Richard Gage Debates a Member of International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators

Originally posted by Haroki
*** Ok, thanks for the heads up. Next time I go camping, and it's cold, I'll remember to not throw too much wood on the fire, cuz that'll disrupt the optimum air/fuel mixture and give me a cold fire. There's a message there, in case you missed it.***

I don't know what your problem is other than you just want to argue.

Lean mixtures (fuel starved or oxygen starved) produce cooler combustion gases than does a stoichiometric mixture, primarily due to the excessive dilution by unconsumed oxygen and its associated nitrogen. Rich mixtures (too much fuel or oxygen) also produce cooler combustion gases than does a stoichiometric mixture, primarily due to the excessive amount of carbon which oxidises to form carbon monoxide, rather than carbon dioxide.

Bolding and parenthesis are mine.

BTW, for those that need the lesson. Stoichiometric when talking about fuel-to-air ratio means:

When all the fuel is combined with all the free oxygen, typically within a vehicle's combustion chamber, the mixture is chemically balanced and this AFR is called the stoichiometric mixture (often abbreviated to stoich)

Now, do you want to appologize to us yet or are we going to round and round with your unfounded reasoning?

The cross beams would be removed by the 200' plus core columns when they bent and broke off after their vertical load capacity was exceeded.

Question: How do buckling columns break off? A materials science class might help.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Haroki

Lean mixtures (fuel starved or oxygen starved) produce cooler combustion gases than does a stoichiometric mixture, primarily due to the excessive dilution by unconsumed oxygen and its associated nitrogen. Rich mixtures (too much fuel or oxygen) also produce cooler combustion gases than does a stoichiometric mixture, primarily due to the excessive amount of carbon which oxidises to form carbon monoxide, rather than carbon dioxide.

Bolding and parenthesis are mine.

BTW, for those that need the lesson. Stoichiometric when talking about fuel-to-air ratio means:

When all the fuel is combined with all the free oxygen, typically within a vehicle's combustion chamber, the mixture is chemically balanced and this AFR is called the stoichiometric mixture (often abbreviated to stoich)

There is no absolute rule of “black smoke = an oxygen-starved fire”. It’s not as simple as that. You need to consider the materials that are burning, for instance.

Large fires involving plastics produce copious quantities of black smoke..
www.hse.gov.uk...

Experienced fire investigator John J Lentini doesn’t appear to believe you can tell much from smoke colour:

While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:

“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”

Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke
indicates nothing meaningful.
www.atslab.com...

And as you can see from other photos, a simplistic “black smoke = oxygen starved” interpretation is a little simplistic.




Above is where my campfire lesson would have helped out you understand the fallacy of your argument.......

Any analysis that attempts to extract meaning from the smoke colour, then, should also consider what might be burning at that point in the WTC fire. What materials were available at that time, and what colour smoke would they be expected to produce? That kind of in-depth review might come up with something useful, but creating fictional rules based on the smoke colour certainly doesn’t.

Originally posted by Haroki
And as you can see from other photos, a simplistic “black smoke = oxygen starved” interpretation is a little simplistic.

I've never said that black smoke equals oxygen starved.

What I've said is black smoke indicates a cooler fire than optimum.

What is so hard to understand that hydrocarbons produce black smoke because of the unburned carbon?

Unburned and acts as a heat sink.

Your photo says nothing of the oposite.

Why do you think fuel burns at optimium in an engine, but produces black smoke when burned in the outside air? Which is a hotter fire?

So, stop with the "black smoke=oxygen starved" strawman. That is NOT what we are saying.

Above is where my campfire lesson would have helped out you understand the fallacy of your argument.......

Your camp fire lesson doesn't say squat. Think of it this way.

You're in vaccum where you have limited oxygen. Throwing on more logs will not produce more heat as there is not enough oxygen to burn at optimum. An analysis of a campfire in open air (when talking about too much fuel) is a bad one. Sorry to say.

Any analysis that attempts to extract meaning from the smoke colour, then, should also consider what might be burning at that point in the WTC fire.

Yes, but one should also take into account the colour of the smoke throughout the entire fire.

It went from light to dark. I guess all the wood burned first and then the plastics later on?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Haroki
And as you can see from other photos, a simplistic “black smoke = oxygen starved” interpretation is a little simplistic.

I've never said that black smoke equals oxygen starved.

What I've said is black smoke indicates a cooler fire than optimum.

What is so hard to understand that hydrocarbons produce black smoke because of the unburned carbon?

Unburned and acts as a heat sink.

Your photo says nothing of the oposite.

Why do you think fuel burns at optimium in an engine, but produces black smoke when burned in the outside air? Which is a hotter fire?

So, stop with the "black smoke=oxygen starved" strawman. That is NOT what we are saying.

Above is where my campfire lesson would have helped out you understand the fallacy of your argument.......

Your camp fire lesson doesn't say squat. Think of it this way.

You're in vaccum where you have limited oxygen. Throwing on more logs will not produce more heat as there is not enough oxygen to burn at optimum. An analysis of a campfire in open air (when talking about too much fuel) is a bad one. Sorry to say.

Any analysis that attempts to extract meaning from the smoke colour, then, should also consider what might be burning at that point in the WTC fire.

Yes, but one should also take into account the colour of the smoke throughout the entire fire.

It went from light to dark. I guess all the wood burned first and then the plastics later on?

Ok then, I'll cut to the chase.

Your statement that black smoke means a less than optimum heat is misleading. A true statement would be is that burning materials that emit black smoke are less hot than materials that don't - for the exact reason you give, namely carbon. That object in my photo IS burning at optimum temperature for the materials that it's made from, correct? It's just that it may have a cooler flame temperature than other materials.

So when you attempt to debunk my campfire lesson, you still seem to be insinuating that there's limited oxygen. Am I right about that? If I'm not, why give the fire in a vacuum example unless you're trying to insinuate the fires were air starved? Since we agree now that black smoke means nothing, air wise, what are you basing that belief on? The lack of a big hole in the side of the building to let in air? Oh wait.......

The next thing - my campfire lesson IS relevant. You're smart enough to understand the ridiculousness of my first statement - not throwing on more wood, etc. Think - you're camping and you already have a fire going, and it's burning nicely - but it's getting cold, so you throw on more wood. The flame temp isn't gonna get higher, so why is it warmer? Because the other side of the heat equation just isn't flame temp, but BTU's. Max flame temp IS important when you're trying to determine how much steel is being weakened, granted. But a better method of determining flame temp, rather than speculating about "cooler than optimum temps" or what is burning by looking at the smoke's color is by using direct observation of the flame color.

www.tcforensic.com.au...

Go to table 1.2, look at some videos/photos, and tell me what you think the flame temps were at the end.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by Haroki]

Originally posted by Haroki
Your statement that black smoke means a less than optimum heat is misleading. A true statement would be is that burning materials that emit black smoke are less hot than materials that don't - for the exact reason you give, namely carbon. That object in my photo IS burning at optimum temperature for the materials that it's made from, correct? It's just that it may have a cooler flame temperature than other materials.

Ahh. Now I'm understanding more of what we are arguing. And yes, you're correct.

So when you attempt to debunk my campfire lesson, you still seem to be insinuating that there's limited oxygen.

When talking about too much fuel, then yes. A campfire in open air can never have too much fuel. That was my point.

or what is burning by looking at the smoke's color is by using direct observation of the flame color.

I agree with you here.

Sorry for the confusion and argumentative nature of my posts. I see what you're saying now.

Originally posted by Haroki
Your statement that black smoke means a less than optimum heat is misleading. A true statement would be is that burning materials that emit black smoke are less hot than materials that don't - for the exact reason you give, namely carbon.

The fact remains that the smoke coming out of the towers was mostly black and dark gray after the jet fuel burned up. Doesn't really matter why it was black, so long as we agree that it was fire and it was producing sooty smoke, right?

As far as office or skyscraper fires go, they were really minor. Don't be subjective here, if you want to disagree, post me some numbers and examples. I know of several buildings (steel-framed) that suffered fires on about the same span of floors (if not more), burned for much longer periods of time, some didn't even have any fireproofing on the affected floors, and often the flames are much more predominant and the fire looks much more intense in general. And none of these structures collapsed or even had to be deconstructed (not talking about the Windsor Tower).

We already understand that less-than-optimum fires put out less-than-optimum temperatures and heat. Optimum in this case would be about 825 C max. I would say we're more in the 600 - 700 C range generally with spots that may be hotter or cooler. There are things called flashovers too, that elevate temperatures briefly, but they don't last very long. And even NIST will tell you that the fires didn't stay where they were, but moved around a lot within the floors as they flared up and died down and were being fought. Imagine what that means, when you think all this steel all over the building was uniformly heated to some extreme temperature (all of the steel would be glowing dark red in broad daylight that was heated to 600 C), but the fires were sooty and roamed around and didn't even last longer than 2 hours in general.

You know all the steel in that building was certified as being able to withstand 2 hours of fire unprotected, right?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Haroki
The fact remains that the smoke coming out of the towers was mostly black and dark gray after the jet fuel burned up. Doesn't really matter why it was black, so long as we agree that it was fire and it was producing sooty smoke, right?

As far as office or skyscraper fires go, they were really minor.

We already understand that less-than-optimum fires put out less-than-optimum temperatures and heat. Optimum in this case would be about 825 C max. I would say we're more in the 600 - 700 C range generally with spots that may be hotter or cooler. There are things called flashovers too, that elevate temperatures briefly, but they don't last very long. And even NIST will tell you that the fires didn't stay where they were, but moved around a lot within the floors as they flared up and died down and were being fought. Imagine what that means, when you think all this steel all over the building was uniformly heated to some extreme temperature (all of the steel would be glowing dark red in broad daylight that was heated to 600 C), but the fires were sooty and roamed around and didn't even last longer than 2 hours in general.

You know all the steel in that building was certified as being able to withstand 2 hours of fire unprotected, right?

Yes there was sooty smoke, but as Griff agrees, that doen't mean that there was less than optimum burning. To say that is misleading. It's just that materials that produce black smoke may have cooler flame temps than a material that burns "clean". The only inference you can make is that when a material that normally burns "clean" is producing black smoke, it is burning at less than optimum temps. And since no one was there to testify what was burning, nothing can be gained by speculating on what materials were producing black smoke.

"Minor fires" sounds pretty subjective to me. And anyways, all of the examples you can give lack 2 things. 1- none were a "tube in tube" design - without concrete encasing their core columns, which aid immensely in a buildings ability to resist heat effects. 2- none had planes fly into them and sever many of their main load bearing columns. So anything you have is irrelevant to this case.

I'd say optimum temps would be 1000-1200C. And these flame colors (yellow-red) can be seen in some photos just before collapse. But most are in the 800-1000C range, granted. The point being, that the fires near the exterior exhibit these temps, which would lend credibility to the exterior columns buckling inward, as NIST states. Look at table 1.2 and judge for yourself.

www.tcforensic.com.au...

The WHOLE floor doesn't need to be heated uniformly at the same time. This a strawman, I believe. If it is supporting a vert load, and is heated to allow buckling, that would be enough, even if the fire moves on to another area later. You're the engineering student - so tell me, how much is a column's ability to support a vert load decreased after it's buckled? 1/2? Even you will agree that if enough load bearing capacity is removed, either by the plane or fire, the building WILL fall, correct? Even if other areas are totally unaffected. There IS a limit, correct?

The fires were being fought? Please tell me you were up late last night studying, and this is just a brain fart.

Certified for 2 hours? Please tell me you're not relying on Kevin Ryan's lies. Otherwise, you'll have to go on ignore. UL tested the trusses - with fireproofing- after 9/11 and certified that they preformed well, even though they did sag, which again, would lend credibility to the columns inward buckling.

Originally posted by Haroki
Yes there was sooty smoke, but as Griff agrees, that doen't mean that there was less than optimum burning.

It does in the sense that 825 C is max. If the material you're burning can't possibly burn that hot anyway, who cares?

"Minor fires" sounds pretty subjective to me.

Like I said, I could list several relevant fires that were much worse in many different aspects (range of floors consumed, time they burned, etc.).

1- none were a "tube in tube" design

Neither were the towers, but I can too post buildings that had an exterior column system, and a core structure (all steel), just like the towers. One example is the First Interstate Bank if I remember correctly. I'll have to post later if you want the whole run-down of fires that dwarf the ones at the WTC.

I'd say optimum temps would be 1000-1200C.

Well, you're wrong. What can I say? You can't sustain those temperatures with a hydrocarbon fire. Maybe a flashover.

If NIST is showing you a model, they're showing you what would've had to happen for their scenario to work. They also imply ~500 wood stoves' worth of energy per cubicle (roughly) if I remember correctly.

Certified for 2 hours? Please tell me you're not relying on Kevin Ryan's lies.

It's not lies, it's law. Griff? You've seen where NIST verified the steel was up to this code, right? If not, I'll have to post that later too. Bit of a hurry right now.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Haroki

Certified for 2 hours? Please tell me you're not relying on Kevin Ryan's lies.

It's not lies, it's law. Griff? You've seen where NIST verified the steel was up to this code, right? If not, I'll have to post that later too. Bit of a hurry right now.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by bsbray11]

You stated that the trusses would able to survive 2 hours unprotected. Read the chart carefully. They all had fire proofing on them.





And here's a fav quote WHY the whole temp of the flames is irrelevant:

As is typical of folks who do not have a scientific background, the question is purely one of temperatures. But anyone with any knowledge of the science of combustion and melting knows that it is much more complicated than that.

If it were purely a matter of temperature, then as soon as the fire reached its maximum temperature, the steel would have melted, and the buildings would have collapsed -- all in a matter of seconds.

But it didn't take seconds, did it? It took nearly an hour before the first building fell. Why is that?

Because the problem isn't one of pure temperature, it is one of HEAT CAPACITY and THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY.

"Heat capacity (usually denoted by a capital C, often with subscripts) is a measurable physical quantity that characterizes the ability of a body to store heat as it changes in temperature. It is defined as the rate of change of temperature as heat is added to a body at the given conditions and state of the body (foremost its temperature). In the International System of Units, heat capacity is expressed in units of joules per kelvin. It is termed an "extensive quantity" because it is sensitive to the size of the object (for example, a bathtub of water has a greater heat capacity than a cup of water). Dividing heat capacity by the body's mass yields a specific heat capacity (also called more properly "mass-specific heat capacity" or more loosely "specific heat"), which is an "intensive quantity," meaning it is no longer dependent on amount of material, and is now more dependent on the type of material, as well as the physical conditions of heating." en.wikipedia.org...

"In physics, thermal conductivity, k, is the intensive property of a material that indicates its ability to conduct heat.

It is defined as the quantity of heat, Q, transmitted in time t through a thickness L, in a direction normal to a surface of area A, due to a temperature difference ΔT, under steady state conditions and when the heat transfer is dependent only on the temperature gradient.

Thermal conductivity = heat flow rate × distance / (area × temperature difference) "
en.wikipedia.org...

So, the poroblem here is not strictly one of temperature, but how much heat was being pumped into the steel, versus how quickly it could conduct that heat to other areas to cool itself down. If the steel conducts heat away from the fire faster than it is being pumped into the steel, the steel remains rigid. If heat is pumped into the steel faster than it can be conducted away, the temperature of the steel RISES ABOVE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE FIRE, eventually reaching the plastic deformation (softening) temperature. At that point, the steel girders deform, and the rest is purely momemtum (mass times velocity).

The world of ignore awaits you if you choose to continue....

[edit on 20-11-2007 by Haroki]

never heard of thermal equilibrium, haroki? or conservation of energy?
the steel can't be hotter than the fire. hit the books, again.
and, steel is an excellent heat CONDUCTOR(because it is dense, ie. tightly packed molecules), and so would be very efficient at keeping cool, especially since there was so much steel.

it's "nice" to see someone who's good at sounding authoritative and good at making up numbers.

of all the steel tested by NIST, the highest temperature found as PHYSICAL evidence was 600˚C, and that was on ONE COLUMN. only three others showed exposure to 250˚C.

i've had my barbecue up to over 430˚C(grease fire plus three 45, 000 btu burners, the temp gauge was pinned at 800˚F, so the actual temp could have been even higher), and the only thing that changed shape was the warming rack, which is thin stainless bar.
all the other metal(stainless, mostly) was unaffected. it burned for a good ten or fifteen minutes before i realised it was a problem.

air is not a good heat conductor(because it is 'thin', ie. lossely packed molecules), and flames have to actually touch metal to get good conduction into the metal.

there is no evidence the fires got hot enough to cause weakening of the steel en masse.

Originally posted by bsbray11
It's not lies, it's law. Griff? You've seen where NIST verified the steel was up to this code, right?

I do remember it, but sadly at the moment I'm not up to finding it. Feeling a little under the weather, sorry. If I had that portion of the Nist report saved, I'd be able to help.

Originally posted by Haroki
You stated that the trusses would able to survive 2 hours unprotected. Read the chart carefully. They all had fire proofing on them.

Then you want something that shows what happens without fireproofing, don't you?

As is typical of folks who do not have a scientific background

What's your background? Do you have a scientific background? What is your degree in and where did you get it?

Ever worked a free-body diagram? Ever analyzed any forces or momentums or anything like that as vectors in high school or college? What about materials science? Do you know the difference between a shear load and tensile and compressive loads? This stuff isn't even my field, and I'm going to have to say I know it better than you do. Even if you do somehow miraculously have a degree relevant to any of this, you don't show it in the least. You certainly never applied it. And least of all are you fooling anyone else that has had this stuff and has listening to other people drone on about these subjects for hours at a time.

But anyone with any knowledge of the science of combustion

Such as yourself, of course, since we just had to explain to you why sooty smoke indicates inefficient combustion. Not just once, but in several posts back to back, because you're hard-headed and just don't want to get it if it forces you to realize you're wrong.

knows that it is much more complicated than that.

Only if it fits your way of looking at things. Otherwise, it would be much simpler!

If it were purely a matter of temperature, then as soon as the fire reached its maximum temperature, the steel would have melted, and the buildings would have collapsed -- all in a matter of seconds.

Right. It depends on temperature AND heat. Unfortunately both were lacking. Do you want an explanation of what the difference is? Or do you want to prove NIST correct in assuming so many wood stoves' worth of heat was being produced per office area?


If you really knew what you were talking about (you're copying and pasting from Googling and I can tell), you would've noticed I was talking about heat transfer in earlier posts. Your slip usually show this often?

[edit on 20-11-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Haroki
You stated that the trusses would able to survive 2 hours unprotected. Read the chart carefully. They all had fire proofing on them.

Then you want something that shows what happens without fireproofing, don't you?

As is typical of folks who do not have a scientific background

What's your background? Do you have a scientific background? What is your degree in and where did you get it?

Ever worked a free-body diagram? Ever analyzed any forces or momentums or anything like that as vectors in high school or college? What about materials science? Do you know the difference between a shear load and tensile and compressive loads? This stuff isn't even my field, and I'm going to have to say I know it better than you do. Even if you do somehow miraculously have a degree relevant to any of this, you don't show it in the least. You certainly never applied it. And least of all are you fooling anyone else that has had this stuff and has listening to other people drone on about these subjects for hours at a time.

But anyone with any knowledge of the science of combustion

Such as yourself, of course, since we just had to explain to you why sooty smoke indicates inefficient combustion. Not just once, but in several posts back to back, because you're hard-headed and just don't want to get it if it forces you to realize you're wrong.

knows that it is much more complicated than that.

Only if it fits your way of looking at things. Otherwise, it would be much simpler!

If it were purely a matter of temperature, then as soon as the fire reached its maximum temperature, the steel would have melted, and the buildings would have collapsed -- all in a matter of seconds.

Right. It depends on temperature AND heat. Unfortunately both were lacking. Do you want an explanation of what the difference is? Or do you want to prove NIST correct in assuming so many wood stoves' worth of heat was being produced per office area?


If you really knew what you were talking about (you're copying and pasting from Googling and I can tell), you would've noticed I was talking about heat transfer in earlier posts. Your slip usually show this often?

[edit on 20-11-2007 by bsbray11]

Well, looks like you and Billybob missed me laughing at the end of my last post. OF COURSE IT'S NONSENSE !!!! That's why no one in the debunker camp is running with it. Cuz they actually have some personal integrity, unlike the Scholars for Truth, etc....

But I find it hilarious that when the same type of claim is made from the CTer camp, it's then promoted as the next big thing to prove 9/11 was an inside job. A perfect example would be Jim Hoffman's paper where he states that it would have taken at least 10x the available energy from a gravity driven collapse to pulverize the concrete, proving explosives were used, and because he has some letters after his name, it taken as a damning piece of evidence. But nobody in the CT camp ever checked his figures. If they would have, they would have found out that he was suggesting that there was an explosive equivalent force of 860 TONS of TNT. Ridiculous, but nobody ever checked it.....

Also noticed you never answered my Q about your claim that the fires were being fought. Just admit you had a weak moment dude......

Ha ha ha, I know all about sooty smoke, correct air/fuel mixtures, etc. In my younger, skinnier days I used to race dirt bikes - 2 strokes - and an important skill in having your bike make best power is reading spark plugs. So you never proved anything to me. Rather , I proved that your statement that there was a less than optimum burning, based on black smoke, to be misleading. Reread my post with Griff, he agrees with what I was saying regarding that.

Haroki, that last post was a complete rant and I'm still waiting for you to explain to all of us non-scientific types here what your degree is in and where you got it.

Originally posted by Haroki
Also noticed you never answered my Q about your claim that the fires were being fought. Just admit you had a weak moment dude......

I missed that comment but it really doesn't matter whether they were being fought or not. I know there were firemen in the building, I can only imagine what they would've been trying to do to the fires. Either way I can post a steel-framed structure laid out almost exactly like the towers (core structure and exterior columns carrying loads) that burned on the same range of floors for a longer period of time, completely gutting floors, and not losing any of its ability to hold itself up (First Interstate Bank), which was my point.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Haroki, that last post was a complete rant and I'm still waiting for you to explain to all of us non-scientific types here what your degree is in and where you got it.

Originally posted by Haroki
Also noticed you never answered my Q about your claim that the fires were being fought. Just admit you had a weak moment dude......

I missed that comment but it really doesn't matter whether they were being fought or not. I know there were firemen in the building, I can only imagine what they would've been trying to do to the fires. Either way I can post a steel-framed structure laid out almost exactly like the towers (core structure and exterior columns carrying loads) that burned on the same range of floors for a longer period of time, completely gutting floors, and not losing any of its ability to hold itself up (First Interstate Bank), which was my point.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by bsbray11]

Let's see.....

1- whether or not the fires being fought matters cuz YOU claimed that they were as a way to explain how "cool" the fires were. So far, no evidence to show this.

2- You claimed that the unprotected steel was "certified" for 2 hrs. So far, no evidence to show this.

3- Griff agrees with me when I say that black smoke, etc is in no way a reliable way to determine fire temps. I t is pure speculation on your part that the fires were burning at "less than optimum temps". Griff also agrees that a better way of determining fire temps is to examine flame color. So far, no evidence from you to show that this is a better way to determine fire temps.

4- I would bet the farm that any buildings you have to show me DIDN'T have 767 hit them at 500+mph also. NIST says that the buildings more than likely would have stood from fire alone or from the impacts alone, but the 2 factors together led to its' collapse. No evidence to the contrary from you yet to contradict this.

5- welcome to the world of ignore.....

Have a nice Thanksgiving

Originally posted by Haroki
1- whether or not the fires being fought matters cuz YOU claimed that they were as a way to explain how "cool" the fires were. So far, no evidence to show this.

The smoke was sooty. That's less than 825 C, which is the optimum temperature you should be getting from a hydrocarbon fire. That's enough by itself. If you have problems with this information, that's not my fault.

2- You claimed that the unprotected steel was "certified" for 2 hrs. So far, no evidence to show this.

All structural steel has to be up to this code. I don't have the code on hand. That Ryan guy with UL, you know his name, brought it up to the NIST team and was fired. Why don't you bring up the letter he sent NIST? We can even look. If he was wrong, it would be simple to correct his reasoning. Instead, he was fired. And don't you tell me if these laws exist or not, because I know that you don't know what in the hell you're talking about, and I'm pretty sure Griff (who is a civil engineer) knows something at least vaguely about these codes, too, that all legal steel has to be up to.

3- Griff agrees with me when I say that black smoke, etc is in no way a reliable way to determine fire temps.

The fires were sooty and that means there were less than the theoretical limit for hydrocarbon fires in general (less than ~825 C). Why don't you ask him what he thinks about that? I think he just explained the very same thing to you at least twice.

I t is pure speculation on your part that the fires were burning at "less than optimum temps".

You see black smoke? That is soot. That is the proof.

If you don't understand, that's really not my problem. What's your degree in, again? You know, I'm just assuming you're still in high school or something, the way you keep dodging this, and that you haven't had any of the material we're talking about yet.

Griff also agrees that a better way of determining fire temps is to examine flame color. So far, no evidence from you to show that this is a better way to determine fire temps.

Wait -- Griff says something, and I have to prove it? Or are your words coming out wrong?

4- I would bet the farm that any buildings you have to show me DIDN'T have 767 hit them at 500+mph also.

I knew this was coming. It doesn't matter. We know how much damage the planes did and the fires would have to compromise at least 3x as much structural integrity as the plane impacts, assuming a "floor" has a safety factor of only 2. It isn't realistic.

NIST says that the buildings more than likely would have stood from fire alone or from the impacts alone,

NIST says a lot of things. I only refer to their data or to make a point that even they agree with something I'm saying.


I'm assuming I'm going to the "world of ignore" because I keep asking where you got your degree and what it's in, after you insulted all of us 'non-scientific types'. It really bugs you doesn't it? Because you're absorbed in this stuff totally backwards. Your pride dictates what you post.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Haroki
I t is pure speculation on your part that the fires were burning at "less than optimum temps".

Just to add to this...A fire will almost never burn at optimum temps unless the conditions are perfect, which they pretty much never are unless the burn is controlled. So no it's not speculation, as it is expected that the fire would be burning at 'less than optimum temps'.

For example jet fuels burns at a max of 1000C (approx) but only in a controlled burn, in the open air it burns at around 300C (approx). A pretty big difference.

When a fire starts out with light smoke which then turns dark it is a good sign that the fire is starved of oxygen or burnable fuel, which causes a 'less than optimum burn temp'. If the fire starts out with dark smoke then it could be the fuel itself, plastics etc... Which do we observe at the WTC?
Why would the fuel source change? It wouldn't...

(BTW you guys seem to get all your de-bunking from 9-11myths huh?...)

Originally posted by ANOK


(BTW you guys seem to get all your de-bunking from 9-11myths huh?...)

Anok ~

I am impressed that you are reading some facts for a change! Can I point you to the following?:

www.debunking911.com

forums.randi.org... (this is the jref forum, use the TAGS tab to do a search for almost all 911 topics)

Mark Roberts Debunking Papers:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

911stories.googlepages.com...

Let me know if you would like more

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Not interested in your de-bunking sites mate. There is nothing on any of them going to explain how physics was defied that day...

I'd like to hear you explain how office fire got hot enough to cause global failure of thousands of tons of construction steel in an hour, and ejected pieces of it weighing tons as far away as the Winter Garden.

Until you can do that, in your own words (no links pls), then I'm not interested in any of your other BS.

reply to post by ANOK


B.S. ? I am not a metalologist, a structural engineer, or a back ground in Physics. I would assume you don't as well.

What I don't understand is that you will take something in MY words, yet will not take the words of Peer reviewed papers. Thats kind of weird. I posted links for you to read papers that were EXACTLY what you were looking for. That explained in detail HOW the towers collapsed. I once again ASSUME you did not read them

You Anok are not searching for the truth ...you are searching to back up your theory that you have already made up in you mind is factual.

That mate is B.S.