421
DONATIONS
Donate to DU!
Democratic Underground Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Google

Can a jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? An experiment.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
First thread | Last thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct-05-05 06:31 PM
Original message
Can a jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? An experiment.
Edited on Wed Oct-05-05 07:29 PM by spooked911
I set up the following experiment using steel rabbit fencing as the steel structure supporting a heavy cement block.

Note, this fencing is easily bendable, has no significant rigidity, and was not reinforced in any way. The fencing was bent into an outer square and an inner rectangle (the core):


Then I damaged the "columns" by cutting them with wire cutters:



Just inside where the gash was made in the outer wall, I placed a cup of kerosene (jet fuel), and there was newspaper around the bottom on the structure.

Then I put a heavy cement block on top, weighing about 15 pounds. I don't think the wire structure would hold more than three of these blocks, so the "safety factor" was not particularly high.


Then I tipped over the cup and lit the kerosene:



Then fire burned for about twenty minutes, and toward the end, I put my foot on the structure to see if it would extra weight. It still did:


The structure held up fine after the fire died:


After the fire was hot, the "columns" were not hot at all:



In a second experiment, I used the same wire fence and block set up, but increased the amount of "airplane damage", added in newspaper all around the inside of the structure, and soaked everything thoroughly with kerosene. In this expt, the fire was more intense and lasted significantly longer, but... the structure held up just fine. (Sorry no pictures of this one).

What I conclude is that a fairly flimsy steel structure does not distort and bend and collapse very easily from a simple hydrocarbon fire. And thus, it is not clear why the much stronger steel columns in the WTC towers weakened so much from fires that the towers underwent global collapse.

If kerosene/jet fuel/hydrocarbon fires can indeed cause steel structures to collapse, it should be quite simple to show this in an experiment-- right?






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
   Replies to this thread
   keep adding  MrSammo1   Oct-05-05 06:38 PM   #1 
   Can a non-jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? Reality.  Make7   Oct-05-05 07:41 PM   #2 
   The WTC was not a "lightweight steel bar joist building"  spooked911   Oct-05-05 11:41 PM   #4 
   Was it a chicken wire building? ( n/t )  Make7   Oct-06-05 03:42 AM   #10 
   Of course not-- all the more reason why it would resist collapse.  spooked911   Oct-06-05 03:42 PM   #24 
      So your original objection, to my posted real world examples,...  Make7   Oct-07-05 04:40 AM   #33 
         the construction method was different.  petgoat   Oct-07-05 02:37 PM   #39 
            Spooked's experiments DID test the strength of vertical columns in a fire.  MercutioATC   Oct-07-05 11:18 PM   #48 
            LOL! ( n/t )  Make7   Oct-07-05 11:40 PM   #53 
            Let me see if I understand this.  Make7   Oct-07-05 11:51 PM   #55 
               Do you think heat will affect vertical and horizontal steel  spooked911   Oct-08-05 10:27 AM   #70 
                  If it is the same type of steel and is raised to the same temperature...  Make7   Oct-08-05 11:21 AM   #73 
   McCormick Place officially opened in 1960. The fire was in 1967.  Make7   Oct-06-05 11:59 AM   #16 
      I can't find the link right now, but someone on this board had a post  spooked911   Oct-06-05 03:38 PM   #22 
         L'Enfant Plaza  Kevin Fenton   Oct-06-05 03:51 PM   #25 
         Do they have exhibits in convention centers still under construction?  Make7   Oct-07-05 04:10 AM   #32 
   Steel  MrSammo1   Oct-07-05 04:48 AM   #34 
   Can a non-jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse  MrSammo1   Oct-07-05 04:55 AM   #35 
   Well, I"M convinced...  MercutioATC   Oct-05-05 11:33 PM   #3 
   I assume you can show us how the fires caused the collapse then?  spooked911   Oct-05-05 11:41 PM   #5 
      No, obviously you can't either...  MercutioATC   Oct-05-05 11:46 PM   #6 
         "an aluminum can and some kerosene"  petgoat   Oct-06-05 01:51 AM   #7 
            You don't think a hi-rise building is a little more complex than some  MercutioATC   Oct-06-05 02:21 AM   #8 
            You don't think a hi-rise building is a little more complex  petgoat   Oct-06-05 03:40 AM   #9 
               Then go ahead and calculate it...  MercutioATC   Oct-06-05 04:17 AM   #11 
               I'm asking YOU or LARED or someone who supports the official story  spooked911   Oct-06-05 02:45 PM   #18 
               I'm not accusing you of manipulating the results.  MercutioATC   Oct-06-05 11:22 PM   #29 
               Had spooked's cage failed, we could have criticized his study  petgoat   Jul-05-06 05:36 PM   #110 
               Actually, it is.  Totallybushed   Jul-05-06 04:15 PM   #107 
               There's no point in calculating it. The model is too crude  petgoat   Jul-09-06 11:51 AM   #259 
               Thank you, exactly my point.  spooked911   Oct-06-05 02:41 PM   #17 
            The behavior of steel under load in a fire  LARED   Oct-06-05 06:03 AM   #12 
               I have checked out what NIST "thinks"  petgoat   Oct-07-05 01:06 AM   #30 
                  Exactly!!!  spooked911   Oct-08-05 10:28 AM   #71 
   I'm just surprised  WoodrowFan   Oct-06-05 07:13 AM   #13 
   If you want to improve your model  LARED   Oct-06-05 07:42 AM   #14 
   How about YOU try it, since you believe the official story?  spooked911   Oct-06-05 02:54 PM   #19 
   Because  LARED   Oct-06-05 03:26 PM   #21 
      where is their model of the collapse, please?  spooked911   Oct-06-05 03:40 PM   #23 
         Good Lord man, it's here  LARED   Oct-06-05 09:35 PM   #27 
            No, I don't want that. I want their model of how fire  spooked911   Oct-06-05 10:56 PM   #28 
               Where is the detailed NIST model of the collapse?  spooked911   Oct-08-05 10:34 AM   #72 
                  Actually, the NIST is still trying to duplicate what happened on 9/11  Sinti   Jun-26-06 11:09 AM   #99 
                     According to Kevin Ryan,  petgoat   Jul-06-06 12:50 PM   #121 
                        NIST's fudged models  Carefulplease   Jul-07-06 07:07 AM   #145 
                           Every single lightweight web truss could have failed  dailykoff   Jul-07-06 12:34 PM   #154 
                           Are you sure about these beams?  Carefulplease   Jul-08-06 12:09 AM   #181 
                              Yes.  dailykoff   Jul-08-06 03:07 AM   #187 
                              Link, please. n/t  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 04:38 AM   #216 
                                 File an FOIA request.  dailykoff   Jul-08-06 04:45 AM   #217 
                                    So, you can point out these beams even though you have never seen any  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 05:04 AM   #219 
                                       Yes.  dailykoff   Jul-08-06 05:10 AM   #220 
                                          And your evidence that they existed is?????  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 05:30 AM   #221 
                                             Find a framing plan and I'll explain it to you.  dailykoff   Jul-08-06 05:46 AM   #222 
                                             Can't answer the question, I see.  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 05:50 AM   #223 
                                             I believe I've answered it four times. Good night. (n/t)  dailykoff   Jul-08-06 05:53 AM   #224 
                                             No, you haven't even answered it once.  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 05:54 AM   #225 
                              It seems apparent that she can't.  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 06:41 AM   #226 
                                 I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it think. (n/t)  dailykoff   Jul-08-06 10:46 AM   #227 
                                    Lol. Talk about non-sequiturs....  Jazz2006   Jul-09-06 03:53 AM   #239 
                                    I prefer the Dorothy Parker version  mirandapriestly   Jul-09-06 03:54 AM   #240 
                                    Oh, and you think that's clever, I'll bet.  Jazz2006   Jul-09-06 04:01 AM   #242 
                                       Why is it when I post to you it's a "weird fixation"  mirandapriestly   Jul-09-06 04:07 AM   #244 
                                          I've never made any "personal attacks" on you  Jazz2006   Jul-09-06 04:13 AM   #245 
                                          So what was on all those deleted posts?  mirandapriestly   Jul-10-06 11:09 AM   #282 
                                          And  Jazz2006   Jul-09-06 04:50 AM   #246 
                                             Stop stalking me  mirandapriestly   Jul-09-06 05:17 AM   #247 
                                             Deleted message  Name removed   Jul-09-06 05:31 AM   #248 
                                             delete dupe.  Jazz2006   Jul-09-06 05:43 AM   #250 
                                             Deleted message  Name removed   Jul-09-06 10:10 AM   #255 
                                             Sing....sing a song...  boloboffin   Jul-09-06 12:19 PM   #261 
                                             Buddy, Rewind and replay "Bush supporters" "neocons" "paid shills" ...  Jazz2006   Jul-09-06 01:15 PM   #268 
                                             Funny , I didn't see him say ANY of those words.  mirandapriestly   Jul-10-06 11:05 AM   #281 
                                    Do no truss conspiracy sites about trusses.  Carefulplease   Jul-09-06 05:36 AM   #249 
                                       Trusses and beams.  Carefulplease   Jul-09-06 07:14 AM   #251 
                                       You should try reading the NIST report .  dailykoff   Jul-12-06 11:37 PM   #292 
                                          Any evidence for these joist girders?  Carefulplease   Jul-13-06 05:10 AM   #295 
                                             I said you should read it, not believe it.  dailykoff   Jul-13-06 06:16 AM   #296 
                                                Where did you hear about these mystery girders?  Carefulplease   Jul-13-06 05:38 PM   #302 
                                                What tipped me off  dailykoff   Jul-13-06 07:07 PM   #303 
                           Welcome to DU! Please provide links to support your assertions.  petgoat   Jul-07-06 02:04 PM   #160 
                              Here is some support...  Carefulplease   Jul-07-06 11:42 PM   #180 
   No, a realistic similulation would have the fencing at about 0.7" high,  pox americana   Oct-07-05 03:12 PM   #40 
      Actually, no.  MercutioATC   Oct-07-05 10:23 PM   #45 
         It would also have 60 columns per side instead of 20.  pox americana   Oct-07-05 10:56 PM   #46 
            Absolute B.S.  MercutioATC   Oct-07-05 11:13 PM   #47 
               Tell it to the engineers  pox americana   Oct-07-05 11:20 PM   #49 
                  Yes, but engineers scale their experiments to real buildings...  MercutioATC   Oct-07-05 11:26 PM   #50 
                  Let's start with the width-height ratio.  pox americana   Oct-07-05 11:39 PM   #52 
                     You're kidding, right?  MercutioATC   Oct-08-05 12:49 AM   #58 
                        Evidently you haven't been paying attention.  pox americana   Oct-08-05 01:13 AM   #60 
                           Evidently, your criteria are much more lenient than mine...  MercutioATC   Oct-08-05 01:28 AM   #61 
                              Already covered, but here's a make-up session:  pox americana   Oct-08-05 01:56 AM   #63 
                                 Actually, it's not been "covered".  MercutioATC   Oct-08-05 02:02 AM   #64 
                                    If you want to believe Home Depot uses better steel  pox americana   Oct-08-05 02:09 AM   #65 
                                       You're still choosing not to answer my questions.  MercutioATC   Oct-08-05 02:46 AM   #66 
                                          Asking an obvious question repeatedly  pox americana   Oct-08-05 05:47 AM   #67 
                                             Pretty much what I expected.  MercutioATC   Oct-09-05 02:42 AM   #76 
                                                A valiant attempt MercutioATC....  Macadian   Jul-05-06 04:57 PM   #109 
                                                   Consider this  Martensitic Madness   Jul-07-06 01:38 PM   #157 
                                                   Your premise that the bolts failed is of the Zipper-Pancake epoch  petgoat   Jul-07-06 01:58 PM   #159 
                                                   So you're going to stick with...  Macadian   Jul-07-06 02:31 PM   #162 
                                                   Hey Mac, one PhD says the flimsy truss clips unzipped, the  petgoat   Jul-07-06 03:41 PM   #166 
                  Perhaps you should read up on wind tunnel testing.  AZCat   Oct-07-05 11:27 PM   #51 
                     Thanks for the suggestion. n/t  pox americana   Oct-07-05 11:41 PM   #54 
                        You are welcome.  AZCat   Oct-08-05 12:00 AM   #56 
                        A simple example for structural scaling.  AZCat   Oct-08-05 07:52 AM   #68 
   While this model is not an acurate representation..  atomic-fly   Oct-06-05 09:26 AM   #15 
   Interesting experiment.  Old and In the Way   Oct-06-05 03:23 PM   #20 
   An issue NIST (I think I remember this) raises is that differential heat  petgoat   Oct-07-05 01:13 AM   #31 
   Experimental confirmation of what I've long suspected:  pox americana   Oct-06-05 03:52 PM   #26 
   Good try, but...  thewormman   Oct-07-05 06:24 AM   #36 
   Good try, but...  thewormman   Oct-07-05 06:26 AM   #37 
   You should see the National Geographic documentary  Frederik   Oct-07-05 11:33 AM   #38 
   That's show biz.  pox americana   Oct-07-05 03:19 PM   #41 
      Oh please  Frederik   Oct-07-05 04:04 PM   #42 
      I think I'd be equally critical of both  pox americana   Oct-07-05 08:04 PM   #43 
         The documentary  Frederik   Oct-08-05 03:57 PM   #74 
         Logically, I'd want to get...  StrafingMoose   Oct-08-05 04:03 PM   #75 
      When did spooked get into the engineering business???  Macadian   Jul-05-06 04:54 PM   #108 
         A valid point, but we should hold History and National Geographic  petgoat   Jul-05-06 05:39 PM   #111 
            Well, yes & no....  Macadian   Jul-06-06 08:57 AM   #117 
               "Spooked has not met even the low standards"  petgoat   Jul-06-06 12:53 PM   #122 
                  Backyard science is fine and dandy....  Macadian   Jul-06-06 01:53 PM   #130 
   the problem  Bouvet_Island   Oct-07-05 09:09 PM   #44 
   The analyis he posted on another thead is more convincing to me  philb   Oct-08-05 12:01 AM   #57 
   couple of questions about your experiment...  kevinam   Oct-08-05 01:06 AM   #59 
   None of that matters.  MercutioATC   Oct-08-05 01:32 AM   #62 
   Good points. But one by one--  spooked911   Oct-08-05 10:26 AM   #69 
   Third expt with a similar set-up:  spooked911   Oct-12-05 12:36 PM   #77 
   Bravo, Spooked.  petgoat   Oct-12-05 06:03 PM   #78 
   Thanks! I've thought about doing what you say, actually, but haven't had  spooked911   Oct-12-05 06:49 PM   #80 
   This proves it then.  Make7   Oct-12-05 06:34 PM   #79 
   Sorry, I didn't write that up properly. The fire was strong for about  spooked911   Oct-12-05 06:52 PM   #81 
   Jesus! Why not try modeling your "experiment" after the actual buildings?  MercutioATC   Oct-12-05 10:19 PM   #82 
      You're more than welcome to do your own experiment  spooked911   Oct-13-05 10:15 PM   #84 
         No need, i'm conviced.  mike923   Jul-06-06 12:28 PM   #120 
   Couple of points  LithosLead Moderator   Oct-12-05 11:08 PM   #83 
   It's NOT chicken wire, it is garden fencing meant to keep out rabbits. And  spooked911   Oct-13-05 10:32 PM   #85 
      I think it's the unsupported length of the column...  AZCat   Oct-13-05 10:38 PM   #86 
   Kick  Jazz2006   Jun-24-06 02:17 AM   #87 
   I never saw this before.  greyl   Jun-25-06 01:09 AM   #88 
      Bunnies  Jazz2006   Jun-25-06 01:24 AM   #89 
         Sources tell me that spooked is a scientist.  greyl   Jun-25-06 01:37 AM   #90 
         Sources tell me  Jazz2006   Jun-25-06 01:42 AM   #91 
         How do we prove that we're friendly to the honest ones? nt  greyl   Jun-25-06 01:50 AM   #92 
            Same as always, by words and actions. n/t  Jazz2006   Jun-25-06 01:54 AM   #93 
               Take care of your goodness.  greyl   Jun-25-06 01:58 AM   #94 
                  Always.  Jazz2006   Jun-25-06 02:01 AM   #95 
                  That ought to be easy  mirandapriestly   Jul-07-06 08:28 PM   #176 
                     Ohhhhh, you so totally dissed me!  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 02:18 AM   #184 
         If you would bother to look at spooked's blog and take a  petgoat   Jun-25-06 11:57 AM   #97 
            Thanks for your input.  Jazz2006   Jun-29-06 11:17 PM   #102 
         Ah, there's those prize-winning emoticons again.  petgoat   Jun-25-06 11:51 AM   #96 
         Sorry, you lose. My emoticons are bigger than yours.  petgoat   Jun-25-06 04:15 PM   #98 
            Thanks again x2 for your input.  Jazz2006   Jun-29-06 11:21 PM   #103 
            OMG, bwahaha.  mirandapriestly   Jul-07-06 09:28 PM   #178 
               Thanks for your observation.  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 02:17 AM   #183 
   Suggestion for 2 new experiments: WTC 7  Jeroen   Jun-28-06 11:03 AM   #100 
   yep...scaling is the problem  bobby911   Jun-29-06 07:03 AM   #101 
   WTC test  lcwilson   Jul-05-06 01:31 PM   #104 
   Welcome to DU! :) nt  greyl   Jul-05-06 01:44 PM   #105 
   Deleted message  Name removed   Jul-05-06 02:30 PM   #106 
   Welcome to DU ryams!  petgoat   Jul-05-06 05:44 PM   #112 
   Thanks...  ryams27   Jul-06-06 09:43 AM   #118 
      That's circular reasoning.  petgoat   Jul-06-06 01:04 PM   #123 
         Psst, they've been banned. Thanks for rolling out the red carpet  greyl   Jul-06-06 01:25 PM   #128 
            That wasn't just a RW troll! That was Jonah his own self!  boloboffin   Jul-06-06 02:04 PM   #132 
               You might be correct, but I'm not convinced. ;)  greyl   Jul-06-06 02:13 PM   #134 
   Lookee here...  boloboffin   Jul-05-06 11:20 PM   #113 
      Nice job. :)  greyl   Jul-06-06 06:33 AM   #114 
      Deleted message  Name removed   Jul-06-06 09:45 AM   #119 
   Please tell me you're joking.  NoiseLTD   Jul-06-06 07:48 AM   #115 
   Welcome to DU, however  greyl   Jul-06-06 08:20 AM   #116 
      Do you have any specific criticisms, or any constructive  petgoat   Jul-06-06 01:06 PM   #124 
      You said "spooked's experiment proves nothing".  greyl   Jul-06-06 01:17 PM   #125 
      See Fair Enough...  NoiseLTD   Jul-06-06 01:21 PM   #127 
      Fair enough...  NoiseLTD   Jul-06-06 01:18 PM   #126 
         Yep, I pretty much agree with all of that.  greyl   Jul-06-06 01:37 PM   #129 
         links?  NoiseLTD   Jul-06-06 02:03 PM   #131 
            Here ya go:  greyl   Jul-06-06 02:07 PM   #133 
         "You have someone positing a conspiracy based on..."  petgoat   Jul-06-06 03:38 PM   #135 
            well said amigo  BrokenBeyondRepair   Jul-06-06 04:19 PM   #136 
   This confirms what I've suspected all along  enough already   Jul-06-06 05:41 PM   #137 
   This confirms nothing  Codeine   Jul-06-06 05:52 PM   #138 
      Yes, far too many DUers waste time because of so much...  BuddyYoung   Jul-06-06 06:04 PM   #139 
         Don't you know any other tunes, Buddy?  boloboffin   Jul-06-06 06:18 PM   #140 
            C'mon boloboffin, that one's getting old.  BuddyYoung   Jul-06-06 08:16 PM   #143 
               You're telling me.  boloboffin   Jul-06-06 11:09 PM   #144 
                  I've already told you, and so have plenty of other people.  BuddyYoung   Jul-07-06 10:49 AM   #149 
                  You do know two songs!  boloboffin   Jul-07-06 12:27 PM   #153 
                     Three: You forgot about "I Can See Thru OCT'er BS Clearly Now".  BuddyYoung   Jul-07-06 01:50 PM   #158 
                  They don't need a songbook,  carlvs   Jul-07-06 11:18 AM   #150 
   :rofl:  grytpype   Jul-06-06 06:52 PM   #141 
   Great work! Now try a scientific experiment.  The Night Owl   Jul-06-06 07:12 PM   #142 
   wtf?  aikoaiko   Jul-07-06 08:56 AM   #146 
   Consider it a joke at your own risk  slackmaster   Jul-07-06 10:47 AM   #148 
   Serious Stuff!  sighkobabl   Jul-07-06 05:36 PM   #171 
   I'm glad the bunny got away  slackmaster   Jul-07-06 10:46 AM   #147 
   Structural engineering  joshbetts   Jul-07-06 12:02 PM   #151 
   what's your take on the molten steel/iron dripping out the..  BrokenBeyondRepair   Jul-07-06 01:21 PM   #156 
      what's your take on the molten steel/iron dripping out the..  joshbetts   Jul-07-06 02:23 PM   #161 
         serious?  BrokenBeyondRepair   Jul-07-06 02:42 PM   #163 
            serious?  joshbetts   Jul-07-06 03:14 PM   #164 
            the laws of physic aren't up for debate  BrokenBeyondRepair   Jul-07-06 03:59 PM   #167 
            BrokenBeyondRepair,  joshbetts   Jul-07-06 04:13 PM   #168 
               obviously, there is reasonable doubt  BrokenBeyondRepair   Jul-07-06 04:31 PM   #169 
            It is disingenuous to require proof of a proposition when you  petgoat   Jul-07-06 08:10 PM   #174 
               I'm not being disingenuous.  joshlbetts   Jul-08-06 05:31 PM   #234 
                  Which link contains structural drawings for the WTC?  dailykoff   Jul-09-06 12:47 AM   #236 
                     dailykoff, Here are some copies of the actual drawings and calculations.  joshlbetts   Jul-09-06 12:15 PM   #260 
                        Thanks, that's helpful.  dailykoff   Jul-10-06 01:44 AM   #276 
            The burning drips look a lot like burning molten plastic.  aikoaiko   Jul-07-06 07:53 PM   #172 
               It appears to be giving off light. In my experience burning  petgoat   Jul-07-06 08:07 PM   #173 
               this is the only image of melting plastic i could..  BrokenBeyondRepair   Jul-07-06 09:05 PM   #177 
               Just put a plastic bag on a stick and stick over a small fire.  aikoaiko   Jul-07-06 11:05 PM   #179 
               Sounds like an easily-tested hypothesis. Please provide  petgoat   Jul-08-06 03:30 AM   #191 
                  I hate to break this to you, but pictures on the internet is not science.  aikoaiko   Jul-09-06 08:25 AM   #253 
                     It proves my point. The material in the firefall at WTC2 was incandescent  petgoat   Jul-09-06 11:42 AM   #257 
                        sorry, I don't think you don't understand what you're seeing.  aikoaiko   Jul-09-06 03:45 PM   #269 
                           I understand what I'm seeing just fine. Maybe my diction is off.  petgoat   Jul-09-06 04:08 PM   #270 
               "can never be proven beyond doubt"  petgoat   Jul-08-06 03:27 AM   #189 
                  there will always be those that doubt or..  BrokenBeyondRepair   Jul-08-06 03:40 AM   #194 
                  It looks like molten steel to me, and no alternate explanation  petgoat   Jul-08-06 03:46 AM   #197 
                     Then take your own suggestion.  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 03:51 AM   #200 
                        I don't need to. I already have, I've melted plastic, steel, and  petgoat   Jul-08-06 04:03 AM   #204 
                           So post your images as you've asked others to.  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 04:09 AM   #209 
                           Oh, and that reminds me.... epistemology  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 04:55 AM   #218 
                  Melt steel, melt aluminum, melt plastic, pour them off a fifty foot drop..  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 03:50 AM   #198 
                     The ball's in your court. Everyone knows plastic make flames,  petgoat   Jul-08-06 03:52 AM   #201 
                        No, it isn't.  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 03:58 AM   #203 
                           So take my suggestion. Let's build a bad model that endures,  petgoat   Jul-08-06 04:05 AM   #205 
                              According to your suggestion (which you've now changed), it is so  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 04:08 AM   #208 
                                 Sorry, I got this experiment mixed up with another one I  petgoat   Jul-08-06 03:19 PM   #231 
                                    "I'd had a few bottles of wine."  Jazz2006   Jul-12-06 02:59 AM   #291 
                                    Have you recovered sufficiently from those "few bottles of wine" yet to  Jazz2006   Jul-13-06 03:38 AM   #294 
                                       Nope, nor have a got photos showing rain is wet and sun is dry. nt  petgoat   Jul-13-06 12:03 PM   #300 
                                          I'm not surprised that you haven't backed up what you said.  Jazz2006   Jul-13-06 10:48 PM   #307 
               Couldn't it be aluminum from the airplane that was burnt up inside the  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 02:29 AM   #185 
                  unlikely..  BrokenBeyondRepair   Jul-08-06 03:29 AM   #190 
                     That's not convincing.  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 03:45 AM   #196 
                        Aluminium melts at 600 degrees, at which point it is silvery,  petgoat   Jul-08-06 03:50 AM   #199 
                           Sorry, but I'm not convinced by your say so that it could not have  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 03:57 AM   #202 
                           Pffft. nt  petgoat   Jul-08-06 04:07 AM   #206 
                              I didn't expect you to be able to respond meaningfully.  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 04:11 AM   #210 
                                 Pfft.  petgoat   Jul-08-06 04:12 AM   #212 
                                    Pfft is right!  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 04:16 AM   #213 
                                    Oh, an edit which I should respond to, I see.  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 04:31 AM   #215 
                           Pearls at Swine, PG...nt  mirandapriestly   Jul-09-06 03:41 AM   #238 
                              LOL.  Jazz2006   Jul-09-06 03:56 AM   #241 
   This is pretty funny  capt havermeyer   Jul-07-06 12:17 PM   #152 
   Science Experiment  TheRealSwede   Jul-07-06 01:05 PM   #155 
   Fantastic  JudgeSmails   Jul-07-06 03:16 PM   #165 
   Test Explosive Demolition Hypothesis  what the   Jul-07-06 04:54 PM   #170 
   Now that's funny! Let's try the thermate hypothesis instead, ok? nt  petgoat   Jul-07-06 08:11 PM   #175 
   Blacksmith's forge  what the   Jul-10-06 05:25 PM   #287 
      Charcoal forges have forced air. They also have.... charcoal.  petgoat   Jul-13-06 02:30 AM   #293 
         Heat conduction etc.  what the   Jul-14-06 09:31 PM   #309 
            You stole those words from my mouth...  Carefulplease   Jul-15-06 01:46 AM   #310 
   LOL ~ good one!  Jazz2006   Jul-08-06 02:39 AM   #186 
   You guys are nuts  allfathersgodi   Jul-08-06 12:19 AM   #182 
   Sorry, doesn't prove a thing either way.  rman   Jul-08-06 03:22 AM   #188 
   Ahhhh, you're getting to the synthesis.  petgoat   Jul-08-06 03:35 AM   #192 
      Not just any model  rman   Jul-08-06 03:38 AM   #193 
         Not necessarily. Building bad models can be helpful to  petgoat   Jul-08-06 03:43 AM   #195 
            What's a good model, how do you know it's good?  rman   Jul-08-06 04:08 AM   #207 
            "I doubt that any of us has the means"  petgoat   Jul-08-06 04:11 AM   #211 
               We can't go on unverifiable information  rman   Jul-08-06 04:31 AM   #214 
                  We don't have the means to model it accurately.  petgoat   Jul-08-06 03:27 PM   #232 
                     it'd not be a known error because we have no reference,  rman   Jul-09-06 03:29 AM   #237 
                        I didn't mean a "known error" as in a "measured" or  petgoat   Jul-09-06 11:46 AM   #258 
                           np. However,  rman   Jul-10-06 12:24 AM   #271 
                              We can't know how large the error is until we experiment and  petgoat   Jul-13-06 12:01 PM   #299 
                                 Fine procedure for challenging the Titanic hoax.  Carefulplease   Jul-15-06 02:52 AM   #311 
                                    New kid in town, posting like the old OCT'ers in town. Imagine that!  BuddyYoung   Jul-15-06 11:42 AM   #312 
                                       Glass houses, Mr. June 26th. n/t  boloboffin   Jul-15-06 11:50 AM   #313 
                                       See post #314  BuddyYoung   Jul-16-06 10:20 PM   #315 
                                       You know...  salvorhardin   Jul-16-06 09:28 PM   #314 
            The press might be interested...  Carefulplease   Jul-08-06 01:38 PM   #229 
   The Stupidity of the Left  allfathersgodi   Jul-08-06 01:21 PM   #228 
   Good point, but I'd like to think some Democrats and  petgoat   Jul-08-06 02:04 PM   #230 
   Actually quite a few GOP have come out  mirandapriestly   Jul-09-06 04:02 AM   #243 
   is this a joke?  omenapoint   Jul-08-06 04:18 PM   #233 
   You are an idiot  demfool   Jul-08-06 05:40 PM   #235 
   See how easy it is  mirandapriestly   Jul-09-06 12:27 PM   #264 
      And who would suspect that anyone with a screen name  rman   Jul-10-06 12:27 AM   #272 
         Surely, just another one of those totally unexpected COINCIDENCES. nt  BuddyYoung   Jul-10-06 12:36 AM   #273 
         Are you saying that  mirandapriestly   Jul-10-06 12:44 AM   #274 
            Incredible and unprecedented as it may seem,  rman   Jul-10-06 12:50 AM   #275 
               I'm shocked.nt  mirandapriestly   Jul-10-06 11:09 AM   #283 
   You are famous  Stella_Artois   Jul-09-06 07:53 AM   #252 
   So I'e heard. Although I'm not really clear why what I did is so  spooked911   Jul-09-06 09:54 AM   #254 
   Those people don't talk for all of us  DrDebug   Jul-09-06 12:21 PM   #262 
   I agree.  Old and In the Way   Jul-09-06 12:28 PM   #265 
   What is the saying  mirandapriestly   Jul-09-06 12:29 PM   #266 
   what's funny to me is how they point to this experiment  spooked911   Jul-09-06 12:39 PM   #267 
      Because those of us living in NYC  emMingo   Jul-10-06 10:30 AM   #277 
      uh-huh, sure you did.  mirandapriestly   Jul-10-06 10:58 AM   #279 
      Different reasons, depending on where one is coming from  BuddyYoung   Jul-10-06 10:50 AM   #278 
      They NEVER post on the threads  mirandapriestly   Jul-10-06 10:59 AM   #280 
      I hadn't noticed that, but you are certainly right. A jazz bump, then  BuddyYoung   Jul-10-06 02:29 PM   #285 
      Lol ~ that must be it.  Jazz2006   Jul-11-06 03:30 AM   #289 
      Once they saw these pictures, there was no need to look for  boloboffin   Jul-10-06 12:48 PM   #284 
      It's could be the footwear.  Jazz2006   Jul-11-06 03:25 AM   #288 
   I think you did it with the full knowledge of the results  Generarth   Jul-14-06 09:25 AM   #308 
   Those who say that about DU are going to say it anyway  mirandapriestly   Jul-09-06 12:23 PM   #263 
      Who knows  Stella_Artois   Jul-10-06 04:03 PM   #286 
         Spooked is not claiming the rabbit cage experiment  petgoat   Jul-13-06 11:53 AM   #298 
   Deleted message  Name removed   Jul-09-06 10:15 AM   #256 
   LMAO...Can you say "not to scale"  Freedom_Aflaim   Jul-11-06 12:09 PM   #290 
   Not to scale is right.  petgoat   Jul-13-06 11:51 AM   #297 
      How?!  boolean   Jul-13-06 03:53 PM   #301 
         Welcome to DU, Boolean  petgoat   Jul-13-06 07:31 PM   #304 
            Now it's my turn  boolean   Jul-13-06 08:26 PM   #305 
               Ok  petgoat   Jul-13-06 08:55 PM   #306 
   You REALLY need to find a different hobby. Just friendly advice.  Redstone   Jul-16-06 10:23 PM   #316 
   Locking  LithosLead Moderator   Jul-16-06 10:32 PM   #317 
 
MrSammo1 (788 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct-05-05 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. keep adding
more weight (more bricks) to your test.

That way a few mouths here will drop to the floor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct-05-05 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. Can a non-jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? Reality.
When you enter a lightweight steel bar joist building on fire and you hear popping, cracking, creaking and metal to metal rubbing together, get out, the trusses are failing. It is not safe to enter for any reason. At 205 West Jefferson Street Captain Patterson, Engine 108, the first engine on the scene reported hearing popping sounds, cracking sounds and things that just did not sound right. After moving in about twenty feet attacking the fire, he wisely evacuated the building. The roof collapsed shortly after they evacuated. All of these sounds were steel I beams and trusses failing. At a recent warehouse fire in Prince George’s County MD companies were operating on the interior of the lightweight steel bar joist building. When Volunteer Chief 33, Ricky Riley, arrived on the scene and radioed his engine crew, he asked them, "what do you hear, do you hear anything", the response from the company officer was "yes, there are popping sounds" He ordered all interior companies to evacuate the building. The roof collapsed approximetley ten minutes after evacuation. Again, the sounds were the roof trusses failing.

http://www.mutualbox.com/a_building_fire_and_structural_f.htm


In Chicago, Illinois, the McCormick Place Exhibition Center collapsed as a result of a fire in 1967. In this structure, the steel-frame of the building was unprotected. The reference to McCormick Place is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel.

http://www.iaei.org/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct-05-05 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. The WTC was not a "lightweight steel bar joist building"
and the the McCormick Place Exhibition Center was a special case-- it was under construction and not a high-rise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 03:42 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Was it a chicken wire building? ( n/t )
Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 03:45 AM by Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. Of course not-- all the more reason why it would resist collapse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct-07-05 04:40 AM
Response to Reply #24
33. So your original objection, to my posted real world examples,...
...was that the construction method was different.

Yet to set up your experiment, you make absolutely zero attempt to approximate anything resembling the structure of the World Trade Center buildings. Shouldn't your objection apply to your own experiment?
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct-07-05 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. the construction method was different.
Edited on Fri Oct-07-05 02:53 PM by petgoat
Your examples involve unfireproofed trussed-roof spans that failed from
big fires. The columns didn't fail.

NIST says that because the fireproofing was removed from the core
columns, therefore the columns failed. They do not put forth the
pancake theory that collapsing floors brought the towers down. They do
say that weakened and sagging floors pulled on the perimeter columns and
buckled them, but their evidence for this is photographs that can
easily be explained alternatively by optical distortions produced by
heat waves.

Spooked's experiment tested the strength of vertical columns in a fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct-07-05 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #39
48. Spooked's experiments DID test the strength of vertical columns in a fire.
...the vertical strength of chicken wire weighed down by a concrete block (and a foot) exposed to a fire fueled by a spilled cup of kerosene.

Please show me how, with absoultely NO scaling to an actual building, this is anything other than an opportunity to post pictures of his foot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct-07-05 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. LOL! ( n/t )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct-07-05 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #39
55. Let me see if I understand this.
In the real world examples I posted, fire caused a failure of horizontal steel structural elements.

But if the steel structural elements are vertical, fire will not have any effect on their strength?
____________________

The fact remains that increased temperatures caused by fires will have an effect on the strength of steel.

Spooked911's experiment does not model any structure enough to make any conclusions based on his results.
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct-08-05 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #55
70. Do you think heat will affect vertical and horizontal steel
structural elements the same way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct-08-05 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #70
73. If it is the same type of steel and is raised to the same temperature...
... over the same sized area, I think the reduction in strength would be very similar. Of course, what effect this has on any structure the steel is part of would depend on the type, size, and direction of any loads on the steel members and the ability of those members to handle them.
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. McCormick Place officially opened in 1960. The fire was in 1967.
"In addition, McCormick Place officially opened in 1960, but a fire destroyed the building on January 17, 1967."

http://www.meetinchicago.com/meet_history.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. I can't find the link right now, but someone on this board had a post
about McCormick place and how it wasn't completely constructed.

Perhaps he was referring to the fact that the building code wasn't complete at the time and the steel roof wasn't protected? In any case, the McCormick place collapse, although it apparently involved fire causing a steel roof to buckle, was a unique case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. L'Enfant Plaza
If I remember rightly it was the steel building at L'Enfant Plaza which was not finished but collapsed.

McCormick Place just didn't have any fireproofing on the steel, bad wiring and a shit load of combustibles. Obviously, the WTC originally had fireproofing but whether the fireproofing was knocked off 82 of the 84 vertical columns and 140,000 square feet of floor area by the impacts, as NIST claims, is still open to question IMHO. Also, NIST found that the WTC had a significantly below average amount of combustibles, but then ignored this finding when it ran its severe case models.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct-07-05 04:10 AM
Response to Reply #22
32. Do they have exhibits in convention centers still under construction?
Six-year-old McCormick Place was thoroughly damaged in a fire that started during the National Housewares Manufacturers Association 46th Semi-Annual Exhibit. One security guard was killed.

A janitor noticed smoke coming from the back of a booth about 2:05 a.m. Within 5 minutes the entire booth was involved and the fire department called at 2:11 a.m. The fire department responded rapidly, entering the building and ordering a second alarm at 2:16 a.m. Nine alarms were struck, bringing 500 persons and 94 pieces of fire equipment. Initial attempts to fight the fire were frustrated by an almost immediate failure of the water supply. By 2:53 a.m. firefighters were able to establish a relay from hydrants 1/4 mile away and the first fire boat arrived, but by then the whole building was involved in the fire and the roof had started collapsing. The fire was struck out at 9:46 a.m. with only parts of the lower level and the theater undamaged.

A number of factors contributed to the catastrophe. Most of these would have been sufficient by themselves to cause great destruction. The 1,250 exhibits were constructed of highly flammable wood, paper and plastic. The temporary wiring used to rig exhibits was often not up to the building code.

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick...

So the fact that a building with steel structure has actually collapsed due to a fire does not lead one to believe that it is possible for fire to have an effect on the structure of a building constructed with steel? Because it was a unique case? Whereas the World Trade Center collapses were a common occurrence?
-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 (788 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct-07-05 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
34. Steel
expanding.

Beware of a lot of planted BS on the Internet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 (788 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct-07-05 04:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
35. Can a non-jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse
steel expanding!

Beware of any post 911 sites that talk about collapsing buildings.

spooked911 is on the right track.


===============================================================
The word "conspiracy" has become a meaningless cliche-word. In fact, remember that the printed word is no longer a means of testing reality!
===============================================================
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct-05-05 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well, I"M convinced...
Who am I to argue with a plastic cup of kerosene, a concrete paver and some chicken wire?

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct-05-05 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I assume you can show us how the fires caused the collapse then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct-05-05 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. No, obviously you can't either...
The difference is that I wouldn't take an aluminum can and some kerosene, fail to make a working jet aircraft, and use that as evidence that flight was impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. "an aluminum can and some kerosene"
That's an unfair example because a jet engine is a complex mechanism and
the fact that a crude model doesn't work is meaningless.

Spooked is modeling a much simpler phenominon: The behavior of steel
under load in a fire. The model is crude but successful. Of course it
models only the behavior of the vertical elements. But I don't think
NIST is asserting the pancake theory, anyway.

Spooked is to be much commended for getting his hands dirty and actually
testing this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. You don't think a hi-rise building is a little more complex than some
chicken wire and a cinder block?

Glad you're not designing any buildings in MY neighborhood.

My point is that there were absolutely NO measured parallels to the WTC collapses. Was the fire proportionally the right temperature? Was the steel proportionally as thick? Were the welds in the chicken wire proportionally equal in strength to the welds/rivets of the WTC columns?

Does setting a concrete paver on top of some chicken wire and lighting the thing on fire measure ANYTHING? No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. You don't think a hi-rise building is a little more complex
Of course a building is more complex and of course it's a crude model
and of course there's an inherent problem in simulating big things with
small models. Does it measure anything? Yes it does. You can
calculate the square inches of steel in the vertical members in the
model and you can calculate the load on it and you can say that a
twenty-minute kerosene fire did not lessen the vertical load-bearing
capacity of this mild steel loaded at so many pounds per square inch.

Of course it would be interesting to try a bigger load, and see how much
load you need before the fire will weaken the steel.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Then go ahead and calculate it...
Spooked911 sure as hell didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. I'm asking YOU or LARED or someone who supports the official story
to show it. Because no one has yet.

The fact is, I didn't know what to expect with my model when I set it up.

I did NOT try to rig the model so it wouldn't collapse. I used easily bendable wire fencing as a support. I used ample kerosene and some newspaper as fuel.

Obviously it is not a perfect model but that wasn't the point.

The point is that it is not so easy to weaken steel with a hydrocarbon fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. I'm not accusing you of manipulating the results.
I'm simply stating that there is zero correlation between your experiment and the collapse of the WTC towers. Had your little tower of chicken wire collapsed during or after the fire, that wouldn't have had any correlation, either.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul-05-06 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #29
110. Had spooked's cage failed, we could have criticized his study
on the basis that the perimeter columns were too few in number, or they were 50 times too long,
or they were a weak kind of steel, or there was too much oxygen in the fire, or the weight was
too great and out of scale.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totallybushed (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul-05-06 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #18
107. Actually, it is.
Hot rolling of steel, for example, requires heating. Gas does the trick in many mills. All it takes is for the steel to get red hot and undergo the ferrite to austenite phase change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-09-06 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #11
259. There's no point in calculating it. The model is too crude
Edited on Sun Jul-09-06 12:00 PM by petgoat
to be meaningful.

If we refined a model so that we had two slightly different versions, one of which repeatedly
failed and one of which repeatedly endured, then we might have something worth calculating.

It would also be interesting to study the effect of asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical
fires. I wish NIST had spent a few million dollars burning up giant rabbit cages instead
of producing a "trust us, we used a big computer and we have lots of pretty graphics!" snow-job.

But they couldn't do that because they've found that their empirical experiments have a
uncanny habit of producing the wrong results.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Thank you, exactly my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. The behavior of steel under load in a fire
FYI, The NIST guys have been studying this for years. You should check out what they think about the fires and collapse of the WTC.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct-07-05 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #12
30. I have checked out what NIST "thinks"
They think they can draw a pretty rainbow picture of the temperatures
achieved in such detail that you'd think they had sensors arranged on an
8" grid. They think we'll believe that even though they have NO, NONE,
NOT ONE PIECE of core steel showing heating above 250 degrees C.

They think that collapse initiation inevitably leads to total
progressive collapse--because that's what happened, right?--so they need
not model the collapse.

They think that it's not necessary to test the steel samples for
explosive residue.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct-08-05 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #30
71. Exactly!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
13. I'm just surprised
I'm just surprised that they let you use matches. BOL!!!! This is a funny as the RWer that tried to proved that Vince Foster was "murdered" by shooting a pumpkin!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
14. If you want to improve your model
Make it 6 feet high for every foot wide.

Add enough fuel to last at least thirty minutes.

Enclose the outer cage with somthing solid that does not burn easily. Leave an inch or two at the bottom to have an air supply. so theheat is trapped inside.

Let us know how you made out.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. How about YOU try it, since you believe the official story?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Because
the NIST already provided an excellent model that far, far exceeds anything I am capable of doing.

My suggestion was to help you design a model that better characterizes the WTC structure. The height to width ratio, and fire loading, is critical if you want a model that is representative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. where is their model of the collapse, please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Good Lord man, it's here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct-06-05 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. No, I don't want that. I want their model of how fire
induced the column weakening, which columns failed, their calculations, and how it precipitated global collapse.

If you know where that information is in there, please point me to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct-08-05 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #28
72. Where is the detailed NIST model of the collapse?
Where are the calculations? The details on what columns failed and when and how global collapse ensued?

All I've seen from NIST regarding the collapse is a lot of pretty pictures showing heat patterns on damaged WTC floors, all of which may well be completely fabricated.

As far as I can see, they assume the heat (which is not evenly distributed) causes one floor to collapse (by some unclear mechanism), and from then on, their assumption is that this will bring down the whole building.

If I have it wrong, please let me know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jun-26-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #72
99. Actually, the NIST is still trying to duplicate what happened on 9/11
With physical scale models in the lab. They haven't managed it just yet. There are many more questions than answers, regardless of what folks would have you believe. What they can say is that the jet fuel burns off in about 10 minutes. Most (if not all) of those government scientists are really good people, trying to do a hard job there. FWIW, if you are told not to find something, well, you just don't find it or you find another job. Explosives are not permitted as part of the possible theory of failure.

Computer models are no substitute for the real thing. It's like comparing a fire drill to an actual fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul-06-06 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #99
121. According to Kevin Ryan,
NIST fudged their model tests, and then ignored the results if they didn't turn out
"right".

Their workstation burn test achieved desired results (in terms of
gas temps, not steel temps) by doubling the amount of hydrocarbon
fuel and over-ventilating.

WTC1 had new fireproofing upgrade with 2X the amount NIST used
in its floor models. NIST doubled the floor load.

After two hours in a high-heat furnace, NIST's 35 foot floor deck model
sagged only a few inches if at all. In the computer they turned the sagging
to 42 inches and doubled the time.

(That's what my notes say anyway, from one viewing of the video below. Wish I
had time to watch it again. Caveat lecteur! And if anybody should view the
video I would appreciate a heads up about any errors above.)

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/presentation-by-kevin...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease (749 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul-07-06 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #121
145. NIST's fudged models
Did Ryan mention that one of the two 35 foot test assembly was brought to the brinks of collapse within 2 hours?

Keeps in mind also that some floors spanned 60 foot in the towers and that these fire resistance tests were performed with undamaged structures that had intact fire proofings, unlike some damaged floors of the WTC. Also, the effect of diconnecting them from a few columns weren't modeled in these tests.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul-07-06 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #145
154. Every single lightweight web truss could have failed
and the towers would still be standing, because there were also beams in every floor assembly tying the core columns to the outer walls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease (749 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul-08-06 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #154
181. Are you sure about these beams?
Can you point them out to me on this
floor plan or elsewhere? (The plan is on page 5)

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6C.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul-08-06 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #181
187. Yes.
I can point them out on an actual floor framing plan.

The NIST drawings are cartoons, and don't show or identify the floor beams. But that's only one of the ways they're inaccurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul-08-06 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #187
216. Link, please. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul-08-06 04:45 AM
Response to Reply #216
217. File an FOIA request.
WTC construction documents are "classified."

For national security reasons.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul-08-06 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #217
219. So, you can point out these beams even though you have never seen any
Edited on Sat Jul-08-06 05:08 AM by Jazz2006
evidence upon which to believe that they exist? Is that what you're saying?

The floor plans actually do exist, you know.

See here, for instance, and call them up ~ they're still located in downtown Manhattan:

http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_september11....

Scroll down to the 6th video, watch it and you'll see close ups of the originals. Then give them a call and ask them if you can come by to point out the beams that you are so sure existed.

Oh, and please be sure to post images here of the results of your research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul-08-06 05:10 AM
Response to Reply #219
220. Yes.
I can point them out on an actual floor framing plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul-08-06 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #220
221. And your evidence that they existed is?????
Edited on Sat Jul-08-06 05:31 AM by Jazz2006
I've given you a roadmap to the original plans, but that aside, upon what basis do you assert that they existed at all?

Or is this just something that you "believe" without any basis upon which to believe it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul-08-06 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #221
222. Find a framing plan and I'll explain it to you.
That should be easy with your "roadmap."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul-08-06 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #222
223. Can't answer the question, I see.
Edited on Sat Jul-08-06 05:52 AM by Jazz2006
It's simple, really, and I've asked it twice now.

Upon what basis do you assert that these beams you've described ever existed?

Still can't answer?

And yeah, I gave you a link to a source that shows that the originals exist, and suggested a simple way to follow up on your as yet unfounded assertion, and yet you have obviously not looked at it.

And you still can't answer the very straightforward question.

So, once again, upon what basis do you assert that the beams you describe ever existed?

Edit: to make it clearer than clear:

You said

"there were also beams in every floor assembly tying the core columns to the outer walls"

And all I am asking is that you provide some basis for this assertion of yours. Frankly, it looks like something that you pulled out of your ass thusfar.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul-08-06 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #223
224. I believe I've answered it four times. Good night. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul-08-06 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #224
225. No, you haven't even answered it once.
Edited on Sat Jul-08-06 06:04 AM by Jazz2006
But you know that.

So, I'll ask again: upon what basis do you assert that these beams you describe ever existed?

Should be a simple question for you since you insist that they existed. You must have some reason for thinking that they did. What is that reason?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul-08-06 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #181
226. It seems apparent that she can't.
No big surprise, that.

There also used to be a poster here who insisted that the towers had a concrete core and that all the evidence of its existence had been co-opted by the government.

Stick around and you'll get used to the outrageous claims made by certain CT posters with absolutely nothing to back up their assertions. But you'll also find that there is a whole lot more that is great and wonderful about DU and that very few here wear tin foil hats, particularly once you check out other areas of DU and if you do not confine yourself to the "dungeon" like so many of the tinhatters do.

It's really a terrific place, with an amazing and wide ranging spectrum of fora, groups, journals, etc. that is unrivalled among other online boards.

And welcome to DU :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul-08-06 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #226
227. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it think. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-09-06 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #227
239. Lol. Talk about non-sequiturs....
Of course, photographic proof of your ability to even lead a horse to water is required in light of your prior posts, as is seems open to debate whether you even know where the water source is located.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-09-06 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #227
240. I prefer the Dorothy Parker version
in reference to who you are dealing with :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-09-06 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #240
242. Oh, and you think that's clever, I'll bet.
Edited on Sun Jul-09-06 04:07 AM by Jazz2006
If you want to call me a whore, miranda, just come out and say it.

Don't bother trying to pretend to be clever and cute about it.

It's neither clever nor cute.

You're just continuing to demonstrate your weird fixation on me.

Creepy, that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-09-06 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #242
244. Why is it when I post to you it's a "weird fixation"
but when you constantly make personal attacks on me and others it's business as usual? And, actually I don't even think you're a woman, I just couldn't resist the pun, and I'm sure you had to look it up, Ms Parker wouldn't be in the library of your trailer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-09-06 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #244
245. I've never made any "personal attacks" on you
despite your repeatedly saying so at every opportunity on numerous threads.

But you know that.

As for the rest of your post, which is pure insult and nonsense, I am not going to be drawn into your game of taking the bait so that this subthread will be deleted, as I would prefer that your ridiculous comments stand for everyone to see.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul-10-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #245
282. So what was on all those deleted posts?
Some of them were so bad I didn't even get to see them, first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-09-06 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #244
246. And
I'm posting this separately rather than editing my last post so as not to disrupt the sub thread in the event that you manage to get it deleted in whole or in part in an effort to hide your unwarranted and ridiculous posts above.

It is wholly disingenuous for you to now say that you "don't even think I'm a woman" in order to try to get around the fact that you are calling me a whore when you went out of your way to ascertain my gender previously and you've long known that I am, in fact, a woman. (Not that it's any secret - I've even posted photos, as you well know.)

And as for your fixation, it is a fixation because 9 times out of 10 your posts ABOUT me are not directed TO me or in response to my posts, but are directed to others with whom you share an affinity on conspiracy theories. Just like the one above in which you started your not so clever, not so cute crap. You weren't responding to me, you were responding to someone else for no other purpose than to call me a whore.

There's much more, of course, but like I said, I don't want these posts deleted. I want them to stand just where they are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-09-06 05:17 AM
Response to Reply #246
247. Stop stalking me
it's making me feel uncomfortable. You are also putting words into my mouth. Everyone thought you were male until you said you were female. People are usually right about being able to tell that sort of stuff. Creepy, that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed (0 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-09-06 05:31 AM
Response to Reply #247
248. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Jazz2006 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-09-06 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #247
250. delete dupe.
Edited on Sun Jul-09-06 05:46 AM by Jazz2006
when threads get over to the right hand side of the page and no longer show up as indents, it gets difficult to ascertain whether they're in the right place or not, but I now see that my original response was, in fact, in the right place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed (0 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-09-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #247
255. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-09-06 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #255
261. Sing....sing a song...
Sing it loud, sing it strong!

:nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-09-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #255
268. Buddy, Rewind and replay "Bush supporters" "neocons" "paid shills" ...
Don't you know any other tunes?

As you well know, just because some of us do not buy into many of the conspiracy theories touted here, that does not make us Bush supporters, neocons, shills, trolls, etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul-10-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #268
281. Funny , I didn't see him say ANY of those words.
So tell us, how DID 911 go down?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease (749 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-09-06 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #227
249. Do no truss conspiracy sites about trusses.
Could this be the source of your belief about NIST
and others having suppressed information about
the real design of the WTC towers?

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/they-l...

However, could "they" have forgoten to suppress this?

"The distances between the rectangular core and the square
exterior wall were approximately 36 ft and 60 ft. The areas
outside of the core were free of columns and the floors were
supported by truss-framing in the tenant areas and beam-framing
in the mechanical rooms and other areas. The primary structural
systems for the towers included exterior columns, spandrel beams,
and bracing in the basement floors, core columns, core bracing
at the mechanical floors, core bracing at the main lobby
atrium levels, hat trusses, and the floor systems."

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixb.pd...

In short, spandrel beams are located on floors
1-14 and mechanical floors 41-42 and 75-76.
Fires, structural damage, etc. all occured on
floors 92-98 of WTC1 and 78-83 of WTC2.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease (749 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul-09-06 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #249
251. Trusses and beams.
Edit: Notice that conspiracy sites display photos
taken during the early construction of WTC floors
below the 15th as "proof" that "they" are lying
about trusses and beams.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul-12-06 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #249
292. You should try reading the NIST report .
Along with lots of laughs, you'll find that it says on page B-53 that floors 41, 42, 43, 75, 76, 77, 107, 108, 109, 110, and the roof of both towers, in addition to the lower floors, were all beam-framed.

Elsewhere in the same section it says floors 44 and 78 were also beam-framed.

Nowhere does it say that those were the ONLY beam-framed floors.

It also doesn't say a word about the fact that all the floors required joist girders -- beams -- to support the outstanding legs of the joists in the two-way grids at each of the four corners of the beam- and truss-framed floors. That's at least eight beams per floor that the NIST is, ahem, reluctant to speak about.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixb.pd...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease (749 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul-13-06 05:10 AM
Response to Reply #292
295. Any evidence for these joist girders?
Edited on Thu Jul-13-06 06:01 AM by Carefulplease
Along with lots of laughs, you'll find that it says on page B-53 that floors 41, 42, 43, 75, 76, 77, 107, 108, 109, 110, and the roof of both towers, in addition to the lower floors, were all beam-framed.

Elsewhere in the same section it says floors 44 and 78 were also beam-framed.


No. Those are floors 78 and 79, both elevator floors. Floor 44 is not relevant to the model. They do not mention it anyway. These floors are truss framed in the long span areas and beam framed in the short span areas. How naughty of NIST to hide this fact from the public. (Although they go to great lengths to explain and illustrate all this in their "secret" reports. This is also detailed in the main Structural Models and Performance Analysis report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2ADraft.pdf


Nowhere does it say that those were the ONLY beam-framed floors.


Nowhere does it say that the core columns aren't filled
with thermite either. So?


It also doesn't say a word about the fact that all the floors required joist girders -- beams -- to support the outstanding legs of the joists in the two-way grids at each of the four corners of the beam- and truss-framed floors. That's at least eight beams per floor that the NIST is, ahem, reluctant to speak about.


The truss framed floors do *not* require beams because all primary trusses run from perimeter beams to core -- except for "the short span truss at the corner of the core (which) was heavier than the typical ones because it did support the long span trusses that framed to it."

This is also detailed in the secret report that I've referenced to you and that you now ask me to read. None of these floors that were beams framed were involved in the fires and structural damage except maybe for floor 78 of WTC2. And NIST modeled this.

I think you are grasping at straws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul-13-06 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #295
296. I said you should read it, not believe it.
Edited on Thu Jul-13-06 06:20 AM by dailykoff
The NIST report is a grossly flawed and highly deceitful document and you won't come to any clear understanding of how the WTC was built by studying it. It's full of half-truths and missing information and that includes information on the joist girders.

Of the two tiny scraps of actual floor framing plans I've found in it, one has the lettering over the beams erased and the other is covered with big red text balloons. I can't get the .pdfs to open on this dialup PC so I'll give you the page references later if you want them.

Anyway all the elevators (except for tenant modifications) were in the cores and all the core floors were beam framed, so we're only talking about the floor diaphragms to begin with, which makes the whole progressive collapse fairy tale impossible.

You must be thinking of the escalator floors, which the report does in fact say were beam framed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease (749 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul-13-06 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #296
302. Where did you hear about these mystery girders?
The NIST report is a grossly flawed and highly deceitful document and you won't come to any clear understanding of how the WTC was built by studying it. It's full of half-truths and missing information and that includes information on the joist girders.


Are the Scholars of Truth and all the other conspiracy sites and organizations also involved in the cover-up? You seem to be the only person on earth to claim knowledge of these 8 joist girders laid out on each of the the truss framed floors. (Never mind that four of them would be useless -- parallel to the primary long span trusses, they would have no truss legs to support!) Were all the pictures and videos of the WTC construction era doctored also? Were these girders installed by secret agents under the cover of night?


Anyway all the elevators (except for tenant modifications) were in the cores and all the core floors were beam framed, so we're only talking about the floor diaphragms to begin with, which makes the whole progressive collapse fairy tale impossible.


So you say. Horizontal beam framing contributes nothing to vertical load capacity. They distibute it. The hat truss and floor assemblied already performed that function. The core works structurally in tandem with perimeter columns. The planes damaged quite a few core columns also. When floors sagged as a result of fires they pulled the exterior walls inside. There are photographs and eyewitnesses to this. The load bearing capacity of the bowed perimeter columns was reduce and the damaged core had to take up the slack. There is only so much weigh it can bear. Both system failed in tandem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul-13-06 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #302
303. What tipped me off
Edited on Thu Jul-13-06 07:23 PM by dailykoff
was the fact that the NIST report says virtually nothing about how the corner truss joists were supported. At the very least, double joists would be needed at the corners, in both directions, because there were trusses running both ways (primary and bridging). That's eight joist girders.

But in all the NIST drawings and diagrams I've seen, and presumably in their "models," the corner joists just frame into ordinary trusses.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixb.pd...

edit: there's something else that I want to double-check before posting so stay tuned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul-07-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #145
160.  Welcome to DU! Please provide links to support your assertions.
We're truth-seekers here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease (749 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul-07-06 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #160
180. Here is some support...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf

Notice also the mention of the 2x load due to
the 2x scaling factor. Could that be what Ryan
got confused about when he reported that NIST
assumed twice the load?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pox americana (622 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct-07-05 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #14
40. No, a realistic similulation would have the fencing at about 0.7" high,
assuming that the block is 1 foot square. That would approximate the height-width ratio of each floor.

I wonder what the effect of fire would be on that arrangement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct-07-05 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Actually, no.
A realistic simulation would have construction that resembled the WTC towers. A chicken wire box can't do this...not even remotely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pox americana (622 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct-07-05 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. It would also have 60 columns per side instead of 20.
Face it, the more closely you simulate actual WTC construction, the less the likelihood of collapse.

Spook's experiment handicaps the WTC by about 1,000-1 and it still didn't fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct-07-05 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Absolute B.S.
Have you considered the scaled differences between such issues as:

1) The types of steel used,

2) The thicknesses of the steel used,

3) The strengths of the joints/welds,

4) The heat transfer properties of the model vs. the towers,

5) The intensity of the fires...

...there are too many unexamined elements for this "experiment" to be of any use.

If what you claim is true, we would just build skyscrapers out of chicken wire and concrete pavers...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pox americana (622 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct-07-05 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Tell it to the engineers
who rely on scale models to test everything from wind shear to earthquake resilience.

As I recall there was a WTC model used for just those kinds of tests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct-07-05 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Yes, but engineers scale their experiments to real buildings...
Spooked's little backyard fire did nothing like that.

Show me where ONE real-world element of the WTC towers was scaled for this experiment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pox americana (622 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct-07-05 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Let's start with the width-height ratio.
The ratio of each WTC floor was about 1:0.06. Spook's is about 1:1, greatly handicapping the model. But it still survived. And so on. If you accurately scaled the model for steel size, connection strength, and so on, it would obviously be much stronger, even if you factored in the differences of scale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct-08-05 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #52
58. You're kidding, right?
Show me the comparison between the steel in chicken wire and that used in the WTC towers. I want to know how Spooked's chicken wire compares in relation to tensile strength, thickness, joint strength, heat resistance, and heat transfer.

That's just the steel...

I'll let you answer those before we move on...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pox americana (622 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct-08-05 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. Evidently you haven't been paying attention.
Edited on Sat Oct-08-05 01:14 AM by pox americana
The comparisons are in the posts above. The point is that Spook's model is a much weaker structure than the WTC, but when subjected to a similar fire, it didn't fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink&nbs