The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Weaver]

Oh, and if you are SO good at the maths - exactly how much heat was transferred to the steel floor beams on the fire floors of WTC 1 and 2?

[Galaxian]

Oh, and if you are SO good at the maths - exactly how much heat was transferred to the steel floor beams on the fire floors of WTC 1 and 2?

No problem. I'll get back on this, taking both the fuel load as well as thermal conductivity into account... But I warn you: it won't make a damn difference to your attitude. So don't expect a bright light & conversion on the road to Damascus.

BTW; the collapse of the floor trusses has NOTHING to do with the central core collapsing. As said before, the core was only made stronger when it lost the burden of the surrounding floors. So something else caused that.

[Onyx8]

There was an industrial tyre shop right behind my house, worked on logging trucks, 'dozers, graders and the like, lots of rubber in there. The building was built in two parts: the original timber building and a later steel frame building.

It caught fire and burned. The steel frame building collapsed entirely, the steel was a mangled crumpled rats nest on the ground the next morning. The timber building lost the walls, roof and all contents, but the wooden frame remained after the fire was out. It takes a long time to burn through a 10"x10" post or a 10"x12" beam. By the time the FD had controlled the fire the steel frame was on the ground. They had to come in later with machinery to knock down the charred wooden frame.

[Weaver]

When timber structures fail, they mostly fail at connection points. It's rare that the actual timber burns through - even with modern construction of smaller (2x4" and 4x4" wood).

The biggest culprit of timber-frame structural collapse is this type of fastener:




Doesn't take much heat at all to warp those plates and cause them to pop out of position - leaving nothing holding the wood together.

[the_5th_ape]

Can you kindly cut out the dogmatic bullshit? It's sickening; makes you sound like a paid disinfo agent, a deliberate plant.

The thermodynamics equation for this is EASY: dE = m C dT. Where d is delta, or change in value. E is energy in Joules. m is mass in kilograms. T is temperature; ie; dT is delta T or change in temperature in degrees Kelvin.

Does Galaxian have to do everything around this fucking joint? Do I now have to go get the energy content of jetfuel (kerosene), & calculate the required rise in temperature to overcome the 3 to 4 fold safety factor, in other words a similar reduction in steel strength, etc. KNOWING that you lot don't give a stuff about the facts, & are gleeful in mocking the evidence in front of your eyes & taking the piss out of concerned citizens trying to save YOUR & your children's butts from the most pernicious, fascistic government the world has ever known.

Now go & figure it out. Then pull your horns in: There was no way the fuel could have heated the structural steel central core or even the outer skeleton to softening temperatures. Apologies are owed to Psikeyhackr!

[Onyx8]

When timber structures fail, they mostly fail at connection points. It's rare that the actual timber burns through - even with modern construction of smaller (2x4" and 4x4" wood).

The biggest culprit of timber-frame structural collapse is this type of fastener:




Doesn't take much heat at all to warp those plates and cause them to pop out of position - leaving nothing holding the wood together.

Yes indeed. As a timber-framer, the buildings I build have no steel components in them and do very well in fires in terms of catastrophic collapse. The 'standard' construction around here for residential homes is as you pictured: small members (2x4, 2x10, trusses) with lots of steel connections including what we call gang-nails that you show above.

[psikeyhackr]

Doesn't take much heat at all to warp those plates and cause them to pop out of position - leaving nothing holding the wood together.

Is there a free standing wooden structure on the planet more than 300 feet tall. How thick are those metal plates? They can't conduct heat to each other, can they? That is SO RELEVANT!

http://www.natemaas.com/2011/02/sutyagi ... ooden.html

psik

[Weaver]

Psikey, don't blow your ignorance out of proportion. That comment was in direct response to the claim that only timber-frame structures collapse - and those small metal plates are the REASON why they collapse.

That says nothing at all, however, about elongation or sag of structural steel floor beams - which, when heated, HAVE caused steel buildings to collapse.

By the way - every time you use the Laughing smilie, I know that you don't understand what you're making fun of. Every single time. For fuck's sake, do try to keep up.

[psikeyhackr]

That comment was in direct response to the claim that only timber-frame structures collapse - and those small metal plates are the REASON why they collapse.

And it may very well be true.

psik

[Weaver]

It is. Thank you for acknowledging it.

[Onyx8]

!	GENERAL MODNOTE Agi Hammerthief in this post you twice mis-spell a members name. This could be taken to be inflammatory. Please be careful of this in future; remember, there is always copy and paste if in doubt. Thanks.

[psikeyhackr]

It is. Thank you for acknowledging it.

You mean this is true?

only timber-frame structures collapse

psik

[Agi Hammerthief]

That comment was in direct response to the claim that only timber-frame structures collapse - and those small metal plates are the REASON why they collapse.

And it may very well be true.

It is. Thank you for acknowledging it.

You mean this is true?

only timber-frame structures collapse

psik

creative quote mining, how dirtily dishonest

[Weaver]

It is. Thank you for acknowledging it.

You mean this is true?

only timber-frame structures collapse

psik

Utterly dishonest misrepresentation of what I wrote.

[psikeyhackr]

That says nothing at all, however, about elongation or sag of structural steel floor beams - which, when heated, HAVE caused steel buildings to collapse.

And your evidence for them causing a SKYSCRAPER to collapse is where?

What is ridiculous, is all of the TALK for all of these years rather than take the approach of Francis Bacon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment#History

psik

[Weaver]

That says nothing at all, however, about elongation or sag of structural steel floor beams - which, when heated, HAVE caused steel buildings to collapse.

And your evidence for them causing a SKYSCRAPER to collapse is where?

New York City. The big fucking hole in the ground where the WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 collapsed.

What is ridiculous, is all of the TALK for all of these years rather than take the approach of Francis Bacon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment#History

psik

Except people have performed experiments showing that steel beams can be heated to expand or sag and cause structural failure. Why do you think they put fireproofing materials onto the beams? Just for the hell of it?

Read this article. ALL of it. Then tell me that steel beams exposed to office fires cannot sag. THEN look again at the picture of the steel beams which sagged after being exposed to office fires.

http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=457

[proudfootz]

That says nothing at all, however, about elongation or sag of structural steel floor beams - which, when heated, HAVE caused steel buildings to collapse.

And your evidence for them causing a SKYSCRAPER to collapse is where?

New York City. The big fucking hole in the ground where the WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 collapsed.

Not sure how a 'hole in the ground' is supposed to be evidence of any theory about how the buildings that once stood there were destroyed. Is it because it's big or because it's fucking?

There seems to be a disconnect in your reasoning - maybe needs a little fleshing out. What is it about these holes?

What is ridiculous, is all of the TALK for all of these years rather than take the approach of Francis Bacon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment#History

psik

Except people have performed experiments showing that steel beams can be heated to expand or sag and cause structural failure. Why do you think they put fireproofing materials onto the beams? Just for the hell of it?

Read this article. ALL of it. Then tell me that steel beams exposed to office fires cannot sag. THEN look again at the picture of the steel beams which sagged after being exposed to office fires.

http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=457

I'm not sure anyone posting has denied that heat can compromise steel.

The question is whether in this case that is what happened.

AFAICT there's not much by way of empirical evidence that the heat from the fires at WTC brought any steel to the temperatures required.

At WTC1 and WTC2 the time of exposure was very short.

[GrahamH]

AFAICT there's not much by way of empirical evidence that the heat from the fires at WTC brought any steel to the temperatures required.

At WTC1 and WTC2 the time of exposure was very short.

There is evidence that the floors sagged.

[psikeyhackr]

AFAICT there's not much by way of empirical evidence that the heat from the fires at WTC brought any steel to the temperatures required.

At WTC1 and WTC2 the time of exposure was very short.

There is evidence that the floors sagged.

The floors outside the core were not constructed with steel BEAMS. They were trusses made of welded rebar. But the NIST tested 4 floor sections with trusses in furnaces for TWO HOURS and they did not fail. The tests should have been repeated without fire proofing. But if they did that and the trusses still did not fail within two hours they would have a serious problem explaining away the events of 9/11.

But that test was the logical thing to do. So after 12 years we have stupid conversations based on inadequate data to clearly resolve the issue. But the tests can still be done and the physics profession will look ridiculous for not demanding them no matter the results.

psik

[proudfootz]

AFAICT there's not much by way of empirical evidence that the heat from the fires at WTC brought any steel to the temperatures required.

At WTC1 and WTC2 the time of exposure was very short.

There is evidence that the floors sagged.

The floors outside the core were not constructed with steel BEAMS. They were trusses made of welded rebar. But the NIST tested 4 floor sections with trusses in furnaces for TWO HOURS and they did not fail. The tests should have been repeated without fire proofing. But if they did that and the trusses still did not fail within two hours they would have a serious problem explaining away the events of 9/11.

But that test was the logical thing to do. So after 12 years we have stupid conversations based on inadequate data to clearly resolve the issue. But the tests can still be done and the physics profession will look ridiculous for not demanding them no matter the results.

psik

It was rather my impression that of the steel samples recovered from the WTC fire zones for examination, little or none was found to have reached critical temperatures.

Obviously it might be because they had so little evidence to work with.