Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?
Options
Comments
-
My eyes only work in the visible light spectrum, I cannot see in infrared, or into the parts of the building further in than the windows.Cheerful Spring wrote: »Overheal does this look like 1000c fires to you?
This magma doesn't look particularly hot, but is somewhere between 700 to 1600 C.
This tungsten cube isn't 3 times brighter than the magma, but is up to 3 times hotter.
Does this pan look like it is -40 C or 300 C ?
Humans are not particularly good at gauging temperature from photography.0 -
What critical thinking led you to believe that? Why is that the only way? Why not by the ways previously described to you? Why not by aliens? Why not by portals? Why not by Merlin's beard?
why not?
That's an awfully big assumption. You aren't leaving room for the possibility that not all floors were engineered equally, and indeed in many high rises they aren't. The top floors are always smaller and lighter because they hold less weight, and being less weight themselves alleviates the spec needed on the floors below. You're also assuming that they wanted to stop moving and swaying (and thermal expansion, even) at all points in the design. Over-constraining a structure can induce internal stresses within it. Buildings aren't designed to be fully rigid, they are designed to sway, and act as spring/dampers against applied forces (Eg. wind, seismic activity), and they are designed with some degree of thermal expansion in mind.
That's hardly surprising to anyone who has ever done Finite Element Analysis (you haven't, I have). When you are designing a structure or assembly you are modeling analytically. They didn't have the same order of magnitude of computer power 10 years ago that we do today, and even still a fully discretized model like you're suggesting would take unnecessary computing power and time to come up with results that are still within the ballpark of R=0.99 for hundreds or thousands of fold more computational resources - so why bother? When you design an assembly the thing to consider is what loads does it need to be specified for (mechanical, thermal) and then you design it for a predictable failure mode - which isn't always at the fasteners, but eg. the steel member itself. Say a steel floor beam: the objective is to hold x,xxx ksi of floor stress (Force/Area), the failure mode you want is plastic yielding, in which the beam fails in the middle (not at the fasteners holding it in place), this failure mode means the floor will bend downward, like an overloaded bookshelf. The bend aka. strain is enough to let people realize in most cases hey wow, this floor is overloaded, and get off or out safely, and because the beam has bent past its plastic yield point, it doesn't return to its original state (elastic failure theory).
Basically their analysis just had to show that the steel went well beyond its ultimate strength, to the limits that it would either fail in the beam itself or that the shear bolts holding it in place would fail. There was no reason to FEA the stress at the bolts until that point, and a big waste of time and effort.
This link explains the failure action of steel pretty well https://www.cmrp.com/blog/faq/analysis-design/exploring-stress-strain-curve-mild-steel.html
This is of course all forgetting that the original 1960s design of the structure made assumptions like the ability to handle a fire started from a single event (not several, as in WTC7) and that there would be a water supression effort in place - except there was no functional supression in WTC7 (the collapse of the towers broke the mains, etc) and the FDNY had decided not to divest resources to the collapse of the towers (and the recovery and the rubble removal) to stop the fires or inevitable collapse of WTC7 which had already been evacuated after the planes hit.
But not any proof. This is all just conjecture. It is not character assassination to point out the fact that his background was in chemicals and his work was in environmental safety and that he was not involved in mechanical engineering, architecture, fire protection engineering, or metallurgy.
There is evidence and I already provided it to you: https://fsel.engr.utexas.edu/pdfs/LEE_PhD_Dissertation_opt1.pdf
At 1000 C (less than 2000 F), steel has an ultimate strength of less than 4 ksi, vs. when it is at room temperature where it has well over 60 ksi.
He can say it all he wants but where is evidence the conversation took place? Is he just allowed to put words into the CEO's mouth? What does the CEO say about this?
They mentioned it, very clearly in their report.
Perhaps the WTC asbestos fireproofing was treated with sulfur: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3256106A/en
Or perhaps the sulfur in the metal compound was sufficient to cause the reaction. The FEMA report lists this as "suggestions for further research." It was not in their scope to investigate. It could well be that a) the steel had enough sulfur in it for the phenomena (ie. FEMA acknowledged concern this event could happen to other steel structures in the future), b) the asbestos was treated chemically with sulfur in its manufacture, c) thermite!!!@#1312! or d) aliens and lizardpeople teleported sulfur powder there
FEMA's metallurgical analysis suggests the steel they believed was from WTC7 experienced temperatures of up to 1000 C. NIST determined the temperatures in WTC7 Exceeded 600 C. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I can tell already you just speculating, expressing viewpoints, and don't know the true facts about the collapse. I have told you already it was impossible and explained why and you still don't get it.
You posting false factoids that don't need to be debunked again for you benefit. I have done it already in different threads
Example is this. Debunked and does not need to be discussed anymore. Videos are available online debunking this and i have posted already.
Perhaps the WTC asbestos fireproofing was treated with sulfur: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3256106A/en
Maybe you need to hear the information from engineer like Dr Hulsey. He compares his study to the NIST study and talks about what they did wrong and did right. Maybe the language he expresses will help you understand the problem?
I leave one video here for you to watch. I going to take a break until Dr Hulsey and NIST study can be compared scientifically side by side.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Cheerful Spring wrote: »I can tell already you just speculating, expressing viewpoints, and don't know the true facts about the collapse. I have told you already it was impossible and explained why and you still don't get it.
You posting false factoids that don't need to be debunked again for you benefit. I have done it already in different threads
Example is this. Debunked and does not need to be discussed anymore. Videos are available online debunking this and i have posted already.
Perhaps the WTC asbestos fireproofing was treated with sulfur: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3256106A/en
Maybe you need to hear the information from engineer like Dr Hulsey. He compares his study to the NIST study and talks about what they did wrong and did right. Maybe the language he expresses will help you understand the problem?
I leave one video here for you to watch. I going to take a break until Dr Hulsey and NIST study can be compared scientifically side by side.
I can tell you are just speculating, soapboxing your viewpoint, and don’t know the true events of the collapse. It has already been explained how it was possible and you still don’t get it. You’re posting falsehoods that don’t need to be debunked again for your benefit, as it has already all been done before.
What color is this kettle? What does that tell us about how hot it is?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement