[tomk]

Gaffney,

Unbelievable.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

You still ignore the eyewitness accounts from WTC-2 . People were in the impact zone and reported back. It's obvious why you ignore their testimony. You ignore them for the same reason NIST ignored them! The people who saw the fires in the impact zone reported something very different from your propaganda. They reported small isolated fires.

Of course the people who reported back reported "survivable for human beings" fires where they were. Which means "less than about 140°F".
THEY SURVIVED to file their reports.
Those who were in "unsurvivable for human beings" fire conditions seem to have been a little negligent in submitting their paperwork.

By the way, you are the one that is ignoring 99% of the reports on the fire conditions on those floors. You are cherry picking about 2 or 3 reports. I am including ALL 200 or more "reports" on the conditions.

Please listen carefully. This is important.

We have over 200 additional reports that you are ignoring. These reports were filed promptly on 9/11. They were filed with the fire fighters & first responders, who - to a man - have stated that, as long as they draw breath, they will NEVER forget those reports.

Over 200 clear, concise, unmistakeable reports on the fire conditions on those floors were filed by poor souls who walked to the ledge outside their window and stepped off into 1000' of empty space.

I spent over 15 years rock climbing in Yosemite Valley & Tahquitz Peak (in Southern California). I know, up close & personal, the sensation of standing on a tiny ledge, on a vertical wall, 1000' in the air. Every time I think of those poor people, it sends a shiver down my spine.

Now, I would like you to explain to me, YOU HEARTLESS DICK, why you choose to ignore those 200+ reports, plus the reports of dozens of people crying on the phone because they couldn't get out & couldn't stand the heat, plus the evidence of the other 500 - 800 innocent people who were cooked in place as they sat at their desks.

Please explain this to me. Please do not ignore this point.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The numbers I gave were straight out of the NIST Report. They are not my numbers.

They were the numbers that YOU cherry-picked. And assigned to them meaning that is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to NIST's precise conclusions.

You repeat, Rainman-like, "NIST did 170 tests on 21 steel columns recovered from the WTC. Only three spots out of 170 spots on those columns had been heated to 250 C. None had been exposed to temperatures over 600 C.
None of the core columns tested had been exposed to temperatures greater than 250 C.."

You ignore the facts:
1. NIST intentionally gathered most of their samples AWAY from "fire floors".
2. NIST explicitly states that those numbers do not represent the upper limits of temperature to which structural components were exposed.
3. NIST DOES list, explicitly, the temperature to which it claims core columns, peripheral columns & floor trusses were exposed.

NIST NCSTAR1-5G.

NIST's temperature claims are summarized in Fig 12-2, pg. 256 & 12-5 pg. 264.

WTC1


WTC2


Look REALLY carefully. Do you see all those yellow, orange & red dots? Those are temps from 600°C - 900°C.

I'll just give you the maximums that NIST states.
WTC1
Perimeter columns: pg. 257. Max temp: 796°C.
Core columns: pg. 258. Max temp: 938°C.

WTC2
Perimeter columns: pg. 265. Max temp: 845°C.
Core columns: pg. 266. Max temp: 817°C.
Floor Trusses: pg 267. Max temp: 921°C.

This is what "NIST says" the columns temps were.

Don't lie by implying that the sampling was a random sampling of the fire floors.
Don't lie by implying a max temp of "oh, around 250°C".

Why are you reduced to lying, Mark?

No need to answer. It is clear to me, it is clear to everyone, that you are reduced to using cherry-picked, quote mined, intentionally misleading statements PRECISELY BECAUSE none of the data - when examined objectively & competently - supports your crappola.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The numbers for factor of safety given at the top of this thread are the correct numbers. You have not disputed them. You can't -- because they are right. Instead of disputing them, you dismiss them as "irrelevant."
But how can the reserve capacity of the columns be irrelevant? (Are you serious?)

Because (for the FIFTH time, for the "special" people in class) the PUBLISHED Factor of Safety (closely related to the Demand-to-Capacity Ration) REQUIRES the "as built, undamaged" building. It is DEFINED ONLY for the "as built" building.

As soon as you damage the building, remove some of the lateral supports for the columns, and change the stresses from "pure axial compression" to "compression plus bending", THEN the DCR changes. It has to be recomputed. And the "as built" DCR becomes meaningless, irrelevant, a "thing of the past".

And NIST lists (for the non-stupid, anyway) the changes in DCRs.

HERE they are. Notice that they are DIFFERENT from the "as built" DCRs.

As built DCR (WTC1)


After impact DCR (WTC1)


Just before collapse DCR (WTC1)


Did you notice that they CHANGED?
Funny thing, Mark. When structures are about to collapse, they DO NOT CARE what the stress levels were "ten minutes ago", or "an hour ago", or "yesterday". They care about the stress levels (& DCRs) are "right now".

Am I going too fast for you, here?

Has it sunk in yet why "the 'as built' DCRs are irrelevant to the collapse mechanisms"?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The other numbers I gave are also straight out of the NIST Report. According to NIST, the WTC averaged only 4 pounds of fuel/square foot in the outer offices. This is their number. According to FEMA this average is at the low end for high rise buildings -- not even enough fuel to sustain a continuous fire over many hours.

Friggin' moron.

OK, Mark. You got me.

Even tho several experts (such as Dr. James Quintiere) claim that NIST drastically underestimated fuel loads...

Originally Posted by Dr. Q

NIST used 4 lb/ft2 (19.5 kg/m2) in their analysis of WTC 1, and presumably did the same for WTC 2. Typical office fuel loads range from 24 to 100 kg kg/m2 [wood equivalent] and average roughly 60 kg/m2.15 The NIST value is low over this range. Based on an analysis ... we reached about 300,000 lbs. or 9.7 psf [44 kg/m2].

Even tho their criterion (that the fire would not have travelled as fast as it did at higher fuel loads) for underestimating those loads was flawed ...

[Aside]
Do you REALLY doubt that spraying a tanker truck's worth of diesel fuel into a building might pick up the pace of a fire spread. Maybe just a tad?

Do you REALLY doubt that the 120 ton, 500 mph jet passing thru the building might "adjust" the desks & paper locations (maybe just a tad?), so that you could have lower fuel loads in some areas, allowing fast spread, even tho the fuel load was normal before the "intrusion" of the B767?

[/Aside]

... even considering the above, I'll give you 4 psf. Which translates into 160,000 pounds (i.e., 80 TONS) of fuel per floor.

Do you not understand that the temperatures that NIST reported for the columns were the direct result from their models using the 4 psf fuel loads that they assumed

Do you not understand that 4 psf PRODUCES column temps of 700C°, 800°C, 900°C & higher?

How clueless are you?

And I will also concede that, with 80 tons of fuel per floor, the fire most likely could NOT have raged, "at full force for many hours".

Too bad that we'll never know, because they collapsed too quickly, eh?

Are you REALLY so brain-dead that you think "... couldn't have raged for many hours" is a compelling argument?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Also -- according to NIST - the fuel in the core was "Negligible."

Da plane, Mark. Da plane!

Da models, Mark. Da models!
(NIST used 4 psf. They used "negligible fuel in the core. They got 900°C.)

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

So you are talking garbage when you tell us there was plenty of fuel. Do you deny that fuel is a limiting factor of the intensity and duration of a fire?

I did not say that there was "plenty of fuel".

NIST says that "with 4 psf, there was sufficient fuel to bring the core temps up to 500°C - 900°C."

Dr. Quintiere says "NIST underestimated the fuel loads by over a factor of 2".

NIST says that the DCR was > 1 for several columns. Which means the stress levels exceeded yield strength.

NIST says that the creep in the columns was excessive. Tilt of the upper section confirms this beyond any doubt.

Drs. Zeng, Tan & Huang have experimental data proving that "structural steel columns under a sustained load of 50% to 70% of their cold strength collapse when heated to 250° C."

Drs. Bazant & Cedolin have shown that "at temperature (of) 250°C, if the column load is raised from 0.3Pt to 0.9Pt [tk note: ie., DCR = 0.9], the critical time of creep buckling gets shortened from 2400 hours to 1 hour."
[Note that, at 100 minutes after impact, 15 of WTC1's core columns had DCRs ≥ 0.9, and another 9 were severed.]

Are you capable of reading, verifying for yourself and comprehending the implications of these pieces of critical data?

Is ANY of this sinking into your thick skull?

Nah, didn't think so...

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I cited four engineers who disagree with you -- and you dismiss them all with a casual wave of your arm - as idiots or incompetent.

You'll forgive me.
The only engineers that I recall you mentioning were Zdenek Bazant, John Skilling, Tony Szamboti & Genady Cherepanov.

And now, you're reduced to simply lying.
I did not "dismiss anybody with a casual wave of my arm".

Bazant agrees with me.

But perhaps you aren't bright enough to understand that.

Skilling would too, if he were alive. In regards to his comment about "designed to survive a jet impact", I gave you a DETAILED explanation - one instantly recognizable as true by any Mechanical or Structural Engineer who career has spanned the era of slide rules to supercomputers (as mine has) - as to why this story can not possibly be true. That was not "hand waving".

But evidently you aren't bright enough to understand the explanation.

Szamboti: I explained PRECISELY why his theory of the "missing jolt" can not possibly be true. (It requires the columns to hit square after 1, 2 & 3 stories of fall, which is physically impossible.)

But evidently you aren't bright enough to understand the explanation.

Cherepanov: I explained PRECISELY why his theory of a brittle fracture wave can not possibly be true. (It requires brittle fracture. No evidence was seen in the columns of brittle fracture. Plus 100 years of experience with low carbon mild steel tells us that it does NOT fail in this way.)

But evidently you aren't bright enough to understand the explanation.

Mark, the sad fact that you aren't bright enough to understand the rather simple, trivial explanations that I've provided does NOT mean that I've "hand waved away" the issues.

The fact that you continue to repeat the same debunked, completely erroneous assertions after their errors have been explained in detail DOES prove that you have "brain-waved" them away.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I could cite many more engineers who also disagree with you. No doubt, you would respond the same way.

Be my guest.

List your engineers.

But we'll stick with the cream of the crop, if you don't mind. In order to eliminate the inconsequential & incompetent, please list ONLY ones that have:

1. published their work
2. in peer reviewed publications
3. studies that pertain to the events of 9/11.
4. have a demonstrated background and experience in the field of study that pertains to their 9/11 publication.

I'll provide you my list of 200+ PhD's, PEs etc. that meet those requirements JUST AS SOON as you have published your list.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot or incompetent.

Allow me to explain something.

There is a certain amount of art in engineering. Especially in modeling. But also in design.

But there is no art, no subjectivity, to the fundamental principles. There is ONE right answer. EVERY OTHER answer is wrong.

It is not a "matter of opinion" as to whether the decrease in yield strength or the decrease in modulus at high temperatures is more important to the collapse. There is ONE right answer. (Psssst, Mark. It AIN'T the strength. But you're not bright enough to understand that.)

If you disagree with me as to who is a better painter, Renoir or Picasso, you're not an idiot.
If you disagree with me as to which is the better music, country or rap, you're not an idiot.
If you disagree with me as to whether or not A36 steel creeps at high stress & low temp, yeah, you're an idiot. AND incompetent.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

You are in a tough spot. You are making a very improbable case. Never had a steel frame tower collapsed before 9/11 due to fire. Never has one, since. Yet, we are supposed to believe that on this day three of them did just that.

Oh, Christ on a bicycle. Are we back in 2006 again?

You haven't a clue what you are talking about. LOTS of steel framed structures have collapsed in fires. Why the hell do you think that engineers go to such expense to wrap them in insulation, moe-ron. Ever heard of Dresden? Tokyo? Check out some of the images of the buildings that collapsed from fire alone after the fire-bombings of WWII.

Ever heard of McCormick Place? Kadar Toy Factory? Sight & Sound Theater?

Ever heard of the Windsor Towers In Madrid? EVERY SINGLE uninsulated steel column buckled and/or collapsed. EVERY SINGLE insulated steel column survived. In the SAME FIRE.

Are you bright enough to understand the meaning behind that last statement?

In case you want to check it out: http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pro...es/default.htm

If you want to check out what these Fire Engineering experts say about the WTC towers:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pro...radeCenter.htm

Tell me that the engineers at University of Manchester are "Bush apologists"...

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

So WHERE is the extraordinary evidence?
THERE AIN'T NONE. It's that simple.

No, Mark. YOU are that simple.

Where is the proof of a shuttle blowing up prior to the Challenger?
According to you, it couldn't possibly happen. Because it's never happened before...

Idiocy.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

All we have heard from you is techno babble about tilt and creep. Speculation about fuel that was not there - and unproved theories about free fall.

Sure, Mark. Because YOU don't understand them, an engineer's comments about engineering are "techno-babble"...

Oh, boy...

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

But let us focus on WTC-7 -- where there was no impact.

"No impact..."?
"No impact", Mark.
"NO" impact, Mark.

Do you know what the work "no" means?

Do you know what you call it if 400 tons of metal & concrete falls onto a building, Mark? It's called "an impact". (Yeah, I know. Engineering "techno-babble".)

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

And BTW, even NIST admitted at the unveiling of its final report on WTC-7 that the damage from the nearby collapses was not a factor. You don't know this?

No, Mark. NIST did not say that "the damage from the collapses was not a factor".

They said that "the structural damage from the collapses was not the precipitating factor in the collapse".

They also said that the damage from the falling debris started the fires in WTC7. This WAS a factor.

It's that "reading with comprehension" thingy again, Mark.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Also -- your characterization of the fires in WTC-7 is more garbage. Even FEMA concluded in its 2002 report that the "best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.."

Ahhhh, we're back in 2002 now, eh Mark?

Did you know that, in 150 AD, medicine thought that there were 4 "humours" that controlled physical health. I guess, according to your pathetic epistemology, this means that this must be the state of modern medicine, eh, Mark?

We can't possibly have learned anything since 150 AD. Or since 2002. Eh, Mark?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I think Cherepanov is correct.

No. He is wrong. Structural steel does not suffer brittle fractures at room temperatures.

It is an inescapable consequence of his nonsense that the entire towers must have immediately shattered like glass, from the collapse floors to the street level, as soon as the collapse began.

Video evidence PROVES unequivocally that this did not happen.

QED. Cherepanov is wrong.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

If WTC-7 was a demolition -- then so were the twin towers.

I've got a better - and equally "correct" - postulate. You'll love this one, Mark.

We can call it "Tom's Theorem of 9/11 Investigators".

It goes like this: "If you, Mark, are a moe-ron, then ALL truthers are moe-rons."

Whaddaya think?

Markie like?

Tom