Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine


Judging from his words and actions, Kevin Ryan has more integrity in his little finger than you have in your entire body.

Judging from his work record at UL, he knew exactly what he was talking about. His problem was not following the commands of supervisors to STFU and stop saying things that were too damn true.

Some of us, Ryan being one, cannot stand to live inside the echo chamber that is today's Groupthink 911.

You have no idea of my integrity; you are just blustering again.

His work record has nothing to do with it. He erroneously assumed that UL had "certified" the structural steel. UL does not certify structural steel and Ryan didn't know that or was fantasizing. He erroneously assumed that the steel was not exposed to temperatures above 500 C. He thought that the jet fuel was the only source of heat and forgot about all the building content. He doesn't have a clue about fire, does he?
His real sin was insinuation that his opinion was that of UL. Bye, Kevin.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596


The proof is in the pudding. Ryan spoke truth to power and he was fired for it. The record is clear.

Whistleblowers in this country are fired, often prosecuted and then imprisoned. That's how it works, and the record is clear.

a reply to: Salander

He was fired because he wrote in a matter that Implied UL was addressing NIST through him.

www.911truth.org...

As I’m sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing – that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I’m aware of UL’s attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies.

I could not write an email in a similar manner.

Example
The company I work for tested the fabric used in your car line. I only have public knowledge of your designs, but the seat belts are not anchored right. The company suggested we be patient.
End of example.


The individual address NIST as a employee working for UL.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Slow down. Nobody said the tower floors were all collapsing at once.

Is it false to say each floor of the towers had a specific load limit? One floor, and its floor connections are not going to hold more than it's limit and the added safety factor.

I not big on using NIST facts, because NIST makes conspiracists crazy. Unless they want to use the 9 second collapse NIST figure out of context? Conspiracists hypocritical? But NIST has down and dirty conservative figures to create an explanation.

www.nist.gov...

The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.

WTC 1, 29 floors of falling mass hits the static floor below with the theoretical load capacity to take 6 falling floors. The floor connections shear and break away from the vertical columns. The falling mass increases in force from the newly liberated floor. The falling and growing mass hits the next floor to start the process again.

The falling mass went through the path of least resistance. The vertical columns were left mostly standing. The Richard Gage comment the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance is a lie. A lie that they fight to maintain.

Now the quoted nine second collapse time out of context....

www.nist.gov...
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Further proof the floors sheared away from the columns.

That is complete nonsense.


Show me any example of this, in reality.

What scientific principle(s) can support your claim?

Build any structure which replicates that very same phenomenon.

Why not?


You cannot replicate the impossible, that's why not.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Slow down. Nobody said the tower floors were all collapsing at once.

Is it false to say each floor of the towers had a specific load limit? One floor, and its floor connections are not going to hold more than it's limit and the added safety factor.

I not big on using NIST facts, because NIST makes conspiracists crazy. Unless they want to use the 9 second collapse NIST figure out of context? Conspiracists hypocritical? But NIST has down and dirty conservative figures to create an explanation.

www.nist.gov...

The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.

WTC 1, 29 floors of falling mass hits the static floor below with the theoretical load capacity to take 6 falling floors. The floor connections shear and break away from the vertical columns. The falling mass increases in force from the newly liberated floor. The falling and growing mass hits the next floor to start the process again.

The falling mass went through the path of least resistance. The vertical columns were left mostly standing. The Richard Gage comment the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance is a lie. A lie that they fight to maintain.

Now the quoted nine second collapse time out of context....

www.nist.gov...
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Further proof the floors sheared away from the columns.

That is complete nonsense.


Show me any example of this, in reality.

What scientific principle(s) can support your claim?

Build any structure which replicates that very same phenomenon.

Why not?


You cannot replicate the impossible, that's why not.

WTF? Are you that removed from reality. Logic can answer your question.

Did each floor of the towers have the ability to carry an infinite amount of load? Or did each floor have a specific load rating based on the floor trusses, the shear strength and tensile strength of the truss to vertical column connections?

a reply to: neutronflux

Yes he is that far removed from reality ......

Check out SPACE EXPLORATION forum

Find him going on about how Moon Landings were hoax because (drum roll) NASA spacesuits would not work on the
moon.....!!!!

For conspiracy theorists 911 is simply another chapter in whole range of delusional thinking......

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Slow down. Nobody said the tower floors were all collapsing at once.

Is it false to say each floor of the towers had a specific load limit? One floor, and its floor connections are not going to hold more than it's limit and the added safety factor.

I not big on using NIST facts, because NIST makes conspiracists crazy. Unless they want to use the 9 second collapse NIST figure out of context? Conspiracists hypocritical? But NIST has down and dirty conservative figures to create an explanation.

www.nist.gov...

The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.

WTC 1, 29 floors of falling mass hits the static floor below with the theoretical load capacity to take 6 falling floors. The floor connections shear and break away from the vertical columns. The falling mass increases in force from the newly liberated floor. The falling and growing mass hits the next floor to start the process again.

The falling mass went through the path of least resistance. The vertical columns were left mostly standing. The Richard Gage comment the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance is a lie. A lie that they fight to maintain.

Now the quoted nine second collapse time out of context....

www.nist.gov...
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Further proof the floors sheared away from the columns.

That is complete nonsense.


Show me any example of this, in reality.

What scientific principle(s) can support your claim?

Build any structure which replicates that very same phenomenon.

Why not?


You cannot replicate the impossible, that's why not.

WTF? Are you that removed from reality. Logic can answer your question.

Did each floor of the towers have the ability to carry an infinite amount of load? Or did each floor have a specific load rating based on the floor trusses, the shear strength and tensile strength of the truss to vertical column connections?

It cannot be replicated.

Logic answers the question why it cannot be replicated - since it is not based on reality, or science.

How do you remove all structural supports, at the same time, for each and every floor, with a massive weight just dropped on it?

Design a small structure of any sort of material(s). It must be able to adequately support itself.

Remove all the supports about 1/3 from the top of the structure.

What happens afterwards?

Do you think it will drop straight down, through the entire strucure below, and hit the ground?

Or do you think it will NOT drive straight down?

Care to try and replicate an impossible collapse?...

a reply to: turbonium1

A little research would help you not look delusional.....

True or false, floor connection ratings are based on shear and tensile strength.

True or false? After the complete collapse of the tower floor systems, video shows vertical columns of considerable length standing whole seconds end end before finally tumbling over.

OSHA: Omaha building collapse caused by overloaded storage bins
www.foodengineeringmag.com...
The US’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) said the January collapse of an International Nutrition Inc. facility in Omaha, resulting in the deaths of two employees, was caused by overloading storage bins on the building’s roof level.

An investigation determined storage bins were overloaded with an excess of limestone. The added weight caused the bins to collapse three floors into the center of the facility.

buildingfailures.wordpress.com...

Failure: Rana Plaza Garment Factory Collapse
Location: Savar, near Dhaka, Bangladesh
Date: April 24, 2013
Type: 8-story Progressive Collapse

Architect & Structural Design: Massood Reza of Vastukalpa Consultants
Site Developer: Sohel Rana (currently in prison)

1,129 Dead
2,515 Rescued
*Deadliest accidental structural failure in history [e]

Major cracking shook the building the day before the collapse, alarming workers inside. A consultant structural engineer deemed the building unsafe and urged evacuation, along with local police. Garment factory owners forced employees to work anyway on April 24 by threatening to dock pay. [a] The building—already lacking structural integrity—was shaken to final collapse when generators and heavy machinery restarted after a power outage around 9:00AM. Cracks seen on the 7th floor propagated, causing collapse of the uppermost floor. A domino effect ensued, killing and entrapping thousands of workers in the rubble.

www.complex.com...
Location: Jerusalem, Israel

Year of Fail: 2001

When designed, the wedding hall was to have one three-story side and one two-story side. Late in construction, the owners changed the plan to add a floor to the shorter side. Building upon what was designed to be a roof, the third story floor was subject to greater loading than originally expected and partitions were added to mitigate the extra weight. A few days before the collapse that killed 23 and injured 380, the owners removed the partitions, causing the third story floor to sag. Thinking this was just an aesthetic problem the owners leveled the floor by adding grout and fill. The extra weight on the already weak area, caused the third floor, hosting a wedding at the time, to come crashing down on those below.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

A little research would help you not look delusional.....

True or false, floor connection ratings are based on shear and tensile strength.

True or false? After the complete collapse of the tower floor systems, video shows vertical columns of considerable length standing whole seconds end end before finally tumbling over.

OSHA: Omaha building collapse caused by overloaded storage bins
www.foodengineeringmag.com...
The US’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) said the January collapse of an International Nutrition Inc. facility in Omaha, resulting in the deaths of two employees, was caused by overloading storage bins on the building’s roof level.

An investigation determined storage bins were overloaded with an excess of limestone. The added weight caused the bins to collapse three floors into the center of the facility.

buildingfailures.wordpress.com...

Failure: Rana Plaza Garment Factory Collapse
Location: Savar, near Dhaka, Bangladesh
Date: April 24, 2013
Type: 8-story Progressive Collapse

Architect & Structural Design: Massood Reza of Vastukalpa Consultants
Site Developer: Sohel Rana (currently in prison)

1,129 Dead
2,515 Rescued
*Deadliest accidental structural failure in history [e]

Major cracking shook the building the day before the collapse, alarming workers inside. A consultant structural engineer deemed the building unsafe and urged evacuation, along with local police. Garment factory owners forced employees to work anyway on April 24 by threatening to dock pay. [a] The building—already lacking structural integrity—was shaken to final collapse when generators and heavy machinery restarted after a power outage around 9:00AM. Cracks seen on the 7th floor propagated, causing collapse of the uppermost floor. A domino effect ensued, killing and entrapping thousands of workers in the rubble.

www.complex.com...
Location: Jerusalem, Israel

Year of Fail: 2001

When designed, the wedding hall was to have one three-story side and one two-story side. Late in construction, the owners changed the plan to add a floor to the shorter side. Building upon what was designed to be a roof, the third story floor was subject to greater loading than originally expected and partitions were added to mitigate the extra weight. A few days before the collapse that killed 23 and injured 380, the owners removed the partitions, causing the third story floor to sag. Thinking this was just an aesthetic problem the owners leveled the floor by adding grout and fill. The extra weight on the already weak area, caused the third floor, hosting a wedding at the time, to come crashing down on those below.

Asking what floor connection ratings are based on, or if a column did this after the collapse.... is entirely irrelevant to my whole point, (which I'll go over, yet again, below)... I'm not wasting my time jumping through hoops, so get to the point.... if you have one.

All of the other failures should be scientifically explainable, and repeatable, in some form.

None of these failures contradict any, or all, well-established scientific principles.

Indeed, it is every other structural collapse which confirms the very opposite of a random collapse.


The towers were unlike any other structure, very unique, which they were.

Same as many other structures are unique, too.

Many structures were/are much more unique than the towers.

Being unique is common, it's not an all-purpose excuse for everything you can't answer.

Your 'massive weight' excuse is a perfect example. 'No building could ever withstand such a massive load dropped on it!!'

No massive weight has ever 'dropped' on a building, first of all. The upper sections of the towers were attached to the lower sections. The upper sections weren't dropped in a free-fall!! Sounds good to you, but it's far from the reality.

This 'massive weight' excuse is complete nonsense, obviously.

'It was so massive, nothing could stop it, or even slow it down'.

No.

The structure supports are built to support the mass. A greater mass is supported by greater supports. That's why buildings that lose some supports NEVER have a complete, resistance- free collapse. The structures are built to support massive loads. They do NOT suddenly morph into jelly, at a magical point where mass becomes this 'unstoppable force'!


Weight does not reach a magical point, when it cannot be repelled in any way, where all prior resistance simply vanishes away. Massive supports hold massive weights, that's the whole idea! Very simple concept, isn't it?

The great mass is not some 'magical' excuse for an impossible collapse. For TWO impossible collapses, that is.


Anyway, it comes down to the science. A replication that confirms such an absurd phenomenon even exists!

A Nobel Prize would surely await you, should you ever prove that such a phenomenon really exists...


While I wait to win the lottery, and you to win the Nobel Prize.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine


Judging from his words and actions, Kevin Ryan has more integrity in his little finger than you have in your entire body.

Judging from his work record at UL, he knew exactly what he was talking about. His problem was not following the commands of supervisors to STFU and stop saying things that were too damn true.

Some of us, Ryan being one, cannot stand to live inside the echo chamber that is today's Groupthink 911.

You have no idea of my integrity; you are just blustering again.

His work record has nothing to do with it. He erroneously assumed that UL had "certified" the structural steel. UL does not certify structural steel and Ryan didn't know that or was fantasizing. He erroneously assumed that the steel was not exposed to temperatures above 500 C. He thought that the jet fuel was the only source of heat and forgot about all the building content. He doesn't have a clue about fire, does he?
His real sin was insinuation that his opinion was that of UL. Bye, Kevin.

I am a layman, not in the construction industry. But I do understand in general terms the purpose of a fire code, and I took enough college physics to understand melting points and alloys and abilities to transmit heat.

So did Ryan understand those things. And the simple point is that the steel used in the construction of WTC met the NYC Fire Code. Otherwise it would not have been built OR INSURED. That's how it works in this country, and one need not work for UL to grasp that simple fact of life.

Further, structural steel is a very poor conductor of heat. Of all metals it is very low in conductive properties, and one does not need to work for UL to understand that high school physics note.

Therefore, the claim that low intensity fires on a few floors could conduct that low heat throughout the structure so that it is weakened is nonsense.

Ryan knew all that, spoke truth to power, stepped on some toes, and was fired. In a time of universal deception, speaking the truth is a radical and dangerous act.

a reply to: turbonium1

it doesn't matter if the weight is falling or stationary. If the inward bowing pulled in vertical columns to cause them to buckle, then the weight of the upper stories is transferred from the remaining portion of the columns below. If the weight is transferred off the vertical supports, the weight of the free standing uper section has to be transferred someplace. Once the buckling took the strain of the upper 29 stories off the vertical columns, gravity pulled down on the now free uper 29 floors. The uper building portion of mass settled more on the deck than the skinny columns. Remember, at the cite of collapse, vertical columns were either missing or buckled.

Now, quote were I stated fire weaken floor connections. For the tower where collapse was initiated by the falling of 29 upper floors, the majority of the mass came to rest on the deck below, overwhelming the floor to vertical columns connections, and sheared those connections. The falling mass hit the deck below, repeated the process, until the entire tower floor system was collapsed. This is evident by vertical columns standing on end after the collapse.

Thanks for trying to spin a false argument.

Repeatability. Both towers collapsed by the same mechanism. You spend the money to create a 110 WTC building system and run the experiments.

Steel is a very effective conductor of heat. Would you rather put your hand on a fire box of structural steel vs refractory brick of a running boiler?

a reply to: turbonium1

If you don't understand a specific floor of any high rise has a specific load rating, and overloadeding that floor rating will cause that floor to collapse, then you know nothing of science.

If you don't understand if a floor collapsed was due to being overloaded, created a falling mass, chances are a floor below it with the same or less load rating is not going to stop the falling mass, then you know nothing of science.

a reply to: Salander

Layman, I thought you claimed to be a pilot at one time? Is that false?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

A little research would help you not look delusional.....

True or false, floor connection ratings are based on shear and tensile strength.

True or false? After the complete collapse of the tower floor systems, video shows vertical columns of considerable length standing whole seconds end end before finally tumbling over.

OSHA: Omaha building collapse caused by overloaded storage bins
www.foodengineeringmag.com...
The US’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) said the January collapse of an International Nutrition Inc. facility in Omaha, resulting in the deaths of two employees, was caused by overloading storage bins on the building’s roof level.

An investigation determined storage bins were overloaded with an excess of limestone. The added weight caused the bins to collapse three floors into the center of the facility.

buildingfailures.wordpress.com...

Failure: Rana Plaza Garment Factory Collapse
Location: Savar, near Dhaka, Bangladesh
Date: April 24, 2013
Type: 8-story Progressive Collapse

Architect & Structural Design: Massood Reza of Vastukalpa Consultants
Site Developer: Sohel Rana (currently in prison)

1,129 Dead
2,515 Rescued
*Deadliest accidental structural failure in history [e]

Major cracking shook the building the day before the collapse, alarming workers inside. A consultant structural engineer deemed the building unsafe and urged evacuation, along with local police. Garment factory owners forced employees to work anyway on April 24 by threatening to dock pay. [a] The building—already lacking structural integrity—was shaken to final collapse when generators and heavy machinery restarted after a power outage around 9:00AM. Cracks seen on the 7th floor propagated, causing collapse of the uppermost floor. A domino effect ensued, killing and entrapping thousands of workers in the rubble.

www.complex.com...
Location: Jerusalem, Israel

Year of Fail: 2001

When designed, the wedding hall was to have one three-story side and one two-story side. Late in construction, the owners changed the plan to add a floor to the shorter side. Building upon what was designed to be a roof, the third story floor was subject to greater loading than originally expected and partitions were added to mitigate the extra weight. A few days before the collapse that killed 23 and injured 380, the owners removed the partitions, causing the third story floor to sag. Thinking this was just an aesthetic problem the owners leveled the floor by adding grout and fill. The extra weight on the already weak area, caused the third floor, hosting a wedding at the time, to come crashing down on those below.

Your 'massive weight' excuse is a perfect example. 'No building could ever withstand such a massive load dropped on it!!'

It only appears that way to you cuz you aren't comprehending what he's saying.

If a building's columns or floors are designed to hold 10,000 tons, then placing 30,000 tons will act as a "massive" load. Everyone should agree with this.

Also putting 10,000 tons into motion creates a dynamic load. And a dynamic load imparts a much higher force on any structure below it. Can't tell you exactly what the amplification factor would be cuz it depends on the speed that the load is moving. Everyone should instinctually understand this too.

The classic example would be setting a brick on top of your head - no problem, right? But once you start dropping a brick on your head it gets interesting. Drop it from a height of 1" and nothing much will happen, although you will feel that effects of the dynamic load is more than the static load of resting the brick on your head. Drop it from 1 ft and oops, you might get knocked down. Why? Cuz a longer drop results in a higher speed and a larger dynamic load. Drop it from 10 ft and you're likely to have a broken skull.

And while it's not impossible to design a building to arrest a dynamic load in this manner - for indeed there are some guv buildings that have this requirement- it just isn't done in the private sector.

The upper sections weren't dropped in a free-fall!!

You're probably right, but it's not really required either.

The structure supports are built to support the mass. A greater mass is supported by greater supports.

This is true.

That's why buildings that lose some supports NEVER have a complete, resistance- free collapse. The structures are built to support massive loads.

Some supports?

This shows that you recognize that there is a point of support removal which will result in a collapse. Good.

They do NOT suddenly morph into jelly, at a magical point where mass becomes this 'unstoppable force'!

Actually, fire does just that.

There's plenty of examples of steel structures "morphing into jelly" from fire alone, so my point is proven 100%.

Weight does not reach a magical point, when it cannot be repelled in any way,

It's not about just the weight.

Reference the brick example above. The weight never changes but the force imparted on your head changes dramatically with the speed it's moving. This is undeniable.

Anyway, it comes down to the science. A replication that confirms such an absurd phenomenon even exists!

You can actually replicate the principles yourself. Just do the brick dropping thing as explained above. Tell us what you learn, if you're still able. Lol.

a reply to: turbonium1

True or false. Buildings have collapsed from being overloaded by snow.

So if you took the same amount of snow that caused the collapse, and dropped the same amount of snow on the roof all at once from a height of 10 foot, you don't know if the roof will collapse? The answer is yes.

In fact, because initiating a dynamic load, you could cut the static snow load by almost half. If you drop a load of snow all at once that was almost cut in half from a height of ten foot, the roof and building will still collapse. True or false?

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine


Judging from his words and actions, Kevin Ryan has more integrity in his little finger than you have in your entire body.

Judging from his work record at UL, he knew exactly what he was talking about. His problem was not following the commands of supervisors to STFU and stop saying things that were too damn true.

Some of us, Ryan being one, cannot stand to live inside the echo chamber that is today's Groupthink 911.

You have no idea of my integrity; you are just blustering again.

His work record has nothing to do with it. He erroneously assumed that UL had "certified" the structural steel. UL does not certify structural steel and Ryan didn't know that or was fantasizing. He erroneously assumed that the steel was not exposed to temperatures above 500 C. He thought that the jet fuel was the only source of heat and forgot about all the building content. He doesn't have a clue about fire, does he?
His real sin was insinuation that his opinion was that of UL. Bye, Kevin.

I am a layman, not in the construction industry. But I do understand in general terms the purpose of a fire code, and I took enough college physics to understand melting points and alloys and abilities to transmit heat.

So did Ryan understand those things. And the simple point is that the steel used in the construction of WTC met the NYC Fire Code. Otherwise it would not have been built OR INSURED. That's how it works in this country, and one need not work for UL to grasp that simple fact of life.

Further, structural steel is a very poor conductor of heat. Of all metals it is very low in conductive properties, and one does not need to work for UL to understand that high school physics note.

Therefore, the claim that low intensity fires on a few floors could conduct that low heat throughout the structure so that it is weakened is nonsense.

Ryan knew all that, spoke truth to power, stepped on some toes, and was fired. In a time of universal deception, speaking the truth is a radical and dangerous act.

Ryan claimed UL certification which was false, even though he worked for UL and should have known what they certify. He then implied that UL was questioning the NIST report which was also false, and was justifiably fired for it. Bye, Kevin.

Now we come to your points about melting points and thermal conductivity of metals. First, do you understand that steel does not have to melt to lose significant strength? This is a plot of strength pf metals vs temperature www.engineeringtoolbox.com...
As you can see, at 500*C, structural steel loses about half its strength. So if the towers survived the impacts but were seriously damaged, when the fires heated the steel structure, it could no longer support the mass above it because it only had a fraction of the strength it had at impact. Note that the building struck later collapsed first because there was more mass above the impact zone loading the structure. Fires take time to heat things up. Uncontrolled fires in building 7 did the same thing. At 500*C local, this would be like doubling the weight of the structure on the weak elements being heated by the fires.

As to your comments about thermal conductivity, you are correct. Structural steel is not a good conductor of heat and would not readily conduct heat away from the fire. This means that the steel near the fire got hotter than another metal with more conductivity would and would fail sooner. Your idea that the heat had to be conducted away from the fires to cause failure is backwards; heat that can't be conducted away causes local failures and those, in turn cause global failures.
Metal also expands when heated. I did a calculation in a thread from several years ago and determined that the 50 foot long beams in the cantilevered section of WTC 7 would expand several inches if heated evenly, enough to shear any connectors, so mere loss of strength on heating is not the only failure mode in a fire.

I hope this helps you understand why fires can cause collapse of a structure without melting the metal and that metals with poor conductivity work against structural strength.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine


Judging from his words and actions, Kevin Ryan has more integrity in his little finger than you have in your entire body.

Judging from his work record at UL, he knew exactly what he was talking about. His problem was not following the commands of supervisors to STFU and stop saying things that were too damn true.

Some of us, Ryan being one, cannot stand to live inside the echo chamber that is today's Groupthink 911.

You have no idea of my integrity; you are just blustering again.

His work record has nothing to do with it. He erroneously assumed that UL had "certified" the structural steel. UL does not certify structural steel and Ryan didn't know that or was fantasizing. He erroneously assumed that the steel was not exposed to temperatures above 500 C. He thought that the jet fuel was the only source of heat and forgot about all the building content. He doesn't have a clue about fire, does he?
His real sin was insinuation that his opinion was that of UL. Bye, Kevin.

And the simple point is that the steel used in the construction of WTC met the NYC Fire Code.

Actually, this is not correct.

Since the building were actually owned by the Port Authority they were allowed to build them with weaker trusses than NYC code requirements.

And I believe that they were allowed more lax requirements on the fire protection as well.

Otherwise it would not have been built OR INSURED.

Don't be a fool and make foolish statements.

Insurance rates vary with risk.

[quote[Further, structural steel is a very poor conductor of heat.

Yes

Therefore, the claim that low intensity fires on a few floors could conduct that low heat throughout the structure so that it is weakened is nonsense.

Agreed. It's nonsense.

But it's not required in the OS.

It's a truther meme, repeated by fools that "think" they understand what the OS requires for it to work. Dunning-Krueger at work yet again.

originally posted by: Salander I took enough college physics to understand melting points and alloys and abilities to transmit heat.

In fairness, the average teenager understands that metals melt and can be alloyed, and the fact that metals conduct heat must become known by experience to pretty much everyone at an even earlier age. I don't believe you studied physics at college, or you wouldn't have made some pretty elementary mistakes elsewhere in this thread. But of course, I can't prove that, so I leave it open for others to judge.

a reply to: turbonium1

Skyline Plaza, Virginia, USA

www.bestonlineengineeringdegree.com...

Although there was no flaw in the design per se, the forms supporting the concrete columns on the 22nd floor were prematurely removed. The cement hadn’t yet hardened completely and couldn’t bear the weight of the 24th floor.
The failure of these columns put an increased amount of pressure on the rest of the columns on the 23rd floor until the entire floor buckled and slammed down on the floor below. The building had not been engineered to withstand such a huge increased load, and the tremendous weight proved catastrophic. Each floor gradually succumbed and plummeted onto the story below in a devastating ripple effect.

originally posted by: neutronflux

www.bestonlineengineeringdegree.com...

Although there was no flaw in the design per se, the forms supporting the concrete columns on the 22nd floor were prematurely removed. The cement hadn’t yet hardened completely and couldn’t bear the weight of the 24th floor.
The failure of these columns put an increased amount of pressure on the rest of the columns on the 23rd floor until the entire floor buckled and slammed down on the floor below. The building had not been engineered to withstand such a huge increased load, and the tremendous weight proved catastrophic. Each floor gradually succumbed and plummeted onto the story below in a devastating ripple effect.

The pancake theory of WTC collapse was dismissed in 2011 by NIST:
www.nist.gov...
(see (8)). So amusing to see some people here still believing in myths that even US government institutions reject! But keep it up. It's very entertaining to read this old tosh.