OGCT True Believers Bullshit Excuses, Need help to sink OGCT True Believers BS Excuses Options

[Roark]

1000'F? You are full of it buddy.

Flash over temps don't get hot enough to melt steel.

Moving the goalposts again, I see.

Who said anything about melting.

FIRE CANNOT WEAKEN STRUCTURAL STEEL!!!!

[rob balsamo]

(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/ground_zero_arial1paintWTCdamage2.jpg)

Hmmm.. what "Mission" was he referring to?

(IMG:http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/070827_bush_0.jpg)

[rob balsamo]

(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/wtcsteelconctbigpaint.jpg)

[Roark]

From a real peer reviewed paper

The unprotected composite truss with a supporting column was shown to resist for 16.1 and 18.0 minutes of the standard fire before the progressive buckling of web compression diagonals caused a loss of stability

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Down...C_Baltimore.pdf

[Roark]

(5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

It was only nessessary for the floor trusses to sag.

look up Euler's buckling law.

[rob balsamo]

What caused the ~90% of steel not exposed to fire in the WTC to collapse? The disintegrating ~10% of the so called weakened steel?


Saying the WTC collapsed due to gravity and fire is like saying the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera... err. .wait..


(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[Roark]

From NIST:

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. 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 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

[nicepants]

What caused the ~90% of steel not exposed to fire in the WTC to collapse? The disintegrating ~10% of the so called weakened steel?


Saying the WTC collapsed due to gravity and fire is like saying the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera... err. .wait..


(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Are you looking at % of steel exposed to fire on a per floor basis, or on a per tower basis?

[nicepants]

Considering that the towers were accelerating as they 'crashed' through lower floors, this NIST theory does
not make sense.

Are you suggesting that the lower floors should have caused a deceleration?

[dMz]

It was only nessessary for the floor trusses to sag.

look up Euler's buckling law.

Again, with an unsourced argument. My books aren't located at my internet connection, but I didn't see where Euler's Law of Compressed Columns was a function of temperature in my cursory search. I didn't see where second moment of area/area moment of inertia was a function of temperature either.

What are you using for the effective column length and second moment of area for the WTC 1, 2, and 7 columns (both perimeter and core in the Towers)- I haven't seen those numbers from FEMA or NIST or you before. Care to source that one so that everyone here is on the same page? That whole apples/apples thing...

Sagging floor trusses... Why am I thinking of pancakes and licorice here? Can you show a source where sagging trusses caused the projectile ejection of a 600,000 lb chunk of perimeter structural steel (and the considerable debris field shown in Rob's aerial photo above) was explained by FEMA, ASCE, or NIST? I haven't done much reading on UK sources- they spell funny, and time is a finite resource you know (or is it for you)? Maybe you ought to go read this whole thread Roark- you two have missed several of the questions posed above. I'll wait for "2 NIST Crew" to answer the questions above (both mine and those of others) before I want to swim further into your murky sophist waters..

Where is all the steel crime scene evidence that supports your unsourced sagging floor truss/buckling theory?

Turbofan may have nudged the goalpost a little on the fire/steel thing, but at least Turbofan plays with goalposts...

Again:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4993

Ta. This is getting both tedious and circular from "2 NIST Crew." [Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!- see above]

[Roark]

Considering that the towers were accelerating as they 'crashed' through lower floors, this NIST theory does
not make sense.

So, are you saying that the loads on the lower floors from the collapsing building were even greater than what NIST estimated?

This post has been edited by Roark: May 21 2008, 04:10 PM

[Roark]

I just wasted more of my life reading more BS.

OK, then please detail the technical errors or false claims in that paper.

That summary does not even account for the core columns. It doesn't even mention them!

Once the exterior columns failed, do you think that the core columns could support the entire structure?

[DonM]

So, are you saying that the loads on the lower floors from the collapsing building were even greater than what NIST estimated?

There were virtually NO loads on the lower floors... the upper floors had disintegrated/exploded/pulverized before they ever reached the ground.

[dMz]

It was only nessessary for the floor trusses to sag.

look up Euler's buckling law.

look up-thread and answer all of the "dangling" earlier questions posed to O(b)CT/nicepants/Roark, then...

look up factor of safety...

then bring me some sourced numbers on what those factors were exactly for WTC 1, 2, and 7.

[dMz]

Hey foxy! How's reheat?

[Roark]

There were virtually NO loads on the lower floors... the upper floors had disintegrated/exploded/pulverized before they ever reached the ground.

What happened to the mass then? Did Captain Kirk beam the mass of the upper floors into outer space with a transporter?

[grizz]

nicepants:

Are you suggesting that the lower floors should have caused a deceleration?

Bingo! Give the man a lolipop!

[grizz]

What happened to the mass then?

The mass was pulverized into fine dust by explosives and the dust drifted away. Therefore, there was no weight coming down on the lower floors from the upper floors, because the weight had been displaced into the air.

Very simple, actually.

No lolipop for Roark.

[DonM]

One thing that I have noticed to be a consistent "feature" of de-bunkers arguments when talking about structural steel deforming is that they ALWAYS talk about the temperature of a hydrocarbon flame... they seem to think that that equates to the temperature in the steel structure. It doesn't!!

Heat flows away from a heat source extremely rapidly and it is very difficult to get the temperature to reach any significant level at all, at the source.

[DonM]

The mass was pulverized into fine dust by explosives and the dust drifted away. Therefore, there was no weight coming down on the lower floors from the upper floors, because the weight had been displaced into the air.

Very simple, actually.

No lolipop for Roark.

Exactly! There have been several studies that have shown that the mass of the dust spread around NYC was a pretty good approximation of the mass of the towers.

[Edit] not only that, but I believe Jim Hoffman has calculated that the energy contained in the pyroclastic dust clouds was an order of magnitude higher than was available as potential energy in the buildings.

This post has been edited by DonM: May 21 2008, 10:10 PM