Real 9-11 Research

[RandomGuy]

The NIST Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.).

Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)

The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF)

That's just the first paragraph.

[RandomGuy]

The NIST Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.



The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).



...
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases ac ulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.



Note the absurdity of asserting that the fires in the core were as intense as those in the tenant spaces when the core:

* Had very little fuel
* Was far from any source of fresh air
* Had huge steel columns to wick away the heat
* Does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos





Furthermore, NIST's suggestion of extremely high core temperatures is contradicted by its own fire temperature simulations, such as the one illustrated above which show upper-level air temperatures in the core of mostly below 300 ºC.

Real 911 Research

Sheeple

As a steel column is heated, its ability to support gravity loads and resist
lateral loads decreases. At temperatures of about 300 °C, steel loses about
20 percent of its yield strength (Figure 2–9). Under modest loads, steel is
elastic, that is, it can compress, or shorten, but will recover when loads are
removed. As the load increases, the steel becomes plastic, and the
shortening is unrecoverable. At still higher loads, the column buckles. At
temperatures above 500 ºC, the steel weakens, the loss of strength and
stiffness become significant, and the column's ability to carry its share of the
building loads decreases. It shortens due to a combination of plastic
deformation and an additional, time-dependent deformation called creep that can increase column
shortening and hasten buckling. Figure 2–10 indicates the rates at which structural steel could have been
heated by the WTC fires and the effect of the thermal insulation in slowing the heating process.6

[RandomGuy]

Note this is a simulation of the first 15 minutes of the fire.

The analysis claims that there was no fuel, but somehow neglects to mention, as the NIST report does, that a good chunk of both aircraft remained in the buildings, and the force of the impact of the planes pushed all the available fuel, office furniture, cabinets, etc, into a big giant pile.

I also kind of fail to see how analysis can credibly make a claim of no extra input of air into a building with a plane-sized hole in it.

Can you explain that to me Dan?

[RandomGuy]

Seven major factors led to the collapse of WTC 1:
• Structural damage from the aircraft impact;
• Large amount of jet fuel sprayed into the building interior, that ignited widespread fires over
several floors;
• Dislodging of SFRM from structural members due to the aircraft impact, that enabled rapid
heating of the unprotected structural steel;
• Open paths for fire spread resulting from the open plan of the impact floors and the breaking
of par ion walls by the impact debris;
• Weakened core columns that increased the load on the perimeter walls;
• Sagging of the south floors, that led to pull-in forces on the perimeter columns; and
• Bowed south perimeter columns that had a reduced capacity to carry loads.

[RandomGuy]

the core:


* Was far from any source of fresh air

The results of the visual analysis included:
• The locations of the broken windows, providing information on the source of air to feed the
fires within.
• Observations of the spread of fires.
• Do entation of the location of exterior damage from the aircraft impact and subsequent
structural changes in the buildings.
• Identification of the presence or absence of significant floor deterioration at the building
perimeter.
• Observations of certain actions by building occupants, such as breaking windows.

[RandomGuy]

The fires were started by ignition of the jet fuel, whose distribution was provided by the aircraft impact
simulations. The radiant energy from these short-lived fires heated the nearby combustibles, creating
flammable vapors. When these mixed with air in the right proportion within a grid cell, FDS burned the
mixture. This generated more energy, which heated the combustibles further, and continued the burning.

Why does all the 911 analysis assume that the fuel was the only thing flammable in the buildings?

[RandomGuy]

The use of an “average” gas temperature was not a satisfactory means of assessing the thermal
environment on floors this large and would also have led to large errors in the subsequent thermal and
structural analyses. The heat transferred to the structural components was largely by means of thermal
radiation, whose intensity is proportional to the fourth power of the gas temperature. At any given
location, the duration of temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the
calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below. To put this in perspective, the radiative intensity onto
a truss surrounded by smoke-laden gases at 1,000 °C was approximately 7 times the value for gases at
500 °C

.

[ChumpDumper]

Why does all the 911 analysis assume that the fuel was the only thing flammable in the buildings?

C'mon, everyone knows there are no flammable materials in four or five acres of office space.

[RandomGuy]

bump. cause this has been done before.

[Nbadan]

C'mon, everyone knows there are no flammable materials in four or five acres of office space.

Gotta be careful with those high-rise paper fires, the building could come crashing down on you!

...GMAB....

[Nbadan]

The analysis claims that there was no fuel, but somehow neglects to mention, as the NIST report does, that a good chunk of both aircraft remained in the buildings, and the force of the impact of the planes pushed all the available fuel, office furniture, cabinets, etc, into a big giant pile.

...maybe in Tower 2, but even then, that would hardly begin to explain the collapse of the inner trusses that supported the elevator shafts...those must have failed for the buildings to have collapsed at, or near (depending on who you believe), free-fall speed...I'm more inclined to believe that these trusses must have been compromised than to believe in Chumpy's theory of complete core-failure....

[ChumpDumper]

From another thread:

Seriously, if one argues that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel to the point that it deformed under load, one has to come up with a plausible explanation why the steel deformed under load.



The numbers in and around the red circle represent the amount in inches that the perimeter columns have deformed by 10:23 AM. They claim to be accurate within 6 inches -- so someone tell me what else other than heat could have deformed the steel in the floors, causing them to sag and pull in the perimeter columns, deforming them to the extent, 40 or 50 inches, clearly shown in this picture.

More pictures and text here: http://www.representativepress.org/B...xplosives.html

dan, since you don't believe the heat of the fire caused the steel to progressively deform over time, please tell us what you personally think caused the steel to progressively deform over time while being exposed to the heat of the fire.

Be specific.

[ChumpDumper]

...maybe in Tower 2, but even then, that would hardly begin to explain the collapse of the inner trusses that supported the elevator shafts...those must have failed for the buildings to have collapsed at, or near (depending on who you believe), free-fall speed...I'm more inclined to believe that these trusses must have been compromised than to believe in Chumpy's theory of complete core-failure....

How could there be complete core failure when 60+ stories of core sections remained standing after the initial collapse?

You have no arguments for yourself and you don't understand anyone else's.

Bravo.

[Nbadan]

The numbers in and around the red circle represent the amount in inches that the perimeter columns have deformed by 10:23 AM. They claim to be accurate within 6 inches -- so someone tell me what else other than heat could have deformed the steel in the floors, causing them to sag and pull in the perimeter columns, deforming them to the extent, 40 or 50 inches, clearly shown in this picture.

There is no way to tell if that specific floor was structurally compromised by the impact...I don't know anyone here who is claiming that some floors, especially those in or near the impact point did not fail....

[Nbadan]

How could there be complete core failure when 60+ stories of core sections remained standing after the initial collapse?

...that was hardly standing....

[ChumpDumper]

There is no way to tell if that specific floor was structurally compromised by the impact...

This was almost an hour and a half after the impact, and it was getting worse over time.

I don't know anyone here who is claiming that some floors, especially those in or near the impact point did not fail....

These floors had not failed at this point -- they are still attached to the perimeter columns and pulling them in, causing the deformation.

You say that the heat could not have caused this -- so what are you saying did cause this?

Be specific.

[ChumpDumper]

...that was hardly standing....

Now you are saying they weren't standing.

Seriously dan, personal incredulity isn't cutting it here -- come up with an actual plausible alternative explanation for these events and we'll listen.

You have never done that in all these years -- why is that?

[Nbadan]

This was almost an hour and a half after the impact, and it was getting worse over time.

So what's it gonna be? either there was a great deal of debris, as thus a great deal of compromise because of weight and structural damage, or there wasn't...you can't have it both ways...

[Nbadan]

ou say that the heat could not have caused this -- so what are you saying did cause this?

..collapse of those specific floors...

[Nbadan]

Now you are saying they weren't standing.

Seriously dan, personal incredulity isn't cutting it here -- come up with an actual plausible alternative explanation for these events and we'll listen.

You have never done that in all these years -- why is that?

Not in the way they should have remained standing....this isn't personal... I may be the one posting these questions on this forum but its not like they aren't being asked in other forums...

[ChumpDumper]

So what's it gonna be? either there was a great deal of debris, as thus a great deal of compromise because of weight and structural damage, or there wasn't...you can't have it both ways...

dan, read slowly or get someone to read it for you:

The floors here were still attached.

There is nothing else that could have pulled in the perimeter columns in such a manner.

If you have an alternative cause that could pull in the perimeter columns at the points where the floors were attached, please explain it to us in full.

[Nbadan]

If you have an alternative cause that could pull in the perimeter columns at the points where the floors were attached, please explain it to us in full.

So what your saying is that the building toppled over like a tree? Hmmm...must have missed that part..

[ChumpDumper]

Not in the way they should have remained standing.

Explain to us all exactly how they should have remained standing. Be specific and give more reasoning than "I think that's how it should have looked."

...this isn't personal... I may be the one posting these questions on this forum but its not like they aren't being asked in other forums...

This isn't personal -- you are not answering any questions that are asked of you.

[ChumpDumper]

So what your saying is that the building toppled over like a tree? Hmmm...must have missed that part..

It started to, then gravity pulled it straight down.

That's how gravity works.


You did miss that part.

You continue to miss that part.

And many others.

So often that one can only conclude your continued ignorance is willful and disingenuous.

[Blake]

so why did anyone want wtc7 to come down?