response to this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2139177&postcount=1208
Fires require oxygen and ventilation is a factor. What WTC had that the other skyscraper fires didn’t was a nice big hole caused by planes entering the building.
You are proving my point. heat was unable to build up above the equilibrium fire temperature produced by office contents and jet fuel. I think you misunderstand fire. In an enclosed space, heat temperature from a fire will build up until it escapes. The hotest point of a building fire inside an enclosed room is usually just before the windows break. This is the principle of an oven, if you open the oven door you will be met with a blast of heat, opening the door will reduce the temperature inside the oven, therefore an oven with an open door is not as hot as an oven with a closed door, therefore a burning building with a plane sized hole in it is not as hot as a fire inside an enclosed building.
No I’m saying next time you have a fire in your kitchen put a towel over it to smother it.
An enclosed building is not a vaccuum. This has been the problem with your style of posting here, you take every detail applying equal weight to non equal arguments. This enables you to disagree on every single point and always in your mind to present a discussion in an equally weighted 50:50 framework. This binary thinking enables you to choose what reality is, it will damage your ability to think if you train yourself to think that way. The mainstream news media propaganda programs people's thinking like this all the time,
"israel has said they have intelligence that iran is developing a nuclear weapons, iran denies it is developing a bomb", then offer false dichotomy choices.
"Have your say- should we invade North Korea or Iran? results after this short CNN break".(Nevermind the proof that iran is not developing a bomb).
One of Griffin’s arguments was that the fire was supposedly oxygen starved. Do you disagree?
You have fallen for Mackey's sophistry propaganda yet again. Let me explain how you got your bad information.
If you had read Griffin's book (instead of letting Mackey impress a false reality on you), you would have discovered that David Ray Griffin wrote this
"Thomas Eager <Professor of Materials Engineering and Materials Systems, MIT> estimated, given the fact that the fire was putting out black smoke, that the fire was burning at a temperature of 648 C and 704 C (1200 F - 1300 F)" you would then have been able to get to the original source and found that Eager's published and peer reviewed words were
"It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke". You'll also find that Eager said
"The black smoke indicates a fuel-rich fire". It is clear that Eager's and Griffin's point is that the jet fuel was burning ineffeciently and thus well below jet fuel's maximum efficient burning temperature. Magic master magician Mackey conjurs it up as
"Dr. Griffin next uses the presence of black smoke as an argument that the fire was oxygen starved". You are the victim of bad information and Mackey is a disgrace to science.
According to popular mechanics it burns 426C to 815C.
Actually Popular Mechanics in their book state
"Jet fuel burns at 1100 C to 1200 C" but this shouldn't surprise you given they are proven liars as evidenced by Pop Mech's Davin Coburn claiming he had seen photos of a third of wtc7's south face half way into the building scooped out on the Charles Goyette radio show. Of course we now know this is a completely made up falsehood with the release of NISTs wtc7 report, but it shouldn't surprise anyone because we know this magazine that is usually at home reviewing lawn mowers is owned by the Hearst corporation which is the usual place to find yellow journalism war propganda.
http://www.mepetroleum.com/jet_fuel.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
The mechanism that led to collapse is the same. It demonstrates that a normal fire can weaken steel.
steel weakening due to fire follows a smooth curve. weakening leading to catastrophic collapse is a binary state, one moment the structure is stable, the next moment there is collapse, these are different concepts and you are confusing them.
Truthers are trying to assert that the fires couldn’t get hot enough to weaken the steel.
this is a lie. nowhere have i seen anyone state this. Mackey magic again?
They can. It has been demonstrated that it was at least possible. If this can happen then what happened on 9/11 is not so surprising at all. Just because the buildings involved are a different shape does not change the behavior of the fire on the unprotected steel. It is not a valid objection.
This is bad logic. Demonstrating that something is possible by using an example that in no way resembles the real situation is pure sophistry. By the same logic i could deceptively argue that a plane could not enter the twin towers by using the example of a glider colliding into a solid steel wall.
The intestate 580 overpass was not weak, nor was it flammable.
it was a bridge! it was not a welded interconnected steel structure built to skyscraper standards.
The steel supports collapsed on the Madrid tower. It wasn’t a barn.
the perimeter columns did not support the building, the core supported the building. what collapsed from the madrid tower collapsed gradually over hours, it did not collapse catastrophically.
compare the madrid perimeter columns:
with the wtc core columns:
In the above photo with molten steel puring out of the window, compare the ratio of steel to window space on the perimeter with the madrid perimeter photo at the top. There is probably 6 times more steel on the wtc perimeter than on the madrid perimeter. The Madrid fire was even hotter AND the building was fully involved with flame - dig up a video of the Madrid fire and see for yourself. these factord matter hugely. You can only find the weakest of comparisons, and fire weakening steel is not a scalable argument.
No it is not my top example. I have only mentioned it a few times. It’s just that I repeat myself over and over while pointing out the examples that the truthers so feebly dodge that I feel a tendency to use different ones after a while.
the truth is that the anti-truther wesbites have collected every example of steel fire failure in the history of the world, they have about 10 examples all of which are not qualitively comparable to the twin towers or wtc7. all you do is go to that listette of shit examples.
I’m not downloading that from work, however it is still entirely possible for the collapse to begin after the fires were at their peak. The temperatures do not drop off straight away and the temperatures have still been high. Perhaps another ten minutes at those temperatures was all that was needed for enough of the steel to be affected by the atmospheric temperature. Cooling does not mean that it was cold or that the temperatures were ineffective to the structure. I don’t know what happened, only that I think this is possible.
the NIST fire simulation data show the core atmosphere temperature to be 200 C - 300 C at time of collapse. the steel in the core would be lower than this still.
If steel had been affected by thermal exansion as well as being bent, when cooling it could potentially be contracting and pulling the structure in such a way that weakened it further.
consider this - NIST make the claim that the trusses sagged from the heat, and the sagging pulled in the perimeter columns. if the trusses sagged due to thermal expansion, then the perimeter columns resisted that expansion. the trusses were strong enough to resist the thermal expansion but not the sagging?
