I have now spoken to what I believe is an official story believer who's also a physicist. Thank goodness. I was beginning to think they might not exist here, but I am happily mistaken. He essentially said that, so long as v3 was not significantly reduced, the collapse could still procede at nearly free fall speed. I believe that it would have been and I believe that this link shows it, but I admit I don't understand the reasoning in the link and so I can't in honesty say I can explain it myself.
WTC Collapses
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
I have now spoken to what I believe is an official story believer who's also a physicist. Thank goodness. I was beginning to think they might not exist here, but I am happily mistaken. He essentially said that, so long as v3 was not significantly reduced, the collapse could still procede at nearly free fall speed. I believe that it would have been and I believe that this link shows it, but I admit I don't understand the reasoning in the link and so I can't in honesty say I can explain it myself.
13 posts in a row...must be some sorta record. 
13 posts in a row...must be some sorta record.
Laugh
. And I still didn't really respond to one of KennyJC's posts. Not sure if I will though, he's using certain language again. Anyway, as you may have noticed, sometimes the reason I post so many posts is that I cut up my response to a post to make it easier to do for me; as in, I'll just address this little point. Not so hard. And then I'll address this other point; not so hard... etc.I used to write single enormous responses, but I found that it works better for me if I divide it up; that way, I can at times link a previous post if it's a single or dual issue post as opposed to a multi issue post wherein linking to it would mean that a person would have to sift through the post in order to get to the relevant data.
No that is what Ryan wanted to believe from reading the interim report. Their report from 2004 (is that the one we are talking about?) had estimates of temperatures far above 250C. Didn't they estimated pockets reaching 2000F very early on? Even the conspiracy theorists quote that one. Where do you get the idea that NIST don’t think the temperature went over 250C? Do you even know? You are just mindlessly repeating what Ryan said without even computing that the number was cherry picked from the steel tests.
The belief from the beginning was that the fire got very hot, near 1000C.
Irrelevant. He is not an authority on the matter and is contradicted by those who are, and the supporting data.
Yes keep spamming the same thing over and over. Spamming the same quotes repeatedly is not a substitute for an argument.
Good authority? Lol. To say that they played no role in the collapse is a ridiculous statement. I have pointed out why to you several times but you will not digest anything that doesn’t come from conspiracy sites. It is your religion and your faith strong, while your mind is switched off.
Saying the jet fuel played no role is like saying jumping out of a plane without a parachute wont kill you. Sure hitting the ground at terminal velocity will kill you but jumping out of the plane wont. It is a lame attempt to misrepresent the truth.
The towers would have probably stayed up were it not for the jet fuel which started the massive fires over several floors. In previous high rise fires, the fire started slowly and worked its way from one office to another and then another floor to another over a long period of time. In WTC there was almost instantly a raging fire, over many floors. By the time the fuel was burnt out that place was an inferno with some of the steel unprotected.
You claim that the fires never went over 500F yet jet fuel burns up to three times that temperature!
Perhaps they were but one of the tests involved burning only wood and one test was a simulation for a burning office. These tests reached atmospheric temperatures near 1000C.
NIST performed their own tests to simulate office fires and the results were consistent with the Cardington ones.
A steel framed high rise is a steel structure.
Every time you post that sentence my estimate of your IQ goes down a little more. Do you really think repeating that over and over means anything? Are you trying to make the case that anything that happens for the first time didn’t really happen? Do you even know what your point is here? I don’t think you do. Just repeating it over like a mantra for the gullible makes you feel better.
I’ve already responded to this before and I can’t really be bothered anymore You don’t intend to actually think you just want to preach your religion. So I’m just going to cut and paste like you do.
“
This is completely incorrect. For photographs of the degradation, the author refers Mr. Hoffman to NCSTAR1-3C and NCSTAR1-5A. Perimeter column bowing in WTC 1 appears in NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-24 and 2-25, and NCSTAR 1-5A Figure 8-108. Bowing in WTC 2 is visible in NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-37 and NCSTAR1-5A Figures 9-46, 9-59, 9-80, 9-82, and 9-83. A wealth of photographs also shows sagging of objects in the interior of both structures. Regarding Mr. Hoffman’s attempt to explain away these obvious signs of structural distress, the author notes that, had heated air refraction been to blame, the bowing would have appeared at slightly different locations from different vantage points, and many of the clearest photographs were taken from a moving helicopter. Convection also would
have created the appearance of bowing at other locations, rather than being restricted to precisely the same locations in both towers. Furthermore, such strong refractory effects would also necessarily include a great deal of turbulence, which would also be visible as a strong blurring effect, as is familiar to anyone who has ever seen a desert mirage. None of these photographs shows such a turbulent effect, and all of them are consistent with respect to the columns and floors affected. It is therefore Mr. Hoffman who is denying the clear signs of fire-induced structural weakness, and he does so with the flimsiest of excuses.”
R.Mackey
Last edited:
There were differences but the point is that the fire alone caused the steel structure to collapse. None of the differences pointed out reduce the importance of that. That’s like saying a bullet may kill a human but it wouldn’t kill a dog because it walks on four legs.
In fact the McCormick Place collapsed in 30 minutes after what started as a small fire. This demonstrates that fires can easily reach temperatures hot enough to warp and soften steel. Even those that weren't started with thousands of gallons of jet fuel and a large explosion…..
So instead of conceding or at least demonstrating that you are aware of the discussion taking place you just spam another link from a conspiracy site.....
Didn’t you read my comment? You seem to be trying to record the discussion being had here except without the rebuttals which expose your posts for what they are. That part is a little flawed.
I suppose I could say that you want to believe the official story as well. Why don't we just say that you and he both simply believe what you do and not put a desire to it? By the way, Kevin Ryan may have believed that the temperatures got no higher then 250 at the time, but he certainly doesn't think so now. Ofcourse, he believes explosives were the ones that brought the temperatures so high, not fire.
I believe they only did one on the WTC buildings in 2004...
I am indeed repeating what Kevin Ryan said Frank Gayle was suggesting. One need not be 'mindless' to repeat something that's noteworthy, despite your apparent belief that this must be so. However, as I have mentioned, at present, neither Kevin Ryan or I feel that that's as high a temperature as the steel got. Even in his 2004 letter, he did address the 2000F fire temperature claim. He clearly didn't believe it at the time, but he not only mentions it, but states that even if it were the case, it could not have melted the steel, as Dr. Hyman Brown mentioned. It may be that the only reason Kevin Ryan mentions Dr. Hyman Brown at all is because his story came out in a newspaper and said that his findings were supported by NIST's preliminary findings. Here's a quote from Kevin Ryan's letter to Frank Gayle:
*******************************
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
*******************************
Kevin Ryan believed that NIST's Frank Gayle was not one who initially felt this way. If you can show me evidence that this was not, in fact, the case, I would be happy to see it. Kevin Ryan addressed the fact that someone -outside- of NIST did see it this way, but still made it clear that even if that had been so, the fires couldn't have melted the steel, which is what Dr. Hyman Brown was claiming at the time.
Last edited:
Just to make sure that we're arguing about the same thing, here's the relevant excerpt of Kevin Ryan's letter to NIST's Frank Gayle:
"Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation."
He is claiming 2 things:
1- NIST's Frank Gayle, who led the 2004 investigation, is the one who was suggesting that steel temperatures were probably only exposed to temperatures of about 500F/250C.
2- That this is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. If he's claiming this, I assume that such an analysis was actually -done-, but if so, I don't have it on hand.
Agreed; if you don't understand my argument, I must find other ways to try to get you to understand it if I want a discussion on its merits to take place.
Vulcan Physics
No, I consider this is easy shit.
But I also think a lot of people are willfully stupid. They have decided what they want or don't want to believe and can't or won't evaluate simple facts that contradict their beliefs.
It is a form of group stupid. How is it that majorities of people in one country can collectively believe in one religion but majorities in another believe a different religion? Are people in one country more logical than those in another? A lot of goofy Truthers act like this is a religion. Physics doesn't give a damn about emotional bullshit.
Like talking about steel temperatures without reasonably accurate information on the quantity of steel on each level is absurd.
Plus the exterior columns would only be heated on one side and could radiate heat to the air and conduct it up and down the building. How often do people point out they just got heated on the inside?
psik
No, I consider this is easy shit.
But I also think a lot of people are willfully stupid. They have decided what they want or don't want to believe and can't or won't evaluate simple facts that contradict their beliefs.
It is a form of group stupid. How is it that majorities of people in one country can collectively believe in one religion but majorities in another believe a different religion? Are people in one country more logical than those in another? A lot of goofy Truthers act like this is a religion. Physics doesn't give a damn about emotional bullshit.
Like talking about steel temperatures without reasonably accurate information on the quantity of steel on each level is absurd.
Plus the exterior columns would only be heated on one side and could radiate heat to the air and conduct it up and down the building. How often do people point out they just got heated on the inside?
psik
Last edited:
There are two aspects to analyzing physics problems. There is figuring out the correct equations to use AND there is getting the correct data to plug into the equations.
The thing about a skyscraper is that it must get stronger going down and more strength requires more steel and more steel means more mass. So a skyscraper must get heavier going down. Now I would not expect a physicist to have the specialized knowledge about the details on that regarding skyscrapers but I would expect him to know that information was necessary. So a COMPETENT physicist should be DEMANDING the correct data on that.
A physicist should not want to BELIEVE a physicist should want to KNOW.
That is the trouble here. Once someone decides to BELIEVE they don't care about CORRECT DATA anymore.
psik
I think the main problem is that so many claims are presented as evidence or even facts. Given this fact, I think it's understandable that people who are given to the idea that their own government would never be a party to such things are swayed by these spurious claims.
As I mentioned to Headspin in the past (he's also an alternate story believer), viewing one's opponents as stupid in some way isn't, in my view, productive. I don't really view anything as 'stupid' per se. Unintelligent, perhaps, but as a general rule I view most if not all human beings intelligent. The issue with things such as 9/11 is that it's fairly complex and I believe it takes time to realize the truth, especially if one has a mindset that finds it hard to believe that elements of the government could do such things.
It's an argument that could be made, from both countries in question, ofcourse. I personally don't subscribe to an institutional religion myself.
True, but people do. Therein lies the problem...
Is it? Jim Hoffman doesn't seem to think so:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#exaggeration
Perhaps he has a vague idea as to the quantities of the steel? I don't know, but I'm interested in hearing your response to this...
No idea
. I am not much of an expert on such things as of yet. I've only been at this a few months so far...I think it may be more that the physicist in question believes that the people who carried out the official investigation had the correct data and left it at that.
That link contains this:
Notice the "huge steel columns"
If someone is claiming that the temperature weakened the steel then the quantity of steel must be part of the argument. In that link Hoffman is implying that the heat was not sufficient. So he doesn't need to specify the steel since he is saying the weakening could not happen. There is also the problem of timing. The south tower came down in less the one hour and the north tower in less than two. So what temperatures are necessary to weaken how much steel in that much time?
The 250 deg C of the paint deformation test isn't enough to weaken the steel anyway so that isn't worth talking about in relation to causing the collapse of the towers.
Maybe I should have said, "talking about steel temperatures weakening the steel without reasonably accurate information on the quantity of steel on each level is absurd." The conductivity of 36 foot columns would be a factor in this event.
It is as though people who have decided to BELIEVE the results of the plane impact alone brought the buildings down have to convince themselves that the temperatures and the quantity of heat energy generated weakened the steel enough to bring the buildings down. So why don't they want accurate info on the distribution of steel.through the towers.
One purpose of my thought experiment removing 5 level was show the fire was irrelevant to understanding what could not cause this event if the top 16 stories could not destroy the intact 89.
psik
Yes, this is exactly my point- while it would be nice to know the amount of concrete and steel, it's not necessary to see that the the buildings simply could not have been taken down by the planes and the resulting fires.
Make sense. But since we don't have that information, we have to do the best we can without it.
I haven't seen anyone here who doesn't want accurate information. I was even commended for emailing Abstaneh-Asl concerning the New York Times article stating that he had mentioned that there was evidence of vaporized steel (he never responded). It's just that they feel that such accurate information is unnecessary; that officialdom has already made it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have sufficient information to prove their case and that while they would mislead the american people concerning other things, such as the Iraq war, for a little cash and perhaps a few thousand soldiers' lives, they would never even -consider- doing such a thing to american civilians (they might have their reservations concerning the government's policy concerning foreign civilians, ofcourse).
Can you link to that thought experiment again? I personally wish that the physicist I had spoken to would come join us in this forum, because I feel that there isn't really anyone on the official side of the story here who knows much math...
To me this is about the difference between BELIEVING, SUSPECTING and KNOWING.
The objective is to KNOW. No ifs , no ands, no buts, no room for equivocating. Considering that people knew enough to design the Empire State Building almost 80 years ago there is no excuse not to have data this simple. The NIST report says there were 12 different types of perimeter wall panels. They don't tell us the number of each type or the weight of each type. The only reason we know the weight of the heaviest is because it is in an engineering magazine from 1970.
The fact that official sources do not supply us with simple information is nearly as big a crime as 9/11. We are failing to solve a problem that should have taken less than a year. And grade school kids should comprehend the principles of knowing what data is relevant to solve it.
psik
Sorry, but I trust Jim Hoffman's 9/11 research site more then your word on the matter.
Link to where you have pointed it out then.
Just responding to a person makes it necessary to use one's mind. In regards to responding to you, I frequently find that the most difficult aspect, actually, is keeping cool while you go on with your taunts.
He said 'almost no role' and I find that your metaphor to be unhelpful to your arguments.
Discredited here:
Imagined Heat
I admit I haven't heard evidence for the above before- who's your source, Ryan Mackey?
I claim that Kevin Ryan claimed that Frank Gayle was suggesting that the -steel- never went beyond 500F back in the 2004 interim NIST report, not the fires.
Ah, I see; all office fires are the same eh?
You mean the tests the Underwriter Laboratories did for NIST? You may remember Kevin Ryan, who had the top management job in his division of Underwriters Laboratories, Environmental Health Laboratories, overseeing all company functions before he was fired, allegedly because a single letter sent to NIST's Frank Gayle? He wrote quote a good article concerning many things concerning 911. In regards to tests, his company was actually part of a very important one carried out for NIST's 2004 report:
******************************
NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15
******************************
Or do you mean that they did another test, to make up for the fact that this one didn't support their pancaking theory?
Sounds good, but it seems that enough is known already to make that bit of knowledge unnecessary. I say this because I have never heard Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, David Ray Griffin or anyone else in the truth movement aside from you mention the issue of not knowing the precise amount of steel involved.
Apparently Kevin Ryan did feel it was important enough to mention certain aspects of the steel and concrete in combination, however. From his article Propping up the War on Terror, he mentions that each floor had "1,000 tons of concrete and steel", although he doesn't specificy in what proportions.
He also mentions the following:
*********************************
The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that "the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."4
*********************************
Yes, but it is a -subset- of the possible steel structures, one that is much more robust then a steel warehouse, as 9/11 Research made clear.
I'm trying to make the case that it's extremely unlikely that -any- steel framed high rise would completely collapse due to fire, plane initiated or not. On 9/11, 3 steel framed high rises completely collapsed. The government would like us to believe that fires did the trick every time, but many don't buy it.
There's nothing wrong with cutting and pasting if the original author makes the point you were trying to make.
Apparently Jim Hoffman hasn't gotten around to debunking this particular point of Mackey's. As Jim Hoffman stated in his Maintaining the Mirage: A Foray Into the Fallacy Factory of the Demolition Deniers article:
******************
Following the publication of these, Mackey generated Version 2 of his essay. More than 300 pages in length, this version has lengthy fallacy-rich sections addressing Thurston's and Ryan's articles almost line-by-line.
This review will never be a complete reply to Mackey's essay. An attempt to create such a reply would be misguided since it would lend legitimacy to Mackey's method: generating masses of criticism of the targeted information using arguments with superficial plausibility -- the emphasis being on quantity -- while employing a vast array of propagandistic techniques, factual distortions, and logical fallacies. The rationale behind that method seems clear enough: create a smokescreen of baseless arguments and distractions, clothed in claims of intellectual superiority and scientific legitimacy, such that the audience might be reassured that there is no need to look at the evidence of controlled demolition.
******************
I will give Ryan Mackey the benefit of the doubt in this particular case, however. Jim Hoffman only stated that NIST failed to consider a certain possibility. He didn't say that that possibility was necessarily true.
I find the analogies you're making to be misleading. How about you simply consider this excerpt from the article above:
**********************
Any comparison of it to the Twin Towers is limited to the Towers' floor diaphragms. FEMA blamed the heat-induced failure of the Towers' floor diaphragms, but failed to provide a convincing explanation of how floor failures could have led to total building collapse. Moreover, the alleged failure of the Towers floor trusses has lost relevance with NIST's endorsing the column failure theory to the exclusion of the truss failure theory.
**********************
In other words, the argument probably had its high times with the original FEMA report, before NIST discredited it.
- Status