WTC Collapses

[John99]

Am i required to answer every malcontent on the internet?

You are lucky i even respond to you.

 

[Headspin]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_tell_if_someone_is_a_pathological_liar

 

[John99]

Are those your credentials for the thread?

 

[scott3x]

The Windsor Tower in Madrid, Round 2, Part 1

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 640 from this thread.

The two claims in that article are 1. That steel is a good conductor to the heat should have been conducted away from the heat source. This becomes irrelevant when the temperatures of the steel are reaching 1000C. It doesn't matter how well it is conducting at that point. As has been demonstrated to you multiple times, the steel can reach these temperatures in even normal office fires.

I've never heard that. I imagine you're thinking that the Cardington fire tests were done to simulate normal test fires? I've heard that they were done to simulate extreme test fires.

The final test was fuelled only by office materials. The results were consistent with NIST's own office tests and the one which Kenny linked to. These have been shown to you many times and you have come up with every excuse in the book to avoid acknowledging them.

From what I remember, Headspin said that the Cardington fire tests were done to see what happened to steel at varying temperatures, not to simulate what the WTC office fires were like. Tests -were- done to simulate what the WTC office fires were like; well, not quite, as they were put under more stress then the WTC office fires would have normally taken. Nevertheless, while the steel beams did sag a bit (I believe it was 3 inches), they certainly didn't sag the 40 inches as in the NIST report and even though they steel beams used were half the size of the WTC ones, it wouldn't mean that it would go from 3 inches to 40.

And the Cardington fire tests were done to much smaller buildings.

haha. Like that. The tests were performed in the corner of a building and the temperatures reached near 1000C. That the building was smaller than the WTC is irrelevant when we are talking about the temperatures of the fire.

Splendid. The WTC office fires couldn't have reached 1000C unaided for more then a few seconds, however, in what is called 'flashover', unless they got significant help from certain incendiaries/explosives.

However many stories were above or below does not change the temperatures.

Actually, it does. You see, steel has this property called conductivity and your idea that the office fires could have reached 1000C isn't supported by the evidence. And if the office fires didn't reach 1000C, then conductivity is definitely a factor.

Ah, so if the core collapses then the problem -must- be poor design? As it happens, the WTC buildings had steel frames- no concrete to be found in them. It was the -Madrid- tower that had the concrete frames. They were weakly reinforced with steel, but as I make clear below, the reinforcement was weak and the load bearing was mainly done by the core.

That paragraph is gibberish...

Actually, it's not, but I can certainly believe that you don't understand it.

...so I will repeat my point in hope that you will understand. Your article makes a point that concrete buildings can be susceptible to spalling during fire. I am saying that isn’t an important issue here because the concrete core of the Madrid tower stayed up.

True. The top part of the steel reinforced (as opposed to steel framed) perimeter did not, however.

The spalling did not appear to be an issue. The steel however was affected by the fire. It collapsed.

What you don't seem to understand is that the steel reinforced perimeter collapsed precisely because it was mainly composed of concrete, with a bit of steel to reinforce it. This differs radically from a steel framed building.

Alright, since you won't go to the link, I guess the link must come to you. Here's a good chunk of it:
**********************************
Because the Windsor fire produced a partial collapse, some have argued that it validates the official account of the collapses of WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7. Because the same fire was so massive and did not produce total collapse, others have cited it as evidence disproving that account.

If the WTC had the same concrete core then it might still be standing. You are still avoiding the point..

IF the WTC had the same concrete core it probably wouldn't have stood long enough to have tenants. The WTC was a much bigger building then the Windsor tower and thus required a much stronger core. The WTC core was a concrete one, reinforced by steel beams; a tube (concrete core) within a tube (of steel beams).

 

[scott3x]

To earn credibility, you have to back up your claims

This is in reponse to John99's post 884 in this thread.

It would seem [John99's] naivety on this constitutes the real fantasy.

God yeah. This is the guy who knows how insurance works

yeah, and i explained it to you.

You did nothing of the kind, as the link above makes clear. What you actually did was claim that Silverstein would have received the amount he did regardless if WTC 7 fell or not. I'm not privy to the insurance contract Silverstein had on the building, but I think it's a fairly safe bet to say that he wouldn't have gotten the same amount if the building had remained standing. Still, I gave you ample opportunity to provide evidence that he would have gotten the same amount due to the fact that that was "how insurance works". I waited in vain and have since realized that you are rather fond of making claims but are frequently not so keen on actually trying to back them up.

you still dont seem to have a handle on it. I have recommended to you before to get an education and this was not meant to insult you but merely a recommendation. Let us not go down the road of personal insults, weather craftily hidden or not. K?

Formal education isn't always what it's cracked up to be. Conversely, one can learn a lot on one's own. I'd like to get more of the formal kind and I may actually get a bit soon enough, however. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just trying to point out how wrong you can be at times.

 

[scott3x]

Am i required to answer every malcontent on the internet?

You are lucky i even respond to you.

If you are responding to Headspin's post 1000, it appears you are once again delaying actually answering the question, as you have done with me in regards to "how insurance works" in the past. I strongly suspect you don't understand Tony's calculations. I don't myself but I'm not afraid to say so.

 

[John99]

Have you read this?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_tell_if_someone_is_a_pathological_liar

Headspin gave you guys up with that.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

a factor of safety that you calculated, someone with no engineering experience with high rise buildings.

I am a structural engineer, in a different field than building construction. Mechanical and civil engineers have the same exact curriculum when it come to materials, mechanics, statics, dynamics, and fluids. They only diverge when civils go towards soils and drainage and mechanicals towards thermal science.

Structures are structures whether they be buildings, bridges, ships, airplanes, towers, machines, antennas, etc. High rise buildings use structural elements called columns and beams and the stress equations are the same.

I kind of resent these type of silly ass comments from someone who doesn't seem to have any expertise to analyze what went on here, or to judge who is qualified to comment on it professionally. What do you do for a living?

 

[John99]

I am a structural engineer, in a different field than construction.

And what will you be tomorrow?

 

[shaman_]

You say "Your numbers still differ from those of Biederman", but there is no significant difference from his initial estimate, the new numbers do not contradict what he said earlier - they merely provide more data.

Biederman has provided more data from further analysis in that pdf document you provided.

Here is his original paper (which was peer reviewed and published in JOM, the pdf you provided doesn't appear to have been peer reviewed or published).
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

It states:
"...Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid..."

Originally he estimated the liquid eutectic required a temperature "approaching 1000°C". In the pdf it is stated "If these compounds were pure Wustite (FeO) and Iron sulfide (FeS), the eutectic temperature is 940°C.".

The minimum temperature at which a pure Iron-Sulfur Eutectic exists is 996°C. This is for an optimum concentration of 31.4% sulfur, at slightly lower and slightly higher concentrations of sulfur the minimum temperature of such a eutectic will be much higher (of the order of 1200°C).

The pdf states 940°C as the minimum temperature when Wustite (Iron Oxide FeO) is considered in the Eutectic, so the minimum temperature doesn't change much from the initially stated estimate of 1000°C.

The other numbers in the pdf refer to different regions of the same sample. It states "...some pearlite bands presented regions that had re-austentized as well as regions where the pearlite had started to spheroidize. These observations indicate steel had experienced temperature between 550 and 850°C"

So the microstructure of specific areas on the sample had spheroidized etc, which required a minimum temperature of 550°C and a maximum of 850°C

So we have a A36 steel sample with regions that has suffered temperatures somehwere within the bounds of 550°C and 850°C, and other regions on the sample that have suffered temperatures of at least 940°C, but most likely much higher than 940°C.

Higher, but it did not have to be ‘much higher’. So, assuming that the sulfur can be accounted for, these results could be explained by the fires. Correct?

Do you have any proof that Ryan Mackey even exists as a real person?

How is quoting him different from David Ray Griffin, Kevin Ryan, Jones?

For all you know he could be a fabrication used KGB/FSB or other organisation to make the anti-truthers look ridiculous.

lol ok.

Chemistry is not "your thing" but your faith relies on an anonymous internet poster!

You asked a question, and then bumped it, so I responded. Then you criticise me for showing “blind faith”. ?

I did, by the way, do chemistry at high school and Uni (Computer Science). I just never liked it.

"Regarding the melting/boiling temperature of other sulfur compounds, you forget that the sulfur may have started to react with the steel before it was heated"
"sufur" is not the same as "sulfur compounds"
in the same way that sodium (explodes in water) is not the same as sodium-chloride (table salt - very tasty)

"sulfuric acid from overheated uninterruptible power supplies could have flowed onto structural steel at a temperature of about 100oC, then started to react with the steel"
wtc7 had diesel generators as a power backup not sulfuric acid batteries,

There were UPS in the building. UPSs don't last very long so there is usually a generator as well. They will provide a continuous power source if the power drops for a second. If the power is out for a significant time the servers can be shut down neatly or the generator can be fired up.

Apparently sulfuric acid was found at the site during sampling a few weeks after the event.

nevertheless assuming that there was a quantity of sulphuric acid available. if it "flowed onto" a steel beam it would leave behind only a wet surface, technically a very thin film of sulphuric acid which would evaporate very quickly.

"and then was further heated eventually to a temperature of about 900oC"
sulphuric acid has a boiling point of 290 oC - it cannot exist as a liquid above that temperture, it would boil off as a gas

Couldn’t it still react with the steel as a gas?

The other theory I have seen is that sulfur dioxide gas reacted with the metal. This could have come from several sources such as the drywall. Have you heard of this possibility?

"at a temperature of about 100oC, then <sulfuric acid> started to react with steel"
sulfuric acid reacts with steel producing hydrogen gas and iron sulfate solution.
Fe(s) + H2SO4(aq) → H2(g) + FeSO4(aq)
An iron-sulfur eutectic requires elemental sulfur, in the above reaction the sulfur is bound with 4 oxygen and an iron, it is not elemental sulfur. (elemental sodium explodes in water, sodium bound to chlorine is tasty)

I think Mackey maybe thinking of the film Alien when the aliens "sulfuric acid blood" burns through the steel hull rather than any repeatable experiment.

"The sulfur would bond to iron and form more heat-resistant compounds"
it would perhaps form iron sulfate (FeSO4) if it managed to find a chance. but not iron sulfide (FeS). Mackey does not explain how Sulfur is liberated from FeSO4.

Well he was not specifically answering your question at the time.

"There is no reason at all to assume the sulfur started at the upper temperature"
The reason is that elemental sulfur is required to form FeS Eutectic, elemental sulfur would evaporate during a heating process from 100 to 900 C. Mackey assumes incorrectly that iron sulphate creates a FeS iron-sulfur eutectic."

So what about sulfur dioxide?

"The sulfur that caused the eutectic probably started as an acidic form, such as H2S or a weak solution of H2SO4 (sulfuric acid)"
There is no reason to assume this at all. it is a complete guess without an explanation. what is a "scientist" doing making a complete guess and lacking any coherent explantion, let alone experiment? This appears to have been plucked out of the collective JREF ass.

It was not a full answer to your question or a published document but some text that I cut from a post in an attempt to answer a question asked by a scornful poster in a forum.

can you feel the ground beneath your feet shaking, because i can certainly see it shaking.

Really? You are the one dismissing possibilities and going for the thermite answer every time. You don’t seem interested in mundane explanations. You retreat from the absurdities that dominate the 911 conspiracy (bombs in the basement, selective witness testimony to prove high temperatures, ignoring evidence to claim low temperatures, squibs, “pull it” ect) and concentrate on the chemistry. While you may feel that this legitimizes the conspiracy you are still avoiding the evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that explosives/incendiaries weren’t needed to bring these buildings down.

 

[scott3x]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_tell_if_someone_is_a_pathological_liar

I haven't seen John intentionally lie about anything. However, there are a few points in it that do seem to apply to him. One can go as is, the other 2 needed a little modification:
* They act very defensively when you question their statements.
* Fools people at first [into thinking he actually has evidence for his claims] but once they get to know him [they're much more skeptical].
*Never fesses up to [being wrong]

 

[John99]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZitLEDOZ_ng

 

[scott3x]

Have you read this?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_tell_if_someone_is_a_pathological_liar

Yep; I haven't seen you actually lie about anything, but I have noted that there's atleast one element in the list that does seem to apply in your case and 2 others that do fairly well with a little modification. You may wish take take a look at my analysis.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Litesteel box beam construction, the WTC was not a red steel beam and girder construction.

This is what the beams of the WTC looked like litesteel box beams:

Some LSB specimens that have experienced web crippling under bearing load

This is what a red steel I beam looks like:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/case/project_litesteel_beams.shtml

Look up the construction technique for the WTC and it was the largest litesteel box beam building in the world, it wasn't constructed using heavy iron frame construction.

World Trade Center Disaster Information
The floors were supported by a series of light trusses on rubber pads, ..... “ AISC strives to create a steel building specification that makes use of the ...

www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm - 58k - Similar pages

This post is a joke and you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

The columns and beams in the towers were not sheet metal configurations like you show here. The core columns were structural steel per ASTM A36 and the perimeter columns were fabricated from several grades of high strength steel as well as from ASTM A36 steel.

The floor beams outside of the core were trusses, but still made from structural steel. They had a damper on the bottom at one side to damp any wind induced motion to below the perceptible level. They had solid connections top and bottom.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And what will you be tomorrow?

I have been an engineer for a long time. Bets are that I'll be doing just that.

What do you do for a living John?

 

[John99]

Intriguing link isnt it? and Freudian Slip as well.

If i had to diagnose three posters primary posters here i would say this is a fairly good description:

Pathological liars, or "mythomaniacs," may be suffering from histrionic personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder.

 

[leopold]

The guy tests stuff at NASA, . . .

so? what has NASA got to do with anything?

I fully admit that I don't understand his calculations and it's clear that you don't either, or you'd be agreeing or disagreeing with his calculations, not questioning his credentials.

unbelievable.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

The guy tests stuff at NASA, . . .

so? what has NASA got to do with anything?

I simply assumed that if he's an engineer at NASA, he could handle the calculations of a building. He made a much stronger defense of his credentials, has reinforced his argument and has questioned your own credentials in post 1008.

I fully admit that I don't understand his calculations and it's clear that you don't either, or you'd be agreeing or disagreeing with his calculations, not questioning his credentials.

unbelievable.

What's unbelievable?

What I wish we had more of in this forum are people who actually understand structural engineering. Failing that, I hope Tony can explain it to laymen such as me so that I can use the same arguments. I personally like spending more time on the arguments not on wrangling about credentials.

 

[leopold]

I kind of resent these type of silly ass comments from someone who doesn't seem to have any expertise to analyze what went on here, or to judge who is qualified to comment on it professionally.

ah yes, the quote from tony i was wondering about.
i'm sure you are proud of your achievements tony but aren't you just a little worried that NASA might be reading this stuff?

What do you do for a living?

would you trust me to hire people for you?

 

[shaman_]

The Windsor Tower in Madrid, Round 2, Part 1

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 640 from this thread.


From what I remember, Headspin said that the Cardington fire tests were done to see what happened to steel at varying temperatures, not to simulate what the WTC office fires were like.

Irrelevant. You are trying to dodge a key point. The last test was done using office furniture and the temperature was near 1000C. NISTs own workstation fire tests reached temperatures near, and over 1000C. There have been several other fires where the steel collapsed. You never looked at the link Kenny provided and it has been given to you four times. Regular fires can reach temperatures hot enough to weaken steel.

Tests -were- done to simulate what the WTC office fires were like; well, not quite, as they were put under more stress then the WTC office fires would have normally taken. Nevertheless, while the steel beams did sag a bit (I believe it was 3 inches), they certainly didn't sag the 40 inches as in the NIST report and even though they steel beams used were half the size of the WTC ones, it wouldn't mean that it would go from 3 inches to 40.

You are referring to tests done on components with fireproofing intact.

In these test you mention, which were done to simulate office fires, what temperatures were reached?

Splendid. The WTC office fires couldn't have reached 1000C unaided for more then a few seconds, however, in what is called 'flashover', unless they got significant help from certain incendiaries/explosives.

Your response is nothing more than a baseless assertion. Read it for yourself. Now that you have learnt the term flashover you are throwing it around as if simply using it carries weight.

Scott, there is a very simple point to be made here. If the fires couldn't reach temperatures high enough to weaken steel then why was the steel fireproofed?

Actually, it does. You see, steel has this property called conductivity

The steel in the Cardington tests did not conduct very well between two connected pieces. There were significant differences in temperature.

and your idea that the office fires could have reached 1000C isn't supported by the evidence.

I’m showing you evidence that if most certainly could have. You are doing everything you can to avoid accepting this evidence.

And if the office fires didn't reach 1000C, then conductivity is definitely a factor.

What point are you making here?

1000C is not surprising at all a temperature for an office fire to reach, particularly if it has been helped along with an explosion of a few thousand gallons of jet fuel and then the rest splashed around.

Actually, it's not, but I can certainly believe that you don't understand it.

Isn’t that comment a little insulting for you?

No, that paragraph is unclear scott. The key difference is that the Madrid tower had a concrete core while the WTC had a steel inner tube. Your interpretation about ‘poor design’ is baffling. You claim that the reinforcement was weak but refuse to accept that the weakness here is that steel is more susceptible to fire and say the load bearing was done by the (concrete!) core. What point are you making?

True. The top part of the steel reinforced (as opposed to steel framed) perimeter did not, however.

? Because it was steel! ? You are making some puzzling distinction between steel framed and steel reinforced. The issue here is that, from your own favourite article - “Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete” Somewhere you are confused I think.

What you don't seem to understand is that the steel reinforced perimeter collapsed precisely because it was mainly composed of concrete,

What are you talking about? The concrete remained while the steel collapsed.

with a bit of steel to reinforce it. This differs radically from a steel framed building.

That’s right, they are more susceptible to fire, particularly is the fireproofing is removed.

IF the WTC had the same concrete core it probably wouldn't have stood long enough to have tenants.

The Petronas Twin Towers are mainly concrete scott.

The WTC was a much bigger building then the Windsor tower and thus required a much stronger core.

But the core was concrete and handled the fire better than the damaged steel of the WTC did.

The WTC core was a concrete one,

No, it wasn’t.

reinforced by steel beams; a tube (concrete core) within a tube (of steel beams).

No. The ‘tube’ was steel box columns not concrete. There was concrete in the floors.