brought up when I registered a few weeks ago?

All I got here was hits and paranoia. Not by everyone of course, a few were very civil, but a majority that even came up with a good counter, they first started off with negativities directed at me.

Besides all that bickering about rules of posting, what did you find interesting about the link you posted?

Pardalis · 29th May 2006, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Which reminds me. George and Dick go into a restaurant.
Cheney orders a burger. Bush asks for a "Quickie". The waitress slaps his face and asks if he thinks he's Bill Clinton.
Dick leans over and whispers "Quiche, George. It's pronounced 'quiche' "

I once asked "Give me some tart" to a waitress. I really meant to say "pie". She didn't seem too pleased.

RandFan · 29th May 2006, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Which reminds me. George and Dick go into a restaurant.
Cheney orders a burger. Bush asks for a "Quickie". The waitress slaps his face and asks if he thinks he's Bill Clinton.
Dick leans over and whispers "Quiche, George. It's pronounced 'quiche' "

Dick, you said Dick.

RandFan · 29th May 2006, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown

I was warned that there was some "elitists" attitudes here.

I posted this "article" because this was posted as a rebuttal on a thread that I started on a private forum. I could not link to the forum and I was waiting to get the source from the poster(who I had asked for earlier). So I posted it here to get some feedback and some information on something I really am not that up to speed on. Instead all I received was a bunch of attacks on how I was breaking the rules and such. Then I get a PM on how I need to change my name because it is against the rules??? Why was this not brought up when I registered a few weeks ago?

All I got here was hits and paranoia. Not by everyone of course, a few were very civil, but a majority that even came up with a good counter, they first started off with negativities directed at me.

The very first response was my response which was not at all negative. It was simply a statement of two facts. There was nothing personal in the statement.

Dude, stop with all of the drama. It is completely unnecessary. No one is attacking you.

Address the questions and involve yourself with your own thread and we will happily respond and help, discuss, debate, whatever.

R.Mackey · 29th May 2006, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown

I was warned that there was some "elitists" attitudes here. [...]

All I got here was hits and paranoia. Not by everyone of course, a few were very civil, but a majority that even came up with a good counter, they first started off with negativities directed at me.

You could just say "sorry, I'll properly reference materials next time and follow the rules."

You could refrain from labelling everyone here a "looney" or an "elitist." Not warranted.

You could actually discuss your own topic rather than spend the whole thread complaining about technicalities, of which you are entirely to blame.

Frankly, I don't understand your complaint. You wanted an opinion, I gave you one, as did many other people. No followup from you. Are you just not that interested, or what?

valis · 29th May 2006, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown

I was warned that there was some "elitists" attitudes here.

I posted this "article" because this was posted as a rebuttal on a thread that I started on a private forum. I could not link to the forum and I was waiting to get the source from the poster(who I had asked for earlier). So I posted it here to get some feedback and some information on something I really am not that up to speed on. Instead all I received was a bunch of attacks on how I was breaking the rules and such. Then I get a PM on how I need to change my name because it is against the rules??? Why was this not brought up when I registered a few weeks ago?

All I got here was hits and paranoia. Not by everyone of course, a few were very civil, but a majority that even came up with a good counter, they first started off with negativities directed at me.

I personally got a kick out of the name considering the forum we are on but I am going to make a wild guess without even reading the rules.

I'll bet you can't use a real persons name here for the obvious reason that you are not that person. Even if you were that person the forum admins would have no way to know that or not unless they somehow verified it. So I can use the title of a novel but I can't use the name PhilipKDick. Makes sense to me.

I'll also bet the sign up and verification email is automated and humans only get involved later if a problem comes up. Like they notice 'holy crap that guy is using someones real name'. I would imagine that's why you were allowed to sign up but later warned about your name.

Although I don't see where you are being treated rudely or unfairly allow me to point something out. What the 911 'truth' crowd is claiming is that the President of the United States is a mass murderer. That a large number of people in the government are in on it. That the military, ATC personal etc. are going along with it. That the news media is covering it up etc. Basically that life as we know it is one big fat complete lie and that we are all being deluded and manipulated except for those in the aforementioned truth movement.

I for one would like a little better proof for this than what I have been presented. I have read everything people have put in front of me to expose me to the 'truth' and none of them stands up to scrutiny.

This thread is a perfect example:
1. Stunning 'fact' is presented, it sounds compelling to the laymen (which I am one of).

2.Some else reads the above evidence and says 'here is a flaw in your argument'.

3. Laymen says 'this is really getting interesting, I can't wait to see the original posters (OP) rebuttal'.

4.OP gets angry and wants to talk about something else.

Haven't you presented the counter argument here to the original author of that article? Don't you want to dig down to the real truth here so you can discard this 'evidence' if it turns out to be factually flawed?

29th May 2006, 05:00 PM	#1
SBrown Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 314	911 Jet Fuel and the WTC Hi I ran across this and after reading through it found it an interesting piece. Just wondering what others thought of it, my math skills are a bit rusty. [modm]edited for rule 4 violation Consider this a warning. Further violations of the user agreement may result in suspension. [/modm] original text here.
SBrown Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 314	Last edited by Mercutio; 29th May 2006 at 05:16 PM.

29th May 2006, 05:04 PM	#2
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,926	Originally Posted by SylviaBrown Hi I ran across this and after reading through it found it an interesting piece. Just wondering what others thought of it, my math skills are a bit rusty. You didn't provide a link or attribution.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

29th May 2006, 05:09 PM	#4
SBrown Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 314	Originally Posted by RandFan You didn't provide a link or attribution. So for you to analyze it you first need to know who wrote it or where it came from? Will that change how you respond to it?
SBrown Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 314

29th May 2006, 05:11 PM	#5
Mercutio Shakespeare's Sock Puppet Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Live Free Or Die Posts: 16,325	Assuming even distribution is a neat trick. I wonder if the author would agree that someone who has one foot in a pot of boiling water, and another foot frozen solid in ice, is on average perfectly comfortable. The analysis is flawed from the very premises. We know already that there were beams, from the floors that were hit, that were not exposed to temperatures sufficient to weaken them. Others, of course, were exposed to quite sufficient heat. Once these were effectively removed, the load on the unweakened beams was tremendously different.
	__________________ "But to see her was to love her Love but her, and love forever."

29th May 2006, 05:16 PM	#8
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Originally Posted by SylviaBrown So for you to analyze it you first need to know who wrote it or where it came from? Will that change how you respond to it? Sylvia, sometimes people get testy here because Conspiracy Theorists tend to "dump and run," without staying to discuss what they've dropped off. I hope that's not the case with you. Mutton-Head a few days ago made the effort to discuss, but he was taking on a lot of issues at once, so it's good that you've limited this post to one issue. My math also isn't great. What specifically did you find interesting about the info you posted?
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

29th May 2006, 05:07 PM	#3
dissonance Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 274	I found the original here.

29th May 2006, 05:14 PM	#6
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	More importantly, why is the attribution mixing the total mass of the building's steel and concrete structure with the steel and concrete structure of the floors actually hit. An exercise in futility, reading it or debating it.

29th May 2006, 05:15 PM	#7
Ducky Titanium Puprhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mayor of your front lawn. Posts: 12,296	Originally Posted by SylviaBrown So for you to analyze it you first need to know who wrote it or where it came from? Will that change how you respond to it? Actually, to avoid violation of Rule 4 you would need to cite it and cut to proper fair use lengths. But of course, you knew that because you read the user agreement for the forum, right?

29th May 2006, 05:18 PM	#9
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,450	And where is this "FEMA report"?

29th May 2006, 05:20 PM	#10
dissonance Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 274	Unless I missed it, they don't include the stuff in the buildings that would have burned (papers, furniture). I have no idea how that affects the calculations, but I assume it's important.

29th May 2006, 05:22 PM	#11
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	You all type too fast. I wanted to see if Sylvia recognized the equal distribution problem. I also wanted to see if she had read the NIST report, which concluded that the towers probably would not have collapsed had they not been severely damaged by the impact of the planes.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

29th May 2006, 05:24 PM	#12
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,926	Originally Posted by SylviaBrown So for you to analyze it you first need to know who wrote it or where it came from? Will that change how you respond to it? No. No.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

29th May 2006, 05:26 PM	#13
XXX Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 153	A few things come to mind...as others have mentioned as well. Doesn't mention the structural damage to the building. Assumes an even distribution of heat The fire that resulted after the jet fuel was gone from all the other things that burned is the fire that really took down the towers. As far a technical errors, I'm not an expert so correct me if I'm wrong, but don't objects also absorb heat at different rates? It seems that maybe that has not been taken into account.
XXX Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 153

29th May 2006, 05:27 PM	#14
SBrown Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 314	Apparently I broke some rule and now apparently my name is in violation. I guess the best thing would have been to just keep this to myself. The link that was provided is not where I found this, I found it on a private site and I was trying to hunt down who wrote it or where they found it. LOL
SBrown Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 314

29th May 2006, 05:30 PM	#15
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Agree, you need to quote your source. It is not polite to steal other people's work without attribution. For all we know, you are taking it out of context. (Addendum: As others have noted, the source material can be found here. All quotes below are taken from that message. The author has chosen a pseudonym.) While we're waiting for that, there are a number of amateur oversimplifications in this derivation that need to be corrected. Still, I appreciate the unknown author showing some math for a change -- this is head and shoulders above the usual "but I know what it should look like" crap typical of WTC deniers. Because the math is shown, it is easy to see where they went wrong, and together we can make some progress. As I've posted before, a good baseline paper is "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation,", Eagar and Musso, JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 8-11, readable online here: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html Now, let's pick this apart. Originally Posted by Unknown Source What we propose to do, is to pretend that the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. One can find much better estimates of the actual fuel present, since the amount put on the plane was logged... No matter, laziness on the author's part does not change the final outcome. Quote: Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel. You'll notice in my reference that it is accepted that the fire was not optimal, and burned quite a bit cooler than it could have under ideal conditions. This is not news, but the author is correct in pointing this out. Quote: That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise: 39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C, 97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C, 349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C, 500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C, 1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C. And here it falls apart. The author is assuming that the entire floor had to be heated to some particular temperature. Wrong! The heating was uneven. In fact, if you check my source, the uneven heating was one of the major contributors of the collapse. Because the fire wasn't even, the author of your piece has grossly overestimated the thermal inertia of the affected materials. The estimate is therefore invalid. Quote: So, if we assume a typical office fire at the WTC, then the jet fuel could have only added 280 - 25 = 255° C (at the very most) to the temperature of the fire. [...] We have found that it is impossible the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor beyond 280° C (536° F). These two paragraphs, only a few lines apart, are inconsistent. Off the top of my head, I would buy that the jet fuel might only add 250 C or so to an "ordinary" (fully involved, engulfing everything on several floors) office fire... but that "ordinary" office fire is plenty hot on its own. So, say, 250 C added to a baseline of several hundred degrees C. I'd buy that. But in the summary paragraph, the baseline office fire is forgotten. The jet fuel by itself might not have, but it wasn't by itself, nor did it have to heat the entire solid mass of the floor. So the summary conclusion is irrelevant to the real problem. We all accept that the fire temperature was sub-700 C or so, even at its hottest parts. This derivation hasn't proven otherwise. And now in the final act, the agenda becomes clear: Quote: It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media. "In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments." Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised? I haven't seen a legitimate article that claimed "1500° C," nor was such a temperature necessary. The author needs to substantiate that the "lying media" in fact lied. The Cardington experiments may or may not have been at all relevant to the WTC situation. I can build a steel structure that won't collapse even at much higher temperatures, say if I'm building a bank vault -- does that mean that all steel buildings should withstand that kind of treatment? Absolutely not. So in conclusion, this analysis is flawed, and it is easy to see where and why. I would prefer to respond to the original author, but you would have prevented me from doing so. ETA: Added link to original article, now that it has been found.
	Last edited by R.Mackey; 29th May 2006 at 05:42 PM.

29th May 2006, 05:30 PM	#16
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,450	Originally Posted by SylviaBrown Apparently I broke some rule and now apparently my name is in violation. I guess the best thing would have been to just keep this to myself. The link that was provided is not where I found this, I found it on a private site and I was trying to hunt down who wrote it or where they found it. LOL Excuse me?

29th May 2006, 05:31 PM	#17
case sensitive Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 395	Sylvia are you a young Sylvia Browne?
	__________________ "They actually became the Reptoid God's lunch." "I determined this from "lack of evidence." Antigray Have YOU found God yet? the priest asked. I didn't know he was hiding... Born 1976 in Sweden Died in medieval Europe

29th May 2006, 05:34 PM	#19
SBrown Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 314	Originally Posted by R.Mackey Agree, you need to quote your source. It is not polite to steal other people's work without attribution. For all we know, you are taking it out of context. Interesting I never did claim this. Like I said I ran across it. Don't worry have your frenzy on attacking me as a group if it makes you feel better. Damn all I did was ask about it, you guys are looney.
SBrown Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 314

29th May 2006, 05:37 PM	#20
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Originally Posted by SylviaBrown Interesting I never did claim this. Like I said I ran across it. Don't worry have your frenzy on attacking me as a group if it makes you feel better. Damn all I did was ask about it, you guys are looney. And off you go?

29th May 2006, 05:39 PM	#21
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Sylvia, you asked for opinions on your post. You received some. Now it's your turn. See how this works?
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

29th May 2006, 05:41 PM	#22
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,926	Originally Posted by SylviaBrown Interesting I never did claim this. Never claimed what? Whether you claimed something or didn't claim anything is beside the point.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

29th May 2006, 05:42 PM	#23
XXX Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 153	Originally Posted by SylviaBrown Interesting I never did claim this. Like I said I ran across it. Don't worry have your frenzy on attacking me as a group if it makes you feel better. Damn all I did was ask about it, you guys are looney. Maybe slight misunderstanding here. I don't think they are claiming that you stole it and tried to pass it off as your own. They are saying that when you cut and paste an entire piece of work like that and don't include who it's attributed to that in effect becomes stealing it without giving them their due. Not stealing it as in direct theft. If I post an entire chapter of a book on here without attribution, I'm not trying to steal it of course, but my having done so in, in principal, is theft of that material.
XXX Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 153

29th May 2006, 06:05 PM	#24
Ducky Titanium Puprhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mayor of your front lawn. Posts: 12,296	Originally Posted by SylviaBrown Interesting I never did claim this. Like I said I ran across it. Don't worry have your frenzy on attacking me as a group if it makes you feel better. Damn all I did was ask about it, you guys are looney. You posted in an unclear manner someone else's work, and you seem to not understand the rules of the forum. The response is just as frenzied as if I had gone to the loose change forum and posted outside their rules (except we don't ban outright.) Now, you should reread the forum rules and user agreement, and then ask your question and cite sources as asked in the agreements.

29th May 2006, 06:06 PM	#25
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,450	I'd still like to know where this "FEMA Report" is CT'ers keep talking about...

29th May 2006, 06:08 PM	#26
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by SylviaBrown Interesting I never did claim this. Like I said I ran across it. Don't worry have your frenzy on attacking me as a group if it makes you feel better. Damn all I did was ask about it, you guys are looney. Citing references is the way things are done, and was also explained clearly in the rules of this Forum. Learn it, live it, love it. Calling us all "looney," etc., is also not very polite.

29th May 2006, 06:42 PM	#27
Pidge Thinker Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Watching the sunset from Mt Ruapehu Posts: 223	Someone has published a paper in the Jornal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society dealing with temperature of the burning jet fuel, and failure methods of the support steel. Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation by Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso (I think the quantity of jet fuel available they quote - 90,000L, is probably on the high side) Points I was going to raise It's naive to assume uniform heating of the materials on the floor. It's naive to assume the floors are empty of fixtures, fixttings and furniture - there's say (3960m²*100kg/m²=) 396,000kg per floor of other materials, significant quantities of which would be combustible, unless the tenenat had managed to complete a fit out with non-combustibles. An aside - office floor loading limit capacities are usually around the 300kg/m². So 100kg/m² is a reasonable average. How do I know this? because is really screws up a computer room planning when you put it into a floor in a building with office-rated floors - computer equipment racks are about 1.5m² of floor area, weight around 120kg each, and you can get well over 330 kg of gear into them without too much effort, and without completely filling them. Also see the Wikipedia article on the WTC for some details on the construction of the WTC.
	__________________ "Never argue with an idiot. They'll pull you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Unknown

29th May 2006, 06:48 PM	#28
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,450	Of course NIST did extensive testing and modeling of the WTC fires, but since every single structural engineer in the world has been paid off and new grads are also being paid off we can discount their findings.

29th May 2006, 06:53 PM	#29
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by Pidge Someone has published a paper in the Jornal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society dealing with temperature of the burning jet fuel, and failure methods of the support steel. Great minds think alike. There are more thorough treatments out there, but I too find this paper to be an excellent overview. I learned several things from it.

29th May 2006, 07:30 PM	#30
Hamradioguy Pyrrhonist Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Northern Vermont Posts: 2,273	Originally Posted by dissonance Unless I missed it, they don't include the stuff in the buildings that would have burned (papers, furniture). I have no idea how that affects the calculations, but I assume it's important. Very important! And yes, the study IS flawed. I've mentioned this in other posts- Buildings using steel trussed construction similar to the WTC have often failed in fires. Ask a firefighter if you don't believe it. More firefighters than I care to think of have died or been injured when the steel trussed roofs they were on failed under fire conditions. And no jet fuel was involved, just "ordinary combustibles". Not all the jet fuel burned, and what did burned fairly quickly. That heavy black smoke we all saw wasn't the jet fuel, it was the contents of the buildings- computer cases, desks, chairs, carpets and all the stuff found in an office. It burns hot, it burns for a long time and it produces lots of black smoke. For some reason the CTers seem to obsess on jet fuel and conveniently forget that there was "lots of stuff that burns" in the WTC.

29th May 2006, 07:45 PM	#31
Timothy Muse Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 544	The NIST report and appendices contain a number of detailed analyses related to this question: 1. Dispersal of fuel and debris in each collision 2. Tests of how much energy, heat, etc. a typical WTC workstation produces when set on fire. 3. Heat and temperature distribution on each floor. The basic problem with the OP report ... far too simplistic modeling, and the lack of inclusion of the fuel in the towers which were a significant contributor. http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm - Timothy
Timothy Muse Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 544

29th May 2006, 08:52 PM	#32
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by SylviaBrown Hi I ran across this and after reading through it found it an interesting piece. Just wondering what others thought of it, my math skills are a bit rusty. original text here. What did you find interesting about it?

29th May 2006, 09:07 PM	#33
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,907	Having actually watched oilfield firefighters use controlled explosions to snuff a wellhead fire, I can't help wondering if the explosives the Gummint concealed in the walls might not have actually extinguished some of the internal fires... But they probably included incendiaries, right? Those Gummint guys think of everything. Which reminds me. George and Dick go into a restaurant. Cheney orders a burger. Bush asks for a "Quickie". The waitress slaps his face and asks if he thinks he's Bill Clinton. Dick leans over and whispers "Quiche, George. It's pronounced 'quiche' "
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,907

29th May 2006, 09:47 PM	#35
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by SylviaBrown I was warned that there was some "elitists" attitudes here. I posted this "article" because this was posted as a rebuttal on a thread that I started on a private forum. I could not link to the forum and I was waiting to get the source from the poster(who I had asked for earlier). So I posted it here to get some feedback and some information on something I really am not that up to speed on. Instead all I received was a bunch of attacks on how I was breaking the rules and such. Then I get a PM on how I need to change my name because it is against the rules??? Why was this not brought up when I registered a few weeks ago? All I got here was hits and paranoia. Not by everyone of course, a few were very civil, but a majority that even came up with a good counter, they first started off with negativities directed at me. Besides all that bickering about rules of posting, what did you find interesting about the link you posted?

29th May 2006, 09:52 PM	#36
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam Which reminds me. George and Dick go into a restaurant. Cheney orders a burger. Bush asks for a "Quickie". The waitress slaps his face and asks if he thinks he's Bill Clinton. Dick leans over and whispers "Quiche, George. It's pronounced 'quiche' " I once asked "Give me some tart" to a waitress. I really meant to say "pie". She didn't seem too pleased.

29th May 2006, 09:58 PM	#38
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,926	Originally Posted by SylviaBrown I was warned that there was some "elitists" attitudes here. I posted this "article" because this was posted as a rebuttal on a thread that I started on a private forum. I could not link to the forum and I was waiting to get the source from the poster(who I had asked for earlier). So I posted it here to get some feedback and some information on something I really am not that up to speed on. Instead all I received was a bunch of attacks on how I was breaking the rules and such. Then I get a PM on how I need to change my name because it is against the rules??? Why was this not brought up when I registered a few weeks ago? All I got here was hits and paranoia. Not by everyone of course, a few were very civil, but a majority that even came up with a good counter, they first started off with negativities directed at me. The very first response was my response which was not at all negative. It was simply a statement of two facts. There was nothing personal in the statement. Dude, stop with all of the drama. It is completely unnecessary. No one is attacking you. Address the questions and involve yourself with your own thread and we will happily respond and help, discuss, debate, whatever.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith