Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by HowardRoark
This scale adversely affected the adhesion of the critical fireproofing.

The fireproofing is not critical. Arup Fire engineering, the Cardington fire tests, and a host of other fire engineering institutes and tests on structures with unprotected steel have repeatedly stated and shown this. The only ones who cling to the limp fireproofing argument are NIST and shills like yourself.

Ohh, a quote!

So why does every building code in this country and in the rest of the civilized world require buildings to be fireproofed in the first place?

The Cardington tests were conducted on a structure that was nothing like the WTC buildings. They have no applicability to the WTC structures.

fireproofing keeps steel from bursting into flame, obviously.

maybe, not. steel doesn't burn very easily, does it?

so fireproofing slows the rate at which steel heats up.

that doesn't change the nist reports' claims. you know, 250ºC for some steel, and 650ºC for one piece. for fifteen minutes. only the GIGO computer simulation has any 'evidence' of these 1000ºC temperatures. the actual photographic evidence shows a lady standing in an are where there are SUPPOSEDLY temperatures that could roast a buffalo in two minutes.

i think there might be one(or two or three, lol) little phrase in that report that's a little funny for such an 'exhaustive' study.

NIST says, ........

"From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure"

no conclusion! what kind of 'science' experiment is this?

[edit on 27-12-2005 by billybob]

The key here is the impact of the heat on the floor trusses. As it is clearly visible in this photo:




The fireproofing on those trusses was in poor shape before 9/11.

That doesn’t even take into account the damage caused by the impact.

As those trusses and slabs heated up, they would have started to sag and pull inward on the exterior columns.

It really doesn’t matter what the temperature of the exterior columns were, the inward pull of the sagging floors is what caused the exterior wall to buckle.


[edit on 27-12-2005 by HowardRoark]

Also, what about the airplane components that were left in the building after the impat? The empty weight of a 767 is about 175,000 lbs. let’s say 125,000 lbs of material was scattered about the floors.

Either one of two things can be said about this material.

1) It burned, adding to the heat load of the fires on the floors.
2) It didn’t burn, adding mass to the “live” load that the floor systems had to support.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The key here is the impact of the heat on the floor trusses. As it is clearly visible in this photo:

The fireproofing on those trusses was in poor shape before 9/11.

That doesn’t even take into account the damage caused by the impact.

As those trusses and slabs heated up, they would have started to sag and pull inward on the exterior columns.

It really doesn’t matter what the temperature of the exterior columns were, the inward pull of the sagging floors is what caused the exterior wall to buckle.

gee, howard. you must be feeling charitable. such a great signature quote that would make.

it doesn't really matter. because, you see, the TRUSSES were heated, the TRUSSES were weakened, and the TRUSSES had problems with flaky fireproofing and iron worms.
so NATURALLY, the huge perimeter which were, cooler, stronger, and more interconnected into the loadbearing, sheer bearing web of steel, got PULLED IN.

that's what always happens.

everbody else is starting demolition companies using the can of kerosene or diesel fuel poured liberally on one floor and then ignited, method...

mine's better. i just tie soggy noodles to support columns and pull, causing bowing, and eventual global collapse is soon to follow. it should all take a couple of seconds. probably faster than freefall in air for some buildings.

[edit on 27-12-2005 by billybob]

Originally posted by HowardRoark


It really doesn’t matter what the temperature of the exterior columns were, the inward pull of the sagging floors is what caused the exterior wall to buckle.


[edit on 27-12-2005 by HowardRoark]

And yet the connections on those sagging floors are so week that it innitiated global collapse. Like you say all the time....you can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by MacMerdin
And yet the connections on those sagging floors are so week that it innitiated global collapse. Like you say all the time....you can't have it both ways.

The impact damage to the floor slabs was extensive. The buckling in WTC 2 extended from floor 78 to 83 with the maximum at floor 80. The floors above, 81, 83, and 83 were observed to have partially collapsed prior to the total building collapse.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The impact damage to the floor slabs was extensive. The buckling in WTC 2 extended from floor 78 to 83 with the maximum at floor 80. The floors above, 81, 83, and 83 were observed to have partially collapsed prior to the total building collapse.

This, according to misleading NIST photos that take advantage of problems in human visual perception, like some kind of fun house. And the partially collapsed floors "prior to the total building collapse" are probably Howard referencing NIST's pics of the columns bending as WTC2 tilted.

But this is irrelevant anyway, considering how much failure a single floor could withstand before failure. It would have to be an average of 75% failure, including core columns. And again, the physics of the collapses? The symmetry, lack of retardation, loss of angular momentum? You know the crap you put on doesn't add up, Howard.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
...the airplane components that were left in the building after the impat?...

Either one of two things can be said about this material.

1) It burned, adding to the heat load of the fires on the floors.
2) It didn’t burn, adding mass to the “live” load that the floor systems had to support.

That's easy. It didn't burn because the fires weren't hot enough to heat the steel to plastic deformation point, as is shown by the phsyical evidence, and thus the structure was able to easily bear the extra load of the shredded plane bits, well within it's load bearing capacity with safety factors considered.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
But please explain for the class your theory of how bits of the planes made it from 1200 feet up in the air through 500,000 tonnes of structure and ended up in the basements. Did it travel down the elevators with the all-purpose jet fuel? Or did it fly out into the Manhattan sky and onto the street, before taking a shortcut back through the subway entrance? I look forward to reading your hypothesis.

HowardRorak wrote:
The same way that the rest of the building wound up in the basement, it fell down when the building collapsed.

Man, that's priceless. You drift more and more into your own little fantasy land with each passing day, Howard.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So why does every building code in this country and in the rest of the civilized world require buildings to be fireproofed in the first place?

You took my quote out of context, cheers. I meant critical in relation to the WTC fires, which didn't experience fires or temperatures in the ranges where the fireproofing would be an issue, as is shown by the physical evidence. "Only three regions experienced temperatures in excess of 250C." Remember that? But yes, the Cardington tests, the UK's Arup Fire Engineering, and other firms around the world have shown that the fireproofing influence is grossly exaggerated on steel structures. It's just that you and NIST haven't caught up yet.

The 1975 fire in WTC1 (no sprinklers at this stage):

911research.wtc7.net...
On February 13, 1975, a fire, set by a custodian turned arsonist, started on the 11th floor and spread to limited portions of six other floors, burning for three hours. Several fire suppression systems that were later installed in the towers were not present at the time, including sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing.

The fire, which broke out just before midnight, did not kill anyone but forced the evacuation of fifty people, consisting mostly of maintenance staff. The captain of Engine Co. 6 described the suppression effort as "like fighting a blow torch."

A three hour "blow-torch" fire and the building doesn't give a murmur or a creak. Nobody expected the building to collapse because no steel-framed building had ever done so until 9-11. Sure, it didn't have a jet liner crash into it, but it was also the 11th floor, supporting nearly 100 floors of weight above it, which is consistently the reason given as to why the South tower collapsed first. By comparison, the 2001 collapsed of WTC1 initiated at the 98th floor, with only 12 floors above it. The redundancy of the structure compensated for the jet impacts, as evidenced by the fact that they stood with barely a sway after the impacts, so all that was left to collapse the buildings - by NIST's own admission - was the fires. The jet fuel burned off in the first 15 minutes, also by NIST's admission, so that leaves the office furniture to create these alleged super-hot fires. But the fires weren't hot enough to heat the steel to even 250°C as shown by the physical evidence, whereas steel needs to reach 600°C before it will begin to show plastic yield...aaaaaand it seems we're back to square one with collapse impossible. You see where I'm going with this? There's a hole in the frikkin' bucket, dear Liza, well fix it dear Henry, and round it goes all the way back to the hole in the bucket.

Remember the guy from Canada's Underwriter Laboratories who blew the whistle on the NIST tests? Now have a look at what Fire Engineering institutes in the UK have to say about the effects of steel and temperatures on steel structures. These guys built actual structures and then set them on fire, instead of simply heating beams in an oven like NIST:

www.corusconst ruction.com

Cardington fire tests

The tests were carried out to determine if the fire performance of real buildings of this type is better than is suggested by tests on individual elements of construction. Evidence that this is the case had been provided by studies of actual fires in real buildings, such as the Investigation of Broadgate Phase 8 Fire, published by the Steel Construction Institute; tests carried out by BHP in Melbourne in Australia and also small scale fire tests and computer modeling of structural behavior. In all these cases, composite floors had demonstrated robustness and resistance to fire far greater than was indicated by tests on single beams or slabs.

In order to determine a direct comparison, the first test was carried out on a single unprotected beam and surrounding area of slab. The results demonstrated that a failure deflection (normally considered to be Length/30) would have occurred at approximately 1000°C, far greater than the temperature of 700°C at which the beam would have failed if tested in isolation.

Further tests were carried out in compartments varying in size from 50m.sq. to 340m.sq. with fire loading provided by gas, wooden cribs or standard office furniture. Columns were protected but beams were not. However, despite atmosphere temperatures of almost 1200°C and steel temperatures on the unprotected beams in excess of 1100°C in the worst cases, no structural collapse took place.

What about these Canadian guys:

ar ticle.pubs.nrc-cnrc.qc.ca

A state-of-the-art review of the behavior of steel frame structures in fire is presented. Results from different studies indicate that the behavior of a complete structure is different from that of a single structural member under fire conditions from the point of view of fire resistance. Earlier studies also show that analysis and design of steel structures against fire based on their overall behavior could lead to a reduction or the elimination of applied fire protection to ertain structural members. The effects of continuity, restraint conditions, and load ratio on the fire resistance of frame tructures are discussed. The beneficial aspects derived from considering overall structural rather than single-member ehaviour in fire are illustrated through the analysis on two one-bay, one-storey, unprotected steel portal frames, a column, and a beam. Also comparison is made between the performance of a beam with different end restraints in fire. Results from the analyses indicate that the fire resistance of a member is increased when it is considered as part of a structure compared with when it is considered as a single member.

Here's more, from the UK's Arup Fire Engineering:

www.arup.com...

The WTC towers behaved very well following impact and in response to multiple floor fires indicating that it was a
robust system. The draft NIST report appears to rely on dislodged fire protection. Our main concern with this conclusion is that thermal expansion can swamp all other behaviours and this is not discussed in the NIST report yet. We believe it should be included in a thermo-mechanical analysis to predict the response of any structure to fire, particularly when determining a probable collapse mechanism.
[...]
Collapse mechanism proposed by NIST in April 5 Presentation Report:

The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is also column behavior in fire. However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displacement between the core and perimeter columns, much greater than the 300mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true.

Why upward expansion of the column would act against the mechanical shortening:

Crude initial calculations indicate that the elastic downward deflection at half the modulus (say at approx. 500C) will be roughly 38mm. Assuming plastic strains, a maximum yielding of approximately 190mm is possible. If the downward displacement is 300mm as assumed, the rotation at the perimeter connection would be 300mm vertical over an 18000mm span - extremely small.
The floor elongation must be less than 2.5mm to generate tensile pulling forces on the exterior columns as a result of the column shortening in the core. Thermal expansion of the floor truss would be 65mm at 300°C over a length of 18000mm. Therefore the 2.5mm is swamped by thermal expansion and the core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor simply as a result of column shortening. The NIST collapse theory also states that “floors weakened and sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the perimeter columns. Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings. Collapse then ensued”.

This is similar to some of our collapse proposals but no mention of thermal expansion is made, the floor buckling and lack of support to the columns seems to be entirely due to loss in strength and stiffness in their view which we would consider to be only part of the story.

HowardRoark wrote:
The Cardington tests were conducted on a structure that was nothing like the WTC buildings. They have no applicability to the WTC structures.

So according to your pre-schooler logic, no fire tests have any significance to any structure unless they mimic exactly the structure in question. Congratulations, you have just nullified every fire test ever done in history on the face of the Earth. Dooes your employer know that you are unwittingly undermining the official story with your every sentence, or are you a rogue operative now?

[edit on 2005-12-28 by wecomeinpeace]

First is the assumption that the lightweight concrete used in 1969 had the same density as that used now. Generally Lightweight concrete has a density that ranges from 40 to 54 lbs/ft3 so I’ll ignore this one.

What is your source for this? It seems you have confused cement with concrete.

hypertextbook.com... - Normal concrete: 2400 kg/m^3, lightweight concrete: 1750 kg/m^3.
www.roymech.co.uk... - Normal concrete: 2300 kg/m^3, lightweight concrete: 1760 kg/m^3.

I'll leave you to convert the above figures from cubic meters to cubic feet, but I think you already know what the answer is. Moreover, if anything, in 1969 lightweight concrete would be heavier than modern lightweight concrete, since tech advances enable the same strength to be achieved out of a lighter end-product. So older concrete would have even greater density thus adding to the mass of material needed to be heated. Oh, and the concrete was reinforced with steel.

The second is that both the floor slab and the ceiling slab were heated to the same degree. I guess he forgot that heat rises, huh?

In light of the assumption that the entire floor was a sealed oven, this is moot. In light of the fact that the value arrived at for T was a mere 280°C, this is doubly, triply moot. Even say 400°C at the top and 100°C at the bottom under ridiculously fantastical assumptions is still nowhere near hot enough to reach the plastic yield state of steel, and it means the official fairytale is still a big, fat, greasy, obnoxious, shill-supported lie. Now read the first paragraph again and notice how the assumption is that the entire floor is completely sealed, perfectly in line with the official fairytale. Now go and turn on your oven and let it heat up real hot, then open it up and touch the top inside the oven, now touch the bottom. Was the difference in temperatures large or small? Did you burn yourself on both surfaces? Good, now, turn the flame off and then turn the gas on again letting it run unburnt. Now put your head inside and stay there for about, ooh, 20 minutes, and then come back and post your findings. Just kidding!! Stop! Come back!...NOOOOO!!

The biggest and most obvious is that he overestimates the area of concrete present on each floor by assuming that there were no openings or penetrations in the floor (i.e no elevator shafts, etc.)

Firstly, the shafts only comprised about 10% of the floor area. Secondly the stairwells have landings, no? But what were the steps made of. Could it possibly have been...concrete? So instead of his assumption for the sake of calculation that a stairwell on a floor was just a 4" thick concrete slab, we have to change it to 12 feet in height worth of solid steps. Maybe they weren't made of concrete, I dunno, but whatever they were made of, that's 3.6m of height, by 2.2m width, by whatever thickness worth of "stuff" for each stairwell. And hey, you just reminded me...he forgot to add in the gypsum which comprised all the walls in the core. Whaddyaknow...that's even more heat sink! And wait a minute, what were the ventilation shafts made of? Could it be aluminum or stainless steel? Well, golly gosh he didn't add that in either.

also his dimensions are off slightly. The outer edge of the concrete slab would have been about 206 x 206.

Really?! A whole foot?! Wow! But hey, since you brought it up, the exterior column reference lines were spaced at 207ft 2in and ran through the geometric center of each column. The columns were 13.5in deep, meaning the concrete slab which was flush with the perimeter columns was 206ft 7&1/4in. 207ft makes 42,849ft^2. 206ft 7&1/4in makes 42,685.282ft^2.
That's a whopping difference of...wait for it...four tenths of 1%!!

If we assume that 25% of the core area had floor slabs, then the total concrete drops down about 21 per cent.

Why should "we" assume that only 25% of the core had floor slabs when the figure is more like 50 - 60%? Ohhh, I know, because that supports the official lie. *smacks forehead* Of course! But go look at page 20 of the NIST1-1 report and tell me it ain't 50 - 60%. And ya know what? Up on the 98th floor there were a LOT less elevator and HVAC shafts than are shown on the "typical floorplan" in that report. So, you can assume it was 25%. "We" will stick to the facts, thankya-very-muchly. And make sure you don't forget all the 12 foot in height worth of drywall and HVAC walls that I mentioned before. And what about the piping for the sprinkler systems? What were those pipes made of and how much of them were there? And what about the water IN the sprinkler pipes? And..and what about the latent heat of vaporisation for that water? And...and...the steel floorpans! Gosh, the heat sinks just get bigger and bigger with each reassessment.

The problem here is that the author of this particular bit of bad science is conveniently ignoring the fact that the majority of the heat will be released as radiant heat. This it will heat up the solid objects on the floor at a much faster rate then the air.

What absolute horsepucky! You come out with this ridiculous tripe, and then have the nerve to call the assessment bad science?? The majority of heat from a combustion reaction is released into the air as hot gases and in this case carbon (smoke) and travels by convection. You even hinted at the phenomenon yourself in the very same post I quoted the above comment from:

I guess he forgot that heat rises, huh?

Here's a little practical homework assignment similar to the last one with the oven. This time go to the kitchen and turn on your gas stove. The gas there is burning at over 600C. Now place your left hand about 2 inches from the side of the flame and feel how your hand warms up from the radiant heat. Now, place your right hand 2 inches over the top of the flame and see what happens. Leave your hands there for about 5 minutes then come back and tell us your findings about radiant heat and convection heat. HINT: You may have to type using just your left hand, because charred stumps aren't real good for touch typing, donchyaknow. Oh, and radiant heat gets absorbed to an extent by air as well. That's why you can't feel any where near as much heat from the flame if your hand is 12 inches away to the side, because the air is, you know, absorbing the radiation. I know it's hard to grasp, air being invisible and all that jazz, but it's still there, yes it is, mm hmm.

In addition, while he insists that some of the heat releases be used to heat up the surrounding air, he then conveniently forgets to use that preheated air in his combustion equation.

So the air being heated by the reaction should be considered preheated by that reaction before the reaction has actually occurred...or something like that. Is that what you're saying? I'm not really sure since you were a little unclear. But if so, then hogwash I say! But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the above is an attempt to refer to the miniscule decrease in the specific heat of air as it increases in temperature, with a later increase after 1000K. If that's the case, then here's a relevant quote from the calculations:

www.uscrusade.com...
The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to an [artificially] higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature).

HowardRoark wrote:
Finally, he uses a value for the specific heat of concrete that I have not been able to find anywhere. The values that I have found are about 4 times less then the values that he uses (880j/kgC). Even if we go with 1000 j.kgC, we would still have a number that is three times lower then the number he used (3300j/kgC).

Oh dear...oh dear...it seems you've mistaken cement for concrete again. You do know the difference, don't you Howard? You know what "aggregate" means, right? And that concrete has water in it, right? Hello...? Are you there...? Hey, don't worry, I promise I won't tell your boss! Come back! Now a quick look around and I get 3300J/kg*K for concrete and ranges from 880 to 920J/kg*K for cement. Look, there's even one that breaks it down for you by water, cement, and aggregate content, and they get 2515J/kg*K, still much more than your measly cement figure:



So, let's look again at the outrageous assumptions in favor of the official lie for this calculation:

www.uscrusade.com...
What we propose to do, is to pretend that the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.

And what's the final temperature under these desperately-trying-to-support-the-official-story conditions?

280° C

Well, it seems no steel was melting, or softening, but the official story is still a pile of steaming goop as it always was.

But I have to give the guy credit, he uses enough technical terms to fool some people into believing that he knows what he is talking about.

Funny, this is exactly your modus operandi. Now now, Howard... Didn't they tell you NOT to reveal your tactics to the chattel ever, under any circumstances?

I won't be around to post much after today because of RL circumstances, at least for a couple of months, so Happy New Year everyone! (Yes, even you, Howie).

[edit on 2005-12-28 by wecomeinpeace]

A couple months? Hang in there WCIP...the withdrawls from this site aren't too bad (so I hear...haven't tried to quit cold turkey myself). Have a Great New Year and hopefully we'll see you soon.

Later dude. I was going to get into a long relpy to your reply, etc. But I don't have the time right now. Take it easy.

Happy New Year WCIP, hope everything goes well for you and look forward to seeing you back

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Later dude. I was going to get into a long relpy to your reply, etc. But I don't have the time right now.

Maybe later.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Later dude. I was going to get into a long relpy to your reply, etc. But I don't have the time right now.

Maybe later.

Oooh! He sticks in the knife!... But the question is - will he twist it?

Thanks for the well-wishes, guys. But just to clarify, I will still be around, but only on the occasions when I make it to an Internet cafe. Wouldn't want to drop in and have you guys say, "Oy! Thought you said you were gone for a couple of months! Go on, piss off!......bloody lyin' bastard, got us all excited he was leavin' n all"

If you logically think about the circumstances it makes perfect sense why the buildings collapsed. First of all, they were hit by 747 Jumbo Jets. Each of these planes hold lots of Jet fuel, way more than your typical DC10 or 737. The impact was not the cause of them going down, the impact was nothing more than a delivery system to get to the fuel in place. The Steel doesn't have to evaporate for the building to collapse. The Heat alone from that many thousands of gallons of jetfuel is plenty to affect the integrity of the steel. Once the steel has been compromised the weight will all come down. Jet Fuel is not Diesel it is way more powerful than diesel. Keep in mind that no other buildings were constructed like the WTC. All their steel supports were external. There were no internal supports. Just suspended concrete pancakes for each floor.

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
First off that statement is incorrect. Its no steel-framed high-rise building has had a total collapse due to a fire. You can atleast try to get that part right as there is a difference.

Aha Right - if you belive in Santa.

So why did the Madrid Tower NOT Collapse due to Fire, that Raged for 24 hours? It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, despite what we are led to believe, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire, even a protracted fire as witnessed in Madrid. In fact before September 11th, 2001, no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing.

Furthermore,
Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location.

Read this REPORT:

www.physics.byu.edu...



Master Wu,
Excellent Find!

[edit on 11/11/05 by Souljah]

Just took notice of this thread after all this time. Don't visit this forum at all, but my interest was peaked by my recent viewing of Fahrenheit 9/11. I read a few posts in the beginning and didn't get a chance to see all of them.

When the attacks occured on 9/11 I just assumed the towers fell by the burning jet full fuel. The plot was perfectly executed almost too perfectly. I just couldn't believe both towers fell like that. Possibly it was an inside job, maybe not. What I do know is that the world would be shaped by this one event. Was it Islam's war on Christianity or was it hatred for controlling America that ignited this fire?
Events have been spiraling to a future which has already been determined. There is one piece of evidence around that proved that the event of 9/11 was destined to happen. That evidence is known as the US 20 Dollar Bill. You all know about that, right? It can't be a coincidence! How could the designers of the images on the $20 bill foresee the destruction of the twin towers and a portion of the Pentagon?

www.retakingamerica.com...

unable to repost images, sorry, links fail

[edit on 13-2-2007 by Long Lance]