|
Post by shred on Mar 12, 2013 11:51:11 GMT -5
Office fires in the Cardington test generated steel temperatures of 1150 C and air temps of 1213 C from just wood plastic and paper.
WTC 7 contained diesel fuel for backup electrical generators. Air temperatures could easily have exceeded 1000 degrees C and possibly even 1200 C so steel temperatures of 1000 C + in damaged sections extremely likely.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 12, 2013 13:22:11 GMT -5
"Office fires in the Cardington test generated steel temperatures of 1150 C and air temps of 1213 C from just wood plastic and paper."
You are making this up and trying to distort the facts and the purpose of the test. There is nothing in the PDF that refers to office fires, wood plastic and paper. You can do a simple word search and see that these terms do not exist in the PDF. It seems to me the temperatures were artificially produced for the purposes of the test and are NOT representative of typical office fires. These temperatures may have been reached according to the graphs but they had nothing to do with office fires or the materials you claim were used to produce them. Furthermore, even if all you say is true (and it certainly is not), it was NOT WTC7, it was a TEST on another structure. APPLES AND ORANGES.
"WTC 7 contained diesel fuel for backup electrical generators. Air temperatures could easily have exceeded 1000 degrees C and possibly even 1200 C so steel temperatures of 1000 C + in damaged sections extremely likely."
Even NIST admitted that the diesel fuel tanks had no effect on the collapse of WTC7 and the term you use "could have" does not mean that that actually occurred, it's just your sheer speculation. There is NO EVIDENCE that such temperatures were reached.
Once again, you are attempting to evade the point of this thread which again is ALL ABOUT NIST's COLUMN 79 THEORY and nothing else. The above is just your way to try to change the subject to something unrelated.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 12, 2013 18:13:55 GMT -5
No I'm not, look at the test data from Manchester University's Structural Fire Engineering website, they've the results of every Cardington fire test including the office fire test from 2003 commissioned by John Dowling. Your so called 'experts' are the ones who made things up mate.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 12, 2013 20:28:34 GMT -5
"look at the test data from Manchester University's Structural Fire Engineering website, they've the results of every Cardington fire test including the office fire test from 2003 commissioned by John Dowling."
Your introduction of the Cardington fire test to this discussion is irrelevant to the NIST theory on column 79. It is nothing more than a deliberate distraction that does not address the issue at hand in any way, shape or form. I've been over this with you time and again in detail and you have yet to demonstrate any connection to the NIST theory of column 79. You have NOT addressed any of questions I asked you and have not been able to support anything I took you to task with. Your M.O. is to just ignore these issues as if I didn't point them out to you.
"Your so called 'experts' are the ones who made things up mate."
At this point, it's you who is making things up. I have caught you in several lies that you have not even tried to defend and other outrageous unsubstantiated claims, including the one above, mate. Even when you tried to discredit the contents of the 4 videos, all you managed to do was bring up issues that have nothing to do with the point of the videos. I then showed you in detail how there was no connection and all you could do was continue along the same irrelevant path (the fire test).
What is your real agenda anyway? What are you trying to do? You claimed in one post that you're "giving up [your] time for free to tell [me] the real truth", yet your truth includes a bunch of lies, fake claims and distractions. I can just imagine if you asked me for payment for your "truth".
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 13, 2013 4:38:23 GMT -5
No I introduced the Cardington fire test information to show you the temperatures a typical office fire can generate. I have told no lies to you.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 13, 2013 8:12:27 GMT -5
"I introduced the Cardington fire test information to show you the temperatures a typical office fire can generate."1. There is NOTHING in the PDF you sent me a link to that refers to any kind of office fire as part of the Cardington test. This is the only thing I found (see page 6): <<<Fire Load
The fire load was provided by 40 kg of wood per m2 of floor area in the form of wooden cribs (average moisture content < 14%) placed in a uniform manner within the test area.>>>The above are NOT typical office materials and there is NOTHING in the PDF that represents that the fire test was meant to simulate an office fire. The word "office" does NOT appear anywhere in the PDF. www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/FullScaleFireTestBRE215741.pdfIf I'm incorrect, please point to the page(s) that refer to office fires and the office materials used to generate the fire in the test in the above link you posted. 2. Even if it allegedly simulates an "office fire" it isn't a true office fire, it's a simulation at best. 3. Your insistence on pushing the Cardington fire test issue is nothing more than your way to avoid anything that has to do with NIST's column 79 theory as it still has NOTHING to do with it. "I have told no lies to you."I have already pointed out several lies that you have posted since you started posting in this thread. In fact the first sentence I quoted above is a bald faced lie. I can give you a list of your lies but that's a waste of time as it would just be a rehashing of your fraud that I already exposed.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 13, 2013 8:48:16 GMT -5
Photos from the 2003 Cardington tests: Severe damage to load bearing beams, deflection of 400mm observed. This was only a small scale test in a grid structure. Imagine a full scale office fire in a tube in tube structure that has been damaged by the impact of large burning debris from another skyscraper. So consider what is happening inside making all this smoke:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 13, 2013 9:05:46 GMT -5
The pictures do not come from the PDF you provided a link to and you have not provided a link to the picture, not that it means anything anyway. The first picture you show seems to be what looks like a typical office but it also looks like there's quite a bit of wood piled up on 2 sides (if that's what that is, it's hard to tell from that picture). If that's true, then it is still not typical of an office environment.
Furthermore, none of what you posted has anything to do with NIST's column 79 theory as usual.
"Imagine a full scale office fire in a tube in tube structure that has been damaged by the impact of large burning debris from another skyscraper."
Why do I need to "imagine" any such thing? What does that have to do with NIST's column 79 theory?
Just more useless and irrelevant diversions from you.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 13, 2013 9:33:16 GMT -5
Column 79 was made of steel, unprotected steel at that as the damage caused to WTC 7 by WTC 1 had damaged the structure, hadn't it ? And we're talking about steel in fire so structural fire engineering data is very relevant. Data from the cardington tests has been shared with many other websites as it's academic research is important to the construction industry, I got those photos from here: www.vulcan-solutions.com/cardington.htmlLots of office fire data from that test for you here: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/BRETest/page47.htmColumn 79 supported the east penthouse, plenty of youtube videos show that penthouse collapsing prior to the rest of the building collapsing and plenty of photos exist proving extensive fire in WTC7 and in that region of WTC7, so obviously column 79 failed due to fire damage, didn't it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 13, 2013 10:15:06 GMT -5
"Column 7 was made of steel, unprotected steel at that as the damage caused to WTC 7 by WTC 1 had damaged the structure, hadn't it ?"
I think you mean column 79. There is no evidence that column 79 was unprotected and there is no evidence that any damage done to WTC7 by WTC1 debris affected column 79.
"And we're talking about steel in fire so structural fire engineering data is very relevant."
True.
"Data from the cardington tests has been shared with many other websites as it's academic research is important to the construction industry"
That may be true however it is irrelevant to NIST's column 79 theory other than its correlation to thermal expansion. As explained in the video, there is a standard physics equation that calculates thermal expansion and that can be used stand alone without having anything to do with the Cardington test.
"I got those photos from here:"
Thanks for the link, it still doesn't answer my question about the massive amount of extra wood that appears in the picture. And it is not representative of WTC7 since it's a contrived test of a different structure. And it still has nothing to do with NIST's column 79 theory.
"Lots of office fire data from that test for you here:"
Same argument as above.
"Column 79 supported the east penthouse, plenty of youtube videos show that penthouse collapsing prior to the rest of the building collapsing and plenty of photos exist proving extensive fire in WTC7 and in that region of WTC7, so obviously column 79 failed due to fire damage, didn't it"
No, that doesn't make anything about the manner and initiation of column 79's collapse you posted "obvious" or true and it does not prove NIST's theory, which was quite specific, in any manner whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 13, 2013 11:19:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 13, 2013 13:07:14 GMT -5
"Column 79 obviously wasn't protected well enough as it buckled and gave way leading to the collapse of the east penthouse into the building seconds before the global collapse of the rest of the building."
No it's not obvious, that's just your opinion and it does not match reality as proven by the 4 videos. You can't contradict what's in the videos because you have no clue as to the structure and connections of column 79, not to mention there is NO EVIDENCE that column 79 wasn't protected enough (from collapse due to fire alone). Many things about column 79 as described by NIST are incorrect and some of it was fabricated. This was made quite evident in the videos.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 13, 2013 15:21:23 GMT -5
What do you think caused the east penthouse to fall down into the building if the column supporting it didn't buckle and fail due to intense heat weakening it ?
Think logically.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 13, 2013 16:09:41 GMT -5
"What do you think caused the east penthouse to fall down into the building if the column supporting it didn't buckle and fail due to intense heat weakening it ?"
There is no question that columns failed to support the building and that it collapsed as a result of multiple column failure. The real question is what caused these columns to fail. There is NO evidence that any of the columns failed strictly due to intense heat weakening them. That is only theory (as well as your opinion) so far and not fact, unless and until proven otherwise. Need I remind you that there has never been an independent forensic investigation of the collapse of WTC7 that may shed a light on why many of the columns failed at the exact same time as well as in sequence?
But that is not the point of this thread. The point of this thread and I will repeat for the umpteenth time, is NIST's theory that column 79 failed due to thermal expansion of columns that caused it to unseat, collapse and was the direct cause of the collapse of the entire building. In other words that NIST concocted a theory based on lies and deliberate modification of fact and data. This is a VERY SPECIFIC discussion point and I already said that quite a few times.
"Think logically."
Everything I posted so far follows simple logic. Most of what you posted so far is a diversion and not to mention a bunch of lies and wholesale unsubstantiated claims and has little to do with the logistics as pertaining to the NIST column 79 theory. I have almost 40 years of expertise as a computer consultant (design/analysis/programming, etc. of large scale systems of all kinds for large international and domestic corporations). That means during my career, I have dealt with logic on a daily basis and made a decent living at it. So please don't tell me about logic.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 14, 2013 5:18:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 14, 2013 8:04:55 GMT -5
"There is no evidence that those columns failed due to thermite or explosives."
That's your opinion, many experts and the evidence and logic disputes the above. However, it isn't relevant to this discussion either way. There is nothing in any of the 4 videos about thermite or explosives.
"There is evidence of uncontrolled and intense fire in WTC7."
That the fires were uncontrolled or intense or not is not in dispute. That they may have been "intense" in the few locations where they were burning may be true. The only relevance here is whether or not the fires caused a thermal expansion of several columns and as a result that the thermal expansion caused column 79 to walk off its seat as theorized by NIST's final report.
"There is a wealth of metallurgical evidence that when effect of temperature profile and load are severe enough any load bearing steel column will buckle and give way."
I am not disputing that. However, it is NOT relevant to this discussion because it has nothing to do with NIST's theory about column 79. NIST does NOT claim in its report that any columns "buckled and gave away". Once more, you are introducing an irrelevant distraction which you have repeatedly done.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 14, 2013 9:26:45 GMT -5
Many so called experts claim Thermite, however Thermite isn't explosive it is an incendiary, it burns downwards and is not used in the controlled demolition of skyscrapers. If Thermite were stuck to a vertical column, it would fall away by the path of least resistance once ignited (Newton's law of gravity). It also burns up rapidly as the powdered Aluminium & Iron Oxide mixture reacts. All WTC buildings contained Aluminium and Steel, Steel is an alloy of Iron and Carbon. Iron Oxides form when Steel is exposed to fire and you know damn well that when Steel is exposed to fire it loses strength so no Thermite needed, no explosives needed. The people who attacked the WTC's knew that structural damage + fire was all that was needed to destroy them. There are pictures of columns alleged to have been cut with Thermite however they were cut with cutting torches and cutting lances during the clean up:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 14, 2013 9:52:11 GMT -5
So then since you want to steer the discussion to a completely unrelated topic, I take it you agree that NIST committed FRAUD when it released its final report that included the column 79 theory. I have to assume that because you haven't successfully contradicted anything in the videos that started this thread despite your feeble attempts.
And if you agree that NIST committed FRAUD, then why are you more concerned with those who question the official narrative than an official agency that committed fraud? Why do you insist on trying to discredit experts who have successfully exposed NIST's fraud? What is your REAL agenda?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 14, 2013 11:35:54 GMT -5
They did not commit fraud, they correctly pointed out that structural damage + fire brought down WTC7 and that column 79 buckled due to heat weakening. The people who have committed fraud are the so called 9/11 'truth' movement who have invented controlled demolition theories to excuse the Islamic terrorists who carried out the hijacking and kamikaze crashing of airliners.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 14, 2013 12:31:03 GMT -5
"They did not commit fraud, they correctly pointed out that structural damage + fire brought down WTC7 and that column 79 buckled due to heat weakening."
No they did not. Why are you making things up? This entire topic is exactly about what NIST wrote in their report and there is NOT one mention in their report about that structural damage + fire brought down WTC7 and that column 79 buckled due to heat weakening. In fact, NIST specifically claimed that structural damage did NOT contribute to the collapse of WTC7.
The whole discussion is about that NIST theorized that beams thermally expanded, pushed column 79 off its seat, caused it to collapse and as a result caused WTC7 to collapse. And that the videos showed that this theory was based on FRAUD.
"The people who have committed fraud are the so called 9/11 'truth' movement who have invented controlled demolition theories to excuse the Islamic terrorists who carried out the hijacking and kamikaze crashing of airliners."
Once again you are making unsubstantiated claims that have nothing to do with reality. If anyone is a fraud, you certainly are. You constantly make things up for some sort of agenda only you know about.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 14, 2013 15:17:12 GMT -5
FAQ #11: Does the NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse prove that the skyscraper came down by fire?By Chris Sarns, Richard Gage, AIA, and Gregg Roberts No. The NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse does not even closely resemble the observations and actual video footage of the destruction in three main ways. A scientifically valid explanation of any phenomenon must account for the key observations. Moreover, a computer simulation does not constitute an explanation. It is merely a tool for determining and visualizing what might have happened if various assumptions are true. NIST has refused to disclose the computer inputs of its mathematical models. This makes it impossible for anyone to check their work. 1. While NIST admits publicly that the building descended at “free-fall” acceleration, its computer simulation at no time shows the main roofline accelerating downward at the rate of free fall. NIST’s Final Report on the collapse of WTC 7 (NCSTAR 1A, p. 45) states that gravitational acceleration (free-fall) of the main roofline occurred. It began when the point NIST was using [1] as its marker on the video had descended about 7 feet*. In Figure 12-62 (NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 588) the roofline has descended about 10m /33 feet (NCSTAR 1-9A, p. 77) and the columns are still buckling in an irregular manner. Buckling columns provide resistance and would obviously prevent the building from collapsing at free-fall acceleration. The NIST computer model is clearly not simulating free-fall acceleration. This is consistent with Shyam Sunder’s statement at the WTC7 technical briefing on August 26, 2008 (which was his initial public attempt to deny free-fall along with his justification for that denial): “… a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it … there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.” Given the mismatch between the NIST computer animations and the video record of the actual destruction, it is clear that NIST’s assumptions (computer inputs) were substantially in error. It was NIST’s job to explain the destruction that actually occurred, not to posit some possible way in which the destruction could have occurred. Their model, which does not reflect the observed 2.25 seconds (about 100 feet) of free fall, should be judged a complete failure, or a cover-up. [Illustration] The above computer animation is the one “with debris damage” (caused by framing sections from WTC 1). Note that the other NIST computer simulation (not shown here), which was performed “without debris damage” is irrelevant since NIST documented that debris damage did occur.) * NIST's analysis ignores the fact that what appears to be a downward kink in the top of the north face of the building, in some videos, is actually an inward movement of the north-facing wall, in which the top of the wall moves away from the camera[2]. The illusion of a downward kink[3] has been incorrectly cited by many 9/11 Truth activists as another feature of WTC 7's destruction that resembles features seen in conventional controlled demolitions. With NIST's resources and the importance of its mandate, it had no excuse for making this “mistake”. NIST knew very well, by the method that they were using, that an inward movement of the top of the north wall would be interpreted as a downward movement – because they used a point “near the middle” of the top of the wall[1] where they knew that the wall had moved inward the greatest amount – instead of using the northwest corner. This enabled NIST to show an earlier “start time” of the descent of the north face and a larger downward movement before the onset of free-fall. [Illustration] [1] North Face (Camera 3 – after collapse of the east penthouse): The NIST “point” at which they measure the descent of the building. NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 600 [Illustration] [2] NIST’s LS-DYNA model reveals the “inward” folding north wall – prior to the downward descent of the building. [Illustration] [3] The photos above are from the videos and show the north face. They are synchronized to show the conditions at the same time. The left photo is a “straight-on” shot (from about eye level at the roof line from camera 2). The photo on the right is taken from a ground-level camera 3 which shows the top of the north-facing wall folding inward (as illustrated in the NIST LS-DYNA model). Clearly the eye level view indicates that the north face has not started to descend. 2. The NIST computer simulation does not look like the actual implosion. The NIST computer simulation stops about one second after the building started its descent. This is completely unjustified. There is no excuse for stopping the computer animation prior to the building’s descent to the point where it drops out of sight in the video. The external frame is folding up at this point in the computer simulation, but that did not happen in the actual collapse. The only reason that NIST would have to stop the descent at this point would be to hide the obvious “folding up” and “falling over” that is beginning to occur.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 14, 2013 20:02:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 14, 2013 20:46:43 GMT -5
Same thing Einstein, different path. The link from AE911 leads to the NIST website which contains links to the 2005 and 2008 reports, yours is a direct link to the 2008 report only. That's your entire response to my last 2 posts?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 15, 2013 3:32:26 GMT -5
Young's modulus is Young's modulus, Steel is Steel and in fire the Young's modulus of Steel will change as fire and hot air from the fire heats up the material which will also expand as the friction between crystals of Martensite increases.
There is no doubt at all amongst genuine experts (structural fire engineers, metallurgists) that the fire heated up column 79, that column 79 lost strength, that column 79 gave way as a result of weakening by fire. More importantly that even if WTC7 hadn't suffered immense damage from the impact of WTC1 debris, in a fire, WTC7 would still have collapsed due to the effect of load on column 79.
Conspiracists hate NIST because the report tells the truth, it dispels fantasy, it proves them wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 15, 2013 8:23:09 GMT -5
"Young's modulus is Young's modulus, Steel is Steel and in fire the Young's modulus of Steel will change as fire and hot air from the fire heats up the material which will also expand as the friction between crystals of Martensite increases."
And even if that's true, so? What's your point? How does that correlate to NIST's theory? Yet another irrelevant diversion on your part?
"There is no doubt at all amongst genuine experts (structural fire engineers, metallurgists) that the fire heated up column 79, that column 79 lost strength, that column 79 gave way as a result of weakening by fire."
Why are you making this up yet again? NIST did NOT say that in their report, please show me where in NIST's report this appears, what page(s)? Did you see the video where Shyam Sunder explained what happened with column 79?
Who are these "genuine experts"? You provided a link to an anonymous "debunking" site, claimed it was better than any other site but when I asked you who is responsible for the contents of the site, you failed to identify one single person. You only keep proving what a disingenuous phony you are.
"even if WTC7 hadn't suffered immense damage from the impact of WTC1 debris, in a fire, WTC7 would still have collapsed due to the effect of load on column 79."
Would have, could have, maybe, perhaps. You're speculating, NIST didn't say any such thing. That's your opinion.
"Conspiracists hate NIST because the report tells the truth, it dispels fantasy, it proves them wrong."
NIST has been PROVEN by several named credentialed experts beyond any shadow of a doubt to have committed blatant FRAUD. NIST lied, contradicted itself, manufactured data, obfuscated, did NOT investigate, created an unsubstantiated THEORY, failed to use standard NFPA protocol, failed to use settled scientific protocol, failed to make their findings available for peer review using some inane pretext about that it would "endanger public safety", so there is NO WAY anyone can verify their findings and sold its fake report to the world as fact. That you can't see that, despite the FACTS, is quite understandable given all your diversionary posts, pretenses and multiple lies.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 15, 2013 9:50:52 GMT -5
NIST's theory fits the facts. Viscoplastic creep buckling affected column 79, column 79 failed because of heat weakening it. NIST has been proven RIGHT. A&E9/11 'truth' have been proven to be liars at odds with reality. They wouldn't know 'truth' if it raped them in a dark alley or for that matter a brightly lit alley.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 15, 2013 10:27:09 GMT -5
"NIST's theory fits the facts."
That's your blind opinion, the proof that this is not true has been provided in detail by the 4 videos that started this thread. Your refusal to accept it and your failure to contradict it in any reasonable manner is understandable given your head in the sand attitude.
"Viscoplastic creep buckling affected column 79, column 79 failed because of heat weakening it. NIST has been proven RIGHT."
Once again and as usual you are not citing anything NIST wrote anywhere in their official paper and just making things up. I asked you in another post to back up your claims about what NIST wrote by pointing to the page(s) where it appears and you failed to do that. If you can show the above in the NIST paper, again, please point to the page(s) where it appears in the NIST report. Otherwise, you are just LYING as usual.
"A&E9/11 'truth' have been proven to be liars at odds with reality. They wouldn't know 'truth' if it raped them in a dark alley or for that matter a brightly lit alley."
This is just more inane silliness on your part. How old are you anyway, you sound very childish. The only reason why I respond to a lot of your fabrications, lies and other nonsense is that it serves to provide real information to those who actually want to be informed. So thanks for your help.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 16, 2013 9:19:16 GMT -5
I am not making things up, steel is MALEABLE my guitar has steel strings because of the elastic properties of steel. In fire steel becomes more elastic, lots of steel framed buildings have collapsed (Malvern Paper factory for example) during a fire for this reason. Fire protection of steel is required for this reason. WTC7 was damaged and on fire, fire damaged column 79 which gave way. End of. As far as the thermite theory, the so called experts Steven Jones and Richard Gage were advisors to the failed Truthburn project which spectacularly didn't cut down a small steel sculpture with thermite which they built it for. www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/238-911-truthburn-at-burning-man.html in 2008 they set out to prove that thermite could bring down a vertical steel column and inadvertently proved it couldn't. Richard Gage wouldn't know truth if it raped him.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 16, 2013 9:39:35 GMT -5
"I am not making things up"
I've caught you in multiple lies and absurd fabrications despite your denial. And when caught, you never even tried to defend what I exposed. I've asked you questions on several occasions and you failed to answer most of them.
"WTC7 was damaged and on fire, fire damaged column 79 which gave way."
And here you are once again repeating a claim that not even NIST makes. One of the things I asked you to show is on what page(s) in the NIST report it says the above and as usual, you didn't answer. The reason is because there is no such thing in the NIST report.
"Richard Gage wouldn't know truth if it raped him."
I'm sure a pathological liar such as yourself knows all about "truth".
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 22, 2013 5:10:33 GMT -5
No you haven't you've posted lies. You believe those lies and are unwilling to hear the truth.
Here's some accounts of firefighters and accident investigators who were there:
Daniel Nigro, Richard Rotanz, FDNY LT Frank Papalia, Steve Spak all say structural damage plus fire brought down the buildings, Richard Gage is also interviewed and makes a tit of himself.
|
|