A Review of the Jones 'Paper' Part 4

The next “reason” given by Professor Jones in support of his claims:

4. No Previous Skyscraper Collapse Due to Fires

A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides relevant data.
Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:
Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire…

There have only been a few instances of large planes hitting buildings. The Empire State building, an apartment complex in Amsterdam and the WTC towers. Unfortunately there are significant differences between all of these cases such that it is impossible to compare them.

On 9/111 ALL THREE buildings, WTC 1,2, & 7 suffered significant structural damage in addition to the fires.

The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.” (Glover, 2002)

The fire was largely confined to one floor and a wiring chase. It hardly compares to the multi-floor infernos on 9/11.

That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires!

There have been very few all steel high-rise buildings involved in fires. Those that were, were of significantly different structural design from the WTC buildings.

However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001, presumably without the use of explosives.

The logical failure here is rather amazing. Jones takes a unique and unprecedented event and states that because there is no precedent for a unique and unprecedented event to happen, it must really be a totally different thing.

Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

Since it is not clear if the hot corrosion attacks on the structural steel occurred before or after the collapse, the concern here was real. Also, at that point, the extent of the pre-collapse damage to WTC 7 was not widely known.

The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel.
.

The problem with this claim is that it is just plain wrong. The steel was not “evaporated” it was subjected to a hot corrosion attack this is the result of prolonged exposure to corrosive gasses in a high temperature environment. The temperatures needed for this are in the 1,000 °C range, not ~2860°C as Professor Jones states.

(Recall that WTC 7 was not hit by a jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.)

There were, however a number of diesel fuel tanks associated with this structure.

However, thermite-variants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice through steel, thus cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach the required temperatures. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.

Why? There is ample evidence that WTC 7 was significantly damaged by the collapse of WTC 1. That is why the NYFD did not fight the fires in it. The fires burned for 7 hours, much longer than the fireproofing codes require a building to be protected for.





[edit on 21-7-2006 by HowardRoark]

www.physics.byu.edu...

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
www.physics.byu.edu...

A one line spam ther, slappy?

The above linked power poin presentation does not addres the points that I have raised.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
www.physics.byu.edu...

A one line spam ther, slappy?

The above linked power poin presentation does not addres the points that I have raised.

You have no sources cited for 90% of your conjecture in all four of your "debunkings".

Dr. Jones' new paper is just brimming with citations, etc. which make your "quad-debunking" quite useless.

- Slappy

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
www.physics.byu.edu...

A one line spam ther, slappy?

The above linked power poin presentation does not addres the points that I have raised.

You have no sources cited for 90% of your conjecture in all four of your "debunkings".

Dr. Jones' new paper is just brimming with citations, etc. which make your "quad-debunking" quite useless.

- Slappy

The accounts of the firefighters as to the damage to 7 have been extensively covered. Do you really want me to go over them again?


[edit on 21-7-2006 by HowardRoark]