Can a jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? An experiment.

[spooked911]

I set up the following experiment using steel rabbit fencing as the steel structure supporting a heavy cement block.

Note, this fencing is easily bendable, has no significant rigidity, and was not reinforced in any way. The fencing was bent into an outer square and an inner rectangle (the core):


Then I damaged the "columns" by cutting them with wire cutters:



Just inside where the gash was made in the outer wall, I placed a cup of kerosene (jet fuel), and there was newspaper around the bottom on the structure.

Then I put a heavy cement block on top, weighing about 15 pounds. I don't think the wire structure would hold more than three of these blocks, so the "safety factor" was not particularly high.


Then I tipped over the cup and lit the kerosene:



Then fire burned for about twenty minutes, and toward the end, I put my foot on the structure to see if it would extra weight. It still did:


The structure held up fine after the fire died:


After the fire was hot, the "columns" were not hot at all:



In a second experiment, I used the same wire fence and block set up, but increased the amount of "airplane damage", added in newspaper all around the inside of the structure, and soaked everything thoroughly with kerosene. In this expt, the fire was more intense and lasted significantly longer, but... the structure held up just fine. (Sorry no pictures of this one).

What I conclude is that a fairly flimsy steel structure does not distort and bend and collapse very easily from a simple hydrocarbon fire. And thus, it is not clear why the much stronger steel columns in the WTC towers weakened so much from fires that the towers underwent global collapse.

If kerosene/jet fuel/hydrocarbon fires can indeed cause steel structures to collapse, it should be quite simple to show this in an experiment-- right?

[MrSammo1]

1. keep adding

more weight (more bricks) to your test.

That way a few mouths here will drop to the floor.

[Make7]

2. Can a non-jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? Reality.

When you enter a lightweight steel bar joist building on fire and you hear popping, cracking, creaking and metal to metal rubbing together, get out, the trusses are failing. It is not safe to enter for any reason. At 205 West Jefferson Street Captain Patterson, Engine 108, the first engine on the scene reported hearing popping sounds, cracking sounds and things that just did not sound right. After moving in about twenty feet attacking the fire, he wisely evacuated the building. The roof collapsed shortly after they evacuated. All of these sounds were steel I beams and trusses failing. At a recent warehouse fire in Prince George’s County MD companies were operating on the interior of the lightweight steel bar joist building. When Volunteer Chief 33, Ricky Riley, arrived on the scene and radioed his engine crew, he asked them, "what do you hear, do you hear anything", the response from the company officer was "yes, there are popping sounds" He ordered all interior companies to evacuate the building. The roof collapsed approximetley ten minutes after evacuation. Again, the sounds were the roof trusses failing.

http://www.mutualbox.com/a_building_fire_and_structural_f.htm

In Chicago, Illinois, the McCormick Place Exhibition Center collapsed as a result of a fire in 1967. In this structure, the steel-frame of the building was unprotected. The reference to McCormick Place is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel.

http://www.iaei.org/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

[spooked911]

4. The WTC was not a "lightweight steel bar joist building"

and the the McCormick Place Exhibition Center was a special case-- it was under construction and not a high-rise.

[Make7]

10. Was it a chicken wire building? ( n/t )

[spooked911]

24. Of course not-- all the more reason why it would resist collapse.

[Make7]

33. So your original objection, to my posted real world examples,...

...was that the construction method was different.

Yet to set up your experiment, you make absolutely zero attempt to approximate anything resembling the structure of the World Trade Center buildings. Shouldn't your objection apply to your own experiment?

-Make7

[petgoat]

39. the construction method was different.

Your examples involve unfireproofed trussed-roof spans that failed from
big fires. The columns didn't fail.

NIST says that because the fireproofing was removed from the core
columns, therefore the columns failed. They do not put forth the
pancake theory that collapsing floors brought the towers down. They do
say that weakened and sagging floors pulled on the perimeter columns and
buckled them, but their evidence for this is photographs that can
easily be explained alternatively by optical distortions produced by
heat waves.

Spooked's experiment tested the strength of vertical columns in a fire.

[MercutioATC]

48. Spooked's experiments DID test the strength of vertical columns in a fire.

...the vertical strength of chicken wire weighed down by a concrete block (and a foot) exposed to a fire fueled by a spilled cup of kerosene.

Please show me how, with absoultely NO scaling to an actual building, this is anything other than an opportunity to post pictures of his foot.

[Make7]

53. LOL! ( n/t )

[Make7]

55. Let me see if I understand this.

In the real world examples I posted, fire caused a failure of horizontal steel structural elements.

But if the steel structural elements are vertical, fire will not have any effect on their strength?
____________________

The fact remains that increased temperatures caused by fires will have an effect on the strength of steel.

Spooked911's experiment does not model any structure enough to make any conclusions based on his results.

-Make7

[spooked911]

70. Do you think heat will affect vertical and horizontal steel

structural elements the same way?

[Make7]

73. If it is the same type of steel and is raised to the same temperature...

... over the same sized area, I think the reduction in strength would be very similar. Of course, what effect this has on any structure the steel is part of would depend on the type, size, and direction of any loads on the steel members and the ability of those members to handle them.

-Make7

[Make7]

16. McCormick Place officially opened in 1960. The fire was in 1967.

"In addition, McCormick Place officially opened in 1960, but a fire destroyed the building on January 17, 1967."

http://www.meetinchicago.com/meet_history.html

[spooked911]

22. I can't find the link right now, but someone on this board had a post

about McCormick place and how it wasn't completely constructed.

Perhaps he was referring to the fact that the building code wasn't complete at the time and the steel roof wasn't protected? In any case, the McCormick place collapse, although it apparently involved fire causing a steel roof to buckle, was a unique case.

[Kevin Fenton]

25. L'Enfant Plaza

If I remember rightly it was the steel building at L'Enfant Plaza which was not finished but collapsed.

McCormick Place just didn't have any fireproofing on the steel, bad wiring and a shit load of combustibles. Obviously, the WTC originally had fireproofing but whether the fireproofing was knocked off 82 of the 84 vertical columns and 140,000 square feet of floor area by the impacts, as NIST claims, is still open to question IMHO. Also, NIST found that the WTC had a significantly below average amount of combustibles, but then ignored this finding when it ran its severe case models.

[Make7]

32. Do they have exhibits in convention centers still under construction?

Six-year-old McCormick Place was thoroughly damaged in a fire that started during the National Housewares Manufacturers Association 46th Semi-Annual Exhibit. One security guard was killed.

A janitor noticed smoke coming from the back of a booth about 2:05 a.m. Within 5 minutes the entire booth was involved and the fire department called at 2:11 a.m. The fire department responded rapidly, entering the building and ordering a second alarm at 2:16 a.m. Nine alarms were struck, bringing 500 persons and 94 pieces of fire equipment. Initial attempts to fight the fire were frustrated by an almost immediate failure of the water supply. By 2:53 a.m. firefighters were able to establish a relay from hydrants 1/4 mile away and the first fire boat arrived, but by then the whole building was involved in the fire and the roof had started collapsing. The fire was struck out at 9:46 a.m. with only parts of the lower level and the theater undamaged.

A number of factors contributed to the catastrophe. Most of these would have been sufficient by themselves to cause great destruction. The 1,250 exhibits were constructed of highly flammable wood, paper and plastic. The temporary wiring used to rig exhibits was often not up to the building code.

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html

So the fact that a building with steel structure has actually collapsed due to a fire does not lead one to believe that it is possible for fire to have an effect on the structure of a building constructed with steel? Because it was a unique case? Whereas the World Trade Center collapses were a common occurrence?

-Make7

[MrSammo1]

34. Steel

expanding.

Beware of a lot of planted BS on the Internet.

[MrSammo1]

35. Can a non-jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse

steel expanding!

Beware of any post 911 sites that talk about collapsing buildings.

spooked911 is on the right track.


===============================================================
The word "conspiracy" has become a meaningless cliche-word. In fact, remember that the printed word is no longer a means of testing reality!
===============================================================

[MercutioATC]

3. Well, I"M convinced...

Who am I to argue with a plastic cup of kerosene, a concrete paver and some chicken wire?

:rofl:

[spooked911]

5. I assume you can show us how the fires caused the collapse then?

[MercutioATC]

6. No, obviously you can't either...

The difference is that I wouldn't take an aluminum can and some kerosene, fail to make a working jet aircraft, and use that as evidence that flight was impossible.

[petgoat]

7. "an aluminum can and some kerosene"

That's an unfair example because a jet engine is a complex mechanism and
the fact that a crude model doesn't work is meaningless.

Spooked is modeling a much simpler phenominon: The behavior of steel
under load in a fire. The model is crude but successful. Of course it
models only the behavior of the vertical elements. But I don't think
NIST is asserting the pancake theory, anyway.

Spooked is to be much commended for getting his hands dirty and actually
testing this.

[MercutioATC]

8. You don't think a hi-rise building is a little more complex than some

chicken wire and a cinder block?

Glad you're not designing any buildings in MY neighborhood.

My point is that there were absolutely NO measured parallels to the WTC collapses. Was the fire proportionally the right temperature? Was the steel proportionally as thick? Were the welds in the chicken wire proportionally equal in strength to the welds/rivets of the WTC columns?

Does setting a concrete paver on top of some chicken wire and lighting the thing on fire measure ANYTHING? No.

[petgoat]

9. You don't think a hi-rise building is a little more complex

Of course a building is more complex and of course it's a crude model
and of course there's an inherent problem in simulating big things with
small models. Does it measure anything? Yes it does. You can
calculate the square inches of steel in the vertical members in the
model and you can calculate the load on it and you can say that a
twenty-minute kerosene fire did not lessen the vertical load-bearing
capacity of this mild steel loaded at so many pounds per square inch.

Of course it would be interesting to try a bigger load, and see how much
load you need before the fire will weaken the steel.

[MercutioATC]

11. Then go ahead and calculate it...

Spooked911 sure as hell didn't.

[spooked911]

18. I'm asking YOU or LARED or someone who supports the official story

to show it. Because no one has yet.

The fact is, I didn't know what to expect with my model when I set it up.

I did NOT try to rig the model so it wouldn't collapse. I used easily bendable wire fencing as a support. I used ample kerosene and some newspaper as fuel.

Obviously it is not a perfect model but that wasn't the point.

The point is that it is not so easy to weaken steel with a hydrocarbon fire.

[MercutioATC]

29. I'm not accusing you of manipulating the results.

I'm simply stating that there is zero correlation between your experiment and the collapse of the WTC towers. Had your little tower of chicken wire collapsed during or after the fire, that wouldn't have had any correlation, either.

[petgoat]

110. Had spooked's cage failed, we could have criticized his study

on the basis that the perimeter columns were too few in number, or they were 50 times too long,
or they were a weak kind of steel, or there was too much oxygen in the fire, or the weight was
too great and out of scale.

[Totallybushed]

107. Actually, it is.

Hot rolling of steel, for example, requires heating. Gas does the trick in many mills. All it takes is for the steel to get red hot and undergo the ferrite to austenite phase change.

[petgoat]

259. There's no point in calculating it. The model is too crude

to be meaningful.

If we refined a model so that we had two slightly different versions, one of which repeatedly
failed and one of which repeatedly endured, then we might have something worth calculating.

It would also be interesting to study the effect of asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical
fires. I wish NIST had spent a few million dollars burning up giant rabbit cages instead
of producing a "trust us, we used a big computer and we have lots of pretty graphics!" snow-job.

But they couldn't do that because they've found that their empirical experiments have a
uncanny habit of producing the wrong results.

[spooked911]

17. Thank you, exactly my point.

[LARED]

12. The behavior of steel under load in a fire

FYI, The NIST guys have been studying this for years. You should check out what they think about the fires and collapse of the WTC.

[petgoat]

30. I have checked out what NIST "thinks"

They think they can draw a pretty rainbow picture of the temperatures
achieved in such detail that you'd think they had sensors arranged on an
8" grid. They think we'll believe that even though they have NO, NONE,
NOT ONE PIECE of core steel showing heating above 250 degrees C.

They think that collapse initiation inevitably leads to total
progressive collapse--because that's what happened, right?--so they need
not model the collapse.

They think that it's not necessary to test the steel samples for
explosive residue.

[spooked911]

71. Exactly!!!

[WoodrowFan]

13. I'm just surprised

I'm just surprised that they let you use matches. BOL!!!! This is a funny as the RWer that tried to proved that Vince Foster was "murdered" by shooting a pumpkin!!!

[LARED]

14. If you want to improve your model

Make it 6 feet high for every foot wide.

Add enough fuel to last at least thirty minutes.

Enclose the outer cage with somthing solid that does not burn easily. Leave an inch or two at the bottom to have an air supply. so theheat is trapped inside.

Let us know how you made out.

[spooked911]

19. How about YOU try it, since you believe the official story?

[LARED]

21. Because

the NIST already provided an excellent model that far, far exceeds anything I am capable of doing.

My suggestion was to help you design a model that better characterizes the WTC structure. The height to width ratio, and fire loading, is critical if you want a model that is representative.

[spooked911]

23. where is their model of the collapse, please?

[LARED]

27. Good Lord man, it's here

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf

[spooked911]

28. No, I don't want that. I want their model of how fire

induced the column weakening, which columns failed, their calculations, and how it precipitated global collapse.

If you know where that information is in there, please point me to it.

[spooked911]

72. Where is the detailed NIST model of the collapse?

Where are the calculations? The details on what columns failed and when and how global collapse ensued?

All I've seen from NIST regarding the collapse is a lot of pretty pictures showing heat patterns on damaged WTC floors, all of which may well be completely fabricated.

As far as I can see, they assume the heat (which is not evenly distributed) causes one floor to collapse (by some unclear mechanism), and from then on, their assumption is that this will bring down the whole building.

If I have it wrong, please let me know.

[Sinti]

99. Actually, the NIST is still trying to duplicate what happened on 9/11

With physical scale models in the lab. They haven't managed it just yet. There are many more questions than answers, regardless of what folks would have you believe. What they can say is that the jet fuel burns off in about 10 minutes. Most (if not all) of those government scientists are really good people, trying to do a hard job there. FWIW, if you are told not to find something, well, you just don't find it or you find another job. Explosives are not permitted as part of the possible theory of failure.

Computer models are no substitute for the real thing. It's like comparing a fire drill to an actual fire.

[petgoat]

121. According to Kevin Ryan,

NIST fudged their model tests, and then ignored the results if they didn't turn out
"right".

Their workstation burn test achieved desired results (in terms of
gas temps, not steel temps) by doubling the amount of hydrocarbon
fuel and over-ventilating.

WTC1 had new fireproofing upgrade with 2X the amount NIST used
in its floor models. NIST doubled the floor load.

After two hours in a high-heat furnace, NIST's 35 foot floor deck model
sagged only a few inches if at all. In the computer they turned the sagging
to 42 inches and doubled the time.

(That's what my notes say anyway, from one viewing of the video below. Wish I
had time to watch it again. Caveat lecteur! And if anybody should view the
video I would appreciate a heads up about any errors above.)

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/presentation-by-kevin-ryan-from.html

[Carefulplease]

145. NIST's fudged models

Did Ryan mention that one of the two 35 foot test assembly was brought to the brinks of collapse within 2 hours?

Keeps in mind also that some floors spanned 60 foot in the towers and that these fire resistance tests were performed with undamaged structures that had intact fire proofings, unlike some damaged floors of the WTC. Also, the effect of diconnecting them from a few columns weren't modeled in these tests.

[dailykoff]

154. Every single lightweight web truss could have failed

and the towers would still be standing, because there were also beams in every floor assembly tying the core columns to the outer walls.

[Carefulplease]

181. Are you sure about these beams?

Can you point them out to me on this
floor plan or elsewhere? (The plan is on page 5)

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6C.pdf

[dailykoff]

187. Yes.

I can point them out on an actual floor framing plan.

The NIST drawings are cartoons, and don't show or identify the floor beams. But that's only one of the ways they're inaccurate.

[Jazz2006]

216. Link, please. n/t

[dailykoff]

217. File an FOIA request.

WTC construction documents are "classified."

For national security reasons.

:rofl:

[Jazz2006]

219. So, you can point out these beams even though you have never seen any

evidence upon which to believe that they exist? Is that what you're saying?

The floor plans actually do exist, you know.

See here, for instance, and call them up ~ they're still located in downtown Manhattan:

http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_september11.htm

Scroll down to the 6th video, watch it and you'll see close ups of the originals. Then give them a call and ask them if you can come by to point out the beams that you are so sure existed.

Oh, and please be sure to post images here of the results of your research.

[dailykoff]

220. Yes.

I can point them out on an actual floor framing plan.

[Jazz2006]

221. And your evidence that they existed is?????

I've given you a roadmap to the original plans, but that aside, upon what basis do you assert that they existed at all?

Or is this just something that you "believe" without any basis upon which to believe it?

[dailykoff]

222. Find a framing plan and I'll explain it to you.

That should be easy with your "roadmap."

[Jazz2006]

223. Can't answer the question, I see.

It's simple, really, and I've asked it twice now.

Upon what basis do you assert that these beams you've described ever existed?

Still can't answer?

And yeah, I gave you a link to a source that shows that the originals exist, and suggested a simple way to follow up on your as yet unfounded assertion, and yet you have obviously not looked at it.

And you still can't answer the very straightforward question.

So, once again, upon what basis do you assert that the beams you describe ever existed?

Edit: to make it clearer than clear:

You said

"there were also beams in every floor assembly tying the core columns to the outer walls"

And all I am asking is that you provide some basis for this assertion of yours. Frankly, it looks like something that you pulled out of your ass thusfar.

[dailykoff]

224. I believe I've answered it four times. Good night. (n/t)

[Jazz2006]

225. No, you haven't even answered it once.

But you know that.

So, I'll ask again: upon what basis do you assert that these beams you describe ever existed?

Should be a simple question for you since you insist that they existed. You must have some reason for thinking that they did. What is that reason?

[Jazz2006]

226. It seems apparent that she can't.

No big surprise, that.

There also used to be a poster here who insisted that the towers had a concrete core and that all the evidence of its existence had been co-opted by the government.

Stick around and you'll get used to the outrageous claims made by certain CT posters with absolutely nothing to back up their assertions. But you'll also find that there is a whole lot more that is great and wonderful about DU and that very few here wear tin foil hats, particularly once you check out other areas of DU and if you do not confine yourself to the "dungeon" like so many of the tinhatters do.

It's really a terrific place, with an amazing and wide ranging spectrum of fora, groups, journals, etc. that is unrivalled among other online boards.

And welcome to DU :hi:

[dailykoff]

227. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it think. (n/t)

[Jazz2006]

239. Lol. Talk about non-sequiturs....

Of course, photographic proof of your ability to even lead a horse to water is required in light of your prior posts, as is seems open to debate whether you even know where the water source is located.

[mirandapriestly]

240. I prefer the Dorothy Parker version

in reference to who you are dealing with :evilgrin:

[Jazz2006]

242. Oh, and you think that's clever, I'll bet.

If you want to call me a whore, miranda, just come out and say it.

Don't bother trying to pretend to be clever and cute about it.

It's neither clever nor cute.

You're just continuing to demonstrate your weird fixation on me.

Creepy, that.

[mirandapriestly]

244. Why is it when I post to you it's a "weird fixation"

but when you constantly make personal attacks on me and others it's business as usual? And, actually I don't even think you're a woman, I just couldn't resist the pun, and I'm sure you had to look it up, Ms Parker wouldn't be in the library of your trailer.

[Jazz2006]

245. I've never made any "personal attacks" on you

despite your repeatedly saying so at every opportunity on numerous threads.

But you know that.

As for the rest of your post, which is pure insult and nonsense, I am not going to be drawn into your game of taking the bait so that this subthread will be deleted, as I would prefer that your ridiculous comments stand for everyone to see.

[mirandapriestly]

282. So what was on all those deleted posts?

Some of them were so bad I didn't even get to see them, first.

[Jazz2006]

246. And

I'm posting this separately rather than editing my last post so as not to disrupt the sub thread in the event that you manage to get it deleted in whole or in part in an effort to hide your unwarranted and ridiculous posts above.

It is wholly disingenuous for you to now say that you "don't even think I'm a woman" in order to try to get around the fact that you are calling me a whore when you went out of your way to ascertain my gender previously and you've long known that I am, in fact, a woman. (Not that it's any secret - I've even posted photos, as you well know.)

And as for your fixation, it is a fixation because 9 times out of 10 your posts ABOUT me are not directed TO me or in response to my posts, but are directed to others with whom you share an affinity on conspiracy theories. Just like the one above in which you started your not so clever, not so cute crap. You weren't responding to me, you were responding to someone else for no other purpose than to call me a whore.

There's much more, of course, but like I said, I don't want these posts deleted. I want them to stand just where they are.

[mirandapriestly]

247. Stop stalking me

it's making me feel uncomfortable. You are also putting words into my mouth. Everyone thought you were male until you said you were female. People are usually right about being able to tell that sort of stuff. Creepy, that.

[Name removed]

248. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

250. delete dupe.

when threads get over to the right hand side of the page and no longer show up as indents, it gets difficult to ascertain whether they're in the right place or not, but I now see that my original response was, in fact, in the right place.

[Name removed]

255. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

261. Sing....sing a song...

Sing it loud, sing it strong!

:nopity:

[Jazz2006]

268. Buddy, Rewind and replay "Bush supporters" "neocons" "paid shills" ...

Don't you know any other tunes?

As you well know, just because some of us do not buy into many of the conspiracy theories touted here, that does not make us Bush supporters, neocons, shills, trolls, etc.

[mirandapriestly]

281. Funny , I didn't see him say ANY of those words.

So tell us, how DID 911 go down?

[Carefulplease]

249. Do no truss conspiracy sites about trusses.

Could this be the source of your belief about NIST
and others having suppressed information about
the real design of the WTC towers?

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/they-lied-about-trusses.htm

However, could "they" have forgoten to suppress this?

"The distances between the rectangular core and the square
exterior wall were approximately 36 ft and 60 ft. The areas
outside of the core were free of columns and the floors were
supported by truss-framing in the tenant areas and beam-framing
in the mechanical rooms and other areas. The primary structural
systems for the towers included exterior columns, spandrel beams,
and bracing in the basement floors, core columns, core bracing
at the mechanical floors, core bracing at the main lobby
atrium levels, hat trusses, and the floor systems."

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixb.pdf

In short, spandrel beams are located on floors
1-14 and mechanical floors 41-42 and 75-76.
Fires, structural damage, etc. all occured on
floors 92-98 of WTC1 and 78-83 of WTC2.

[Carefulplease]

251. Trusses and beams.

Edit: Notice that conspiracy sites display photos
taken during the early construction of WTC floors
below the 15th as "proof" that "they" are lying
about trusses and beams.

[dailykoff]

292. You should try reading the NIST report .

Along with lots of laughs, you'll find that it says on page B-53 that floors 41, 42, 43, 75, 76, 77, 107, 108, 109, 110, and the roof of both towers, in addition to the lower floors, were all beam-framed.

Elsewhere in the same section it says floors 44 and 78 were also beam-framed.

Nowhere does it say that those were the ONLY beam-framed floors.

It also doesn't say a word about the fact that all the floors required joist girders -- beams -- to support the outstanding legs of the joists in the two-way grids at each of the four corners of the beam- and truss-framed floors. That's at least eight beams per floor that the NIST is, ahem, reluctant to speak about.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixb.pdf

[Carefulplease]

295. Any evidence for these joist girders?

Along with lots of laughs, you'll find that it says on page B-53 that floors 41, 42, 43, 75, 76, 77, 107, 108, 109, 110, and the roof of both towers, in addition to the lower floors, were all beam-framed.

Elsewhere in the same section it says floors 44 and 78 were also beam-framed.

No. Those are floors 78 and 79, both elevator floors. Floor 44 is not relevant to the model. They do not mention it anyway. These floors are truss framed in the long span areas and beam framed in the short span areas. How naughty of NIST to hide this fact from the public. (Although they go to great lengths to explain and illustrate all this in their "secret" reports. This is also detailed in the main Structural Models and Performance Analysis report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2ADraft.pdf

Nowhere does it say that those were the ONLY beam-framed floors.

Nowhere does it say that the core columns aren't filled
with thermite either. So?

It also doesn't say a word about the fact that all the floors required joist girders -- beams -- to support the outstanding legs of the joists in the two-way grids at each of the four corners of the beam- and truss-framed floors. That's at least eight beams per floor that the NIST is, ahem, reluctant to speak about.

The truss framed floors do *not* require beams because all primary trusses run from perimeter beams to core -- except for "the short span truss at the corner of the core (which) was heavier than the typical ones because it did support the long span trusses that framed to it."

This is also detailed in the secret report that I've referenced to you and that you now ask me to read. None of these floors that were beams framed were involved in the fires and structural damage except maybe for floor 78 of WTC2. And NIST modeled this.

I think you are grasping at straws.

[dailykoff]

296. I said you should read it, not believe it.

The NIST report is a grossly flawed and highly deceitful document and you won't come to any clear understanding of how the WTC was built by studying it. It's full of half-truths and missing information and that includes information on the joist girders.

Of the two tiny scraps of actual floor framing plans I've found in it, one has the lettering over the beams erased and the other is covered with big red text balloons. I can't get the .pdfs to open on this dialup PC so I'll give you the page references later if you want them.

Anyway all the elevators (except for tenant modifications) were in the cores and all the core floors were beam framed, so we're only talking about the floor diaphragms to begin with, which makes the whole progressive collapse fairy tale impossible.

You must be thinking of the escalator floors, which the report does in fact say were beam framed.

[Carefulplease]

302. Where did you hear about these mystery girders?

The NIST report is a grossly flawed and highly deceitful document and you won't come to any clear understanding of how the WTC was built by studying it. It's full of half-truths and missing information and that includes information on the joist girders.

Are the Scholars of Truth and all the other conspiracy sites and organizations also involved in the cover-up? You seem to be the only person on earth to claim knowledge of these 8 joist girders laid out on each of the the truss framed floors. (Never mind that four of them would be useless -- parallel to the primary long span trusses, they would have no truss legs to support!) Were all the pictures and videos of the WTC construction era doctored also? Were these girders installed by secret agents under the cover of night?

Anyway all the elevators (except for tenant modifications) were in the cores and all the core floors were beam framed, so we're only talking about the floor diaphragms to begin with, which makes the whole progressive collapse fairy tale impossible.

So you say. Horizontal beam framing contributes nothing to vertical load capacity. They distibute it. The hat truss and floor assemblied already performed that function. The core works structurally in tandem with perimeter columns. The planes damaged quite a few core columns also. When floors sagged as a result of fires they pulled the exterior walls inside. There are photographs and eyewitnesses to this. The load bearing capacity of the bowed perimeter columns was reduce and the damaged core had to take up the slack. There is only so much weigh it can bear. Both system failed in tandem.

[dailykoff]

303. What tipped me off

was the fact that the NIST report says virtually nothing about how the corner truss joists were supported. At the very least, double joists would be needed at the corners, in both directions, because there were trusses running both ways (primary and bridging). That's eight joist girders.

But in all the NIST drawings and diagrams I've seen, and presumably in their "models," the corner joists just frame into ordinary trusses.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixb.pdf

edit: there's something else that I want to double-check before posting so stay tuned.

[petgoat]

160. Welcome to DU! Please provide links to support your assertions.

We're truth-seekers here.

[Carefulplease]

180. Here is some support...

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf

Notice also the mention of the 2x load due to
the 2x scaling factor. Could that be what Ryan
got confused about when he reported that NIST
assumed twice the load?

[pox americana]

40. No, a realistic similulation would have the fencing at about 0.7" high,

assuming that the block is 1 foot square. That would approximate the height-width ratio of each floor.

I wonder what the effect of fire would be on that arrangement?

[MercutioATC]

45. Actually, no.

A realistic simulation would have construction that resembled the WTC towers. A chicken wire box can't do this...not even remotely.

[pox americana]

46. It would also have 60 columns per side instead of 20.

Face it, the more closely you simulate actual WTC construction, the less the likelihood of collapse.

Spook's experiment handicaps the WTC by about 1,000-1 and it still didn't fail.

[MercutioATC]

47. Absolute B.S.

Have you considered the scaled differences between such issues as:

1) The types of steel used,

2) The thicknesses of the steel used,

3) The strengths of the joints/welds,

4) The heat transfer properties of the model vs. the towers,

5) The intensity of the fires...

...there are too many unexamined elements for this "experiment" to be of any use.

If what you claim is true, we would just build skyscrapers out of chicken wire and concrete pavers...

[pox americana]

49. Tell it to the engineers

who rely on scale models to test everything from wind shear to earthquake resilience.

As I recall there was a WTC model used for just those kinds of tests.

[MercutioATC]

50. Yes, but engineers scale their experiments to real buildings...

Spooked's little backyard fire did nothing like that.

Show me where ONE real-world element of the WTC towers was scaled for this experiment.

[pox americana]

52. Let's start with the width-height ratio.

The ratio of each WTC floor was about 1:0.06. Spook's is about 1:1, greatly handicapping the model. But it still survived. And so on. If you accurately scaled the model for steel size, connection strength, and so on, it would obviously be much stronger, even if you factored in the differences of scale.

[MercutioATC]

58. You're kidding, right?

Show me the comparison between the steel in chicken wire and that used in the WTC towers. I want to know how Spooked's chicken wire compares in relation to tensile strength, thickness, joint strength, heat resistance, and heat transfer.

That's just the steel...

I'll let you answer those before we move on...

[pox americana]

60. Evidently you haven't been paying attention.

The comparisons are in the posts above. The point is that Spook's model is a much weaker structure than the WTC, but when subjected to a similar fire, it didn't fail.

[MercutioATC]

61. Evidently, your criteria are much more lenient than mine...

"The comparisons are in the posts above."

All I've seen are comparisons of overall structural dimensions and the number of columns involved. Nothing about the properties of the steel, the dimensions of the steel, or the joints.

Are you saying that these issues don't matter? Would they matter if I constructed the same structure of cardboard and then claimed to have evidence of the physics of a building collapse?

The issues raised (properties of the steel, dimensions, joint strength and type, etc.) have a direct bearing on the question. Are you seriously saying that you don't agree?

[pox americana]

63. Already covered, but here's a make-up session:

On all counts (steel strength, connection strength, height-width ratio, etc etc), Spooked's model is much weaker than the WTC structures, which makes the fact that it survived a similar fire highly significant.

[MercutioATC]

64. Actually, it's not been "covered".

I can claim that my cardboard is stronger than WTC steel. That doesn't make it so.

Give me data. What type of steel was in that chicken wire? What solder was used in the welds and how did that effect strength? How does a wire mesh welded at regular square intervals compare to the construction of the WTC towers?

I really can't believe that you're arguing this point. Are you just hanging on to an argument or are you really not aware that Spooked's model didn't model ANYTHING?

[pox americana]

65. If you want to believe Home Depot uses better steel

than the PA did, fine. But I'm assuming they don't.

[MercutioATC]

66. You're still choosing not to answer my questions.

Any time you're prepared to show any real relationship between Spooked's little construction/arson project and the WTC towers, just let me know.

I'll make it easy. Let's start with the properties of the steel.

[pox americana]

67. Asking an obvious question repeatedly

doesn't make it any less obvious. But it does make it annoying, so before you ask it again, please do me a favor:

1) Call Home Depot and pour out all your burning questions about the properties of their chicken wire steel.

2) Dig up the NIST report and see what they have to say about the steel in the fire floors.

3) Compare them.

4) If the Home Depot steel turns out to be better than the WTC steel, let me know. Otherwise, I'll assume it isn't.

5) DUH!!

[MercutioATC]

76. Pretty much what I expected.

Thanks for living up to my expectations.

[Macadian]

109. A valiant attempt MercutioATC....

But some people are not really interested in seeking the truth.

This is what happens when non-technical people attempt to prove their existing opinion without educating themselves or relying on real experts.

[Martensitic Madness]

157. Consider this

I have been a ferrous metallurgist for 20 years. What we have here is a technical joke.

First off, there are many types of steel, with many types of inherent strengths. As I understand the failure in the WTC, the bolts failed which held up the individual floors.

I'll keep my logic simple so the non-technical types here have some chance of following along. Bolts are a heat treated component in the building's system of construction and support. Heat treating drastically increases the strength of the steel. Subsequent heating (by say... burning jet fuel) "undoes" the heat treatment, drastically reducing the strength by upwards of 50-80%.

Chicken wire is not a heat treated steel component. So heating of chicken wire causes a modest loss in strength of 5-20%.

Putting all the other scaling issues aside (which are very valid), this experiment does not even begin to duplicate the inherent loss of the DESIGN strength of the bolts. Steel girders and beams are not heat treated components and would probably behave more like the chicken wire if they were not bolted together.

This "experiment" would be more accurate if each strand of wire was connected to another strand of wire using wax or bubble gum, as these materials would loose most their strength from the heat and your little chicken coop would have collapsed readily.

From a technical standpoint, this experiment proves that if you have a wild fire on your farm, your chickens will probably burn to death inside the chicken coop.

[petgoat]

159. Your premise that the bolts failed is of the Zipper-Pancake epoch

in WTC analysis. NIST has repudiated the "weak truss clips" theory. Now the dogma is
that your bolts are so freaking strong that saggy floors pulled the perimeter columns
inward and buckled them. AFAIK no one has stepped forward to defend the MIT/NOVA/Scientific
American/Nat'l Geographic theories from NIST.

If the bolts are so weak, how did collapsing floors tear down the 47 15" X 36" core columns?

[Macadian]

162. So you're going to stick with...

... some guy burning chicken wire on his farm, instead of an MIT professor?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

[petgoat]

166. Hey Mac, one PhD says the flimsy truss clips unzipped, the

floors pancaked and the perimeter columns buckled outward.
(Of course how these flimsy clips allowed the floors to
tear down the core columns they don't say.) And for four
years it was unpatriotic to question this theory.

Another PhD says the truss clips are so freaking strong that
saggy floors buckled the perimeter columns inward. And now
it's unpatriotic to question that theory.

Of course they won't let us see the blueprints so we can evaluate
these truss clips for ourselves.

And since the steel that would have told the tale was all
destroyed they're both talking through their hats, but neither
of them is honest enough to acknowledge it. Spooked at least
lets us look at his evidence.


That NOVA piece (updated5/02) has a lie in the first graphic of
the unzipping trusses. It eliminates the lateral trusses that
were designed to resist exactly that. It has a lie in the second
graphic of the towers where instead of portraying the 47 massive
16" X 36" columns in the core it shows a series of cards, apparently
suspended in air.

The NOVA piece is debunked here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html

[AZCat]

51. Perhaps you should read up on wind tunnel testing.

I don't think you understand exactly how building designers go about properly testing scale models in order to approximate the behavior of the proposed building. I suggest learning about dimensionless numbers as a starting point. The Reynolds number is one of the most useful, but the most well-known is probably the Mach number.

Fascinating stuff, and helpful when designing experiments like the one in the OP.

[pox americana]

54. Thanks for the suggestion. n/t

[AZCat]

56. You are welcome.

It's been a while since I last dealt with any scale models so I am pretty rusty, but once you understand the general concept you get an idea of what you have to change (and how much you have to change it) in order to correctly simulate something.

If you have a college nearby it might not be a bad idea to stop by and ask one of the physics or engineering professors if they could spend a few minutes explaining this. I always find it much more helpful to have someone explain something to me in person, and they are probably much more practiced at it than I am. Ask about testing planes in wind tunnels (that is a standard example) and about scaled heat transfer simulation (this one is particularly relevant to our discussion).

[AZCat]

68. A simple example for structural scaling.

In order to show how complicated it can be to build a scale model that accurately simulates the behavior of the original, I have written a quick example showing how to scale a simple column.

In engineering, the amount of "stress" in a structural member is related to the force exerted on that member. The general formula is that the stress equals the force divided by the cross-sectional area of the structural member. For the imperial system, stress is usually in units of pounds per square inch (psi), while force is in pounds-force (lbf) and cross-sectional area is in square inches.

If we decide to model the stress in a simple column - say, a cylinder - by using a 1/4 scale model, we need to make sure the stress in the model is the same as it would be in the full-size version.

Note: Uppercase variables represent the original while lowercase are used for the 1/4 scale model

The formula for the cross-sectional area of a cylinder is easy - area equals pi times the square of the radius.

a = pi*r^2

Since we are using a 1/4 scale model, the model radius (r) is one-fourth the radius of the original (R).

r = R/4

This means that

a = pi*(R/4)^2 = (pi*R^2)/16 (1/4 scale model)

while

A = pi*R^2 (original)

Since

P = F/A

and we want P(model) = P(original)

f/a = F/A

or

f/((pi*R^2)/16) = F/(pi*R^2)

If we do a little algebra, we can get

f = F/16

What does this mean? It means when you use a 1/4 scale model, in order to correctly model the stress of the original (assuming similar material properties) you need to cut the force applied to the model by a factor of 16 - not 4 - even though the model is 1/4 scale.

It gets even more complicated when considering other behavior to be modelled - choices have to be made because the scaling of various factors might not be by the same amount, or even in the same direction!


I hope this helps. :)

[atomic-fly]

15. While this model is not an acurate representation..

Someone should create a more precise experiment.
I was watching the 911 documentary that those French guys made.
The firemen were very surprised that the tower burning for a shorter time fell first.

[Old and In the Way]

20. Interesting experiment.

The model obviously is crude, but instructive nonetheless. I think you'd need to trap the heat better, maybe tinfoil (no pun intended) wrapped around the chicken wire? How does the weight on top approximate to the load of the combined floors above the crash level at the WTC?

Certainly, a more precise model could be constructed to test out the scenario. I'm surprised that no one has attempted to do this before.

[petgoat]

31. An issue NIST (I think I remember this) raises is that differential heat

causes a weakening. So yes, the fire needs to be isolated to a
particular part of the vertical core structure. But in that model we
need two versions--one where most of the non-fireball fuel stayed on the
impact floors, and one where much of the fuel fell down the elevator
shafts and presumably never caught fire.

Why do we presume the elevator shaft fuel didn't catch fire? Because
AFAIK none of the people who walked down the stairs reported
encountering heat.

Again I think spooked is to be commended and not ridiculed for actually
trying this out.

[pox americana]

26. Experimental confirmation of what I've long suspected:

the fires were totally irrelevant to the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

Yes, the NIST has expertise in this area, but when it comes to "homeland security" everybody's a whore, or at least everybody collecting a federal paycheck.

[thewormman]

36. Good try, but...

It's like saying that if a flea can jump a couple of feet then if you scale it up a cow can jump over the Sears tower.

There are an awful lot of other criteria to take into consideration, not least of which is the temperatures involved.

I applaud you for trying though. :-)

[thewormman]

37. Good try, but...

It's like saying that if a flea can jump a couple of feet then if you scale it up a cow can jump over the Sears tower.

There are an awful lot of other criteria to take into consideration, not least of which is the temperatures involved.

I applaud you for trying though. :-)

[Frederik]

38. You should see the National Geographic documentary

on the tower collapses. An MIT professor performs a similar experiment, involving a miniature model of the trusses which supported the floor system of the WTC. That experiments results in the truss failing very quickly.

I certainly don't believe 9/11 was exactly what we've been told, and I think the case for foreknowledge and even complicity is quite compelling, but this controlled demolition nonsense is just a distraction, in my opinion.

The NG docu can be downloaded here:
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_september11.htm

[pox americana]

41. That's show biz.

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in anything you see on TV, trusted brand name or not.

When did National Geographic get into the engineering business, anyway?

[Frederik]

42. Oh please

The people they interview are engineers and architects who worked on the WTC, scientists who have inspected the steel from the towers, firefighters who were there etc. You really should see it. Among other things, you'll see photographic evidence of the sorry state of the fireproofing in the mid-90s, when it was inspected. Much of it was already gone.

It's certainly less "showbiz" than, say, In Plane Sight. You will disregard a well-researched NG documentary, because it is on TV, but you'll believe controlled demolition snake-oil salesmen on the Internet?

[pox americana]

43. I think I'd be equally critical of both

I haven't seen either, but if I recall the NG special was "co-produced" by Fox TV, which probably means NG sold their name and credibility for a couple of million bucks to the GOP shills running Fox. I'm sure the experts got something in their stockings too.

But it was all in the name of 'homeland security' so that makes it okay, doesn't it?

[Frederik]

74. The documentary

is British I think. The narrator speaks with a British accent, at least. I don't think it's Fox.

Being equally critical of both is a good idea, by the way.

[StrafingMoose]

75. Logically, I'd want to get...

data and studies not made after and relating to 9/11 to I was into analysing these collapses...

If that's even possible.

[Macadian]

108. When did spooked get into the engineering business???

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in anything you see on TV, trusted brand name or not.

When did National Geographic get into the engineering business, anyway?

I find it amusing that you are willing to accept spooked's engineering 'model', but reject out of hand anything done by National Geographic.

I very much doubt that you are willing to accept any conclusion other than the one that you've already decided on.

[petgoat]

111. A valid point, but we should hold History and National Geographic

to a higher standard than anonymous internet posters. And they have not met it.

[Macadian]

117. Well, yes & no....

Certainly we need to hold National Geographic to a high standard, as they are an institution that reaches a much wider audience than this humble message board.

However, that doesn't mean that we should set our standards so low for internet posters as to allow even a few people's opinion to be swayed by faulty 'science'.

Spooked has not met even the low standards of internet posters.

[petgoat]

122. "Spooked has not met even the low standards"

I think he is to be commended for actually going out and doing a "quick and dirty"
study.

Do you have any specific criticisms of the experimental method or any constructive
suggestions for an improved model, or are you just against the entire concept of
backyard science?

[Macadian]

130. Backyard science is fine and dandy....

...for gaining an understanding and an appreciation for how scientists and engineers work.

It is not that useful for trying to prove or disprove a very large scale complex problem.

There are several problems with Spooked's experiment that have already been pointed out here. (type of metal, level of heat, invalid construction assumptions, etc.)

I have a real problem with non-technical people making hugely incorrect assumptions and thinking that they are actually proving something.

Sort of like the non-technical creationists who dump a pale of water on a pile of sand, point to a shape that looks like a miniature grand canyon and claim this proves that the world was flooded for Noah.

This 'experiment' has about the same validity.

[Bouvet_Island]

44. the problem

with this experiment is as pointed out here, that it does not model the energies right. If you increased the scale of your experiment to real values eg a floor of the wtc, you would see the problems obviously.

Some values increase as a product of factors and some increase linear. A friend of mine in architecture school got a project about building a model bridge that would break reliably at a weight of 1 kg of chain, that the professor would slowly place on the bridge. Now scaling the constructions up with the same materials, that wouldnt work. Just a simple matter as what happens at the impact point doesn't compare at all.

I also believe your construction does not get the temperatures reached in the wtc, you don't store heat and you don't have either reflection or trapping of heat. Further you use soft metal, in a full grid. The WTC had rather stiff steel, and with comparatively little support sideways, a lot less flexible a structure.

You should try clipping most of the sideways support in the core, and making lots of break points on the outher structure eg. you are modelling a uniform structure whereas the WTC were more like LEGO.

[philb]

57. The analyis he posted on another thead is more convincing to me

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/09/great-must-read-but-loooooong-and-very.html

[kevinam]

59. couple of questions about your experiment...

1. Are you 100% sure that the chicken wire you used is steel?? I think the chicken wire in the pictures might actually be aluminium or iron.

2. What temperatures did your fire generate?? That should be a pretty good gauge as to how close your experiment was to reality. Also, kerosene is similar to jet fuel, but probably does not have identical burning characteristics as jet fuel.

3. Major flaw. Your 'structure' was not enclosed. All the heat from your fire was able to escape out all the holes in the wire.

4. The amount of paper and debris would have to be substantially increased. Every floor of that building had paper, furniture, and building materials to burn. I don't think throwing a couple pieces of newspaper in the bottom really replicates 'real world' type of scenario.

5. Did you use any type of scale?? Scale can really make a world of difference.


Good luck, but I find it unlikely that you are going to be able to build a fire that hot.

Kevin.

[MercutioATC]

62. None of that matters.

Spooked built a chicken wire box, put a concrete block on top of it and set it on fire. He even put his FOOT on it!

It didn't collapse.

What more proof do you need that the WTC towers couldn't have collapsed as was supposed?

:eyes:

[spooked911]

69. Good points. But one by one--

1. It wasn't "chicken wire". It was garden fencing, made to keep out nasty rabbits (who have been a real plague in my garden over the years). I am fairly sure it was made of galvanized steel.

2. I don't know what temperatures it generated, that is a good point. As far as I know, kerosene IS jet fuel, or close enough for these purposes.

3. yes, it wasn't enclosed. That is a flaw. I am not trying to say this was a perfect model by any means. Letting the air in means that the fires probably were hotter and more oxygenated, but also the heat could escape better.

4. I did a second test using much more paper and more kerosene with similar results. You're right, I could add in more material.

5. I wasn't trying to scale it to the WTC per se. I actually built it so it would be specifically more easily collapsable than a WTC floor.

Again, this was not a perfect model by any means, and thus I did not try to draw grand conclusions from it.

Part of my goal was to inspire someone to build a BETTER model that would show how the WTC collapsed. I would be happy to see such a thing.

[spooked911]

77. Third expt with a similar set-up:

1) wrapped aluminum foil around the outside, then punched several holes in it including a big one where the "plane went in".

2) put more newspaper all around and soaked it heavily with kerosene.

3) put two paving stones on top--more weight.

Result: the fire burned very strongly for ten minutes then turned smoky and died. The structure showed no signs of collapsing had minimal buckling and held up surprisingly well.

Again, I wasn't sure what to expect. I wasn't rigging this to hold up at all-- I actually tried to maximize the fire. Beforehand, I thought it might collapse-- but it didn't.

So, my challenge remains. Can someone build a model of the WTC, damage it and set a fire such that even one floor collapses?

[petgoat]

78. Bravo, Spooked.

I'd suggest changing the model so it's closer to collapse parameters.
Put a garbage can full of rocks on that rabbit-wire to guarantee
collapse. Then run the experiment with fewer rocks to see just exactly
how much weight it can take.

Wish I could help. I live in an apartment. Hope your incendiary
behavior is not attracting negative notice from your neighbors.

[spooked911]

80. Thanks! I've thought about doing what you say, actually, but haven't had

time to do it.

I don't know what the neighbors think. Fortunately, the fire is not too large to attract attention.

[Make7]

79. This proves it then.

If the fires in the WTC had only lasted ten minutes, they would not have collapsed.

This seems to be corroborated by the fact that all of the WTC buildings stood for much longer than ten minutes after the fires started.

Thanks for settling that matter.

-Make7

[spooked911]

81. Sorry, I didn't write that up properly. The fire was strong for about

ten minutes, then it burned smokily for another twenty minutes. The fire lasted for about thirty minutes total. And I suspect in the WTC, the fires in one particular area didn't last too much longer than that. The fires of course moved around quite a bit as they used up their fuel and moved on to find new flammable material to consume.

In any case, I was trying to do what LARED suggested-- which was to enclose the fire. He thought that would cause the fire to burn hotter, or something.

[MercutioATC]

82. Jesus! Why not try modeling your "experiment" after the actual buildings?

I mean, since you're going through all the trouble of multiple experiments...

Do you have any correlation between the scaled thickness of the steel in the WTC towers and your chicken wire?

How about the scaled strength of the welds in the chicken wire vs. the joints in the WTC towers?

Why do you keep setting things on fire when you've drawn exactly ZERO parallels to the actual buildings in question?

[spooked911]

84. You're more than welcome to do your own experiment

:) :) :) :)

Unfortunately I have very limited time to do these expts.

[mike923]

120. No need, i'm conviced.

What now?

[Lithos]

83. Couple of points

Chicken wire is made with non-heat treated steel which does not experience much loss of strength during heat. If anything, it might have actually gained thru work (heat deflection) hardening. .

The moment of inertia of the cross section looks to be much greater than that of a building. Also the columnar height is very critical. What you have there is short and squat, the strength of a column (building) is decreased by a factor which equals the square of the height.

See:

http://www.polymorf.net/engineer12.htm

[spooked911]

85. It's NOT chicken wire, it is garden fencing meant to keep out rabbits. And

you're saying they use heat-treated steel in buildings because it is weaker than non-heat-treated steel? Or it is only weaker when exposed to fires? Does that make sense?

Well, since I used the same set-up for all three expts, by the last expt, the steel WAS effectively heat-treated and should have behaved like WTC steel. :)


I should also note your reference points out how as the height of the column increases, the load-bearing decreases at double the rate of the height. That makes my design, which has relatively much taller columns than an equivalent floor of the WTC, have much less load bearing capacity-- which is why I don't feel complelled to stack loads of extra bricks or floors on top of it.

[AZCat]

86. I think it's the unsupported length of the column...

that determines the slenderness factor, but I could be wrong. I'll try to remember to look it up.

[Jazz2006]

87. Kick

Just because it's so darned cute.

[greyl]

88. I never saw this before.

Thanks.

[Jazz2006]

89. Bunnies

are always cute ~ and a psuedo bunny cage being utilized in a psuedo "experiment" that is entirely meaningless yet purports to prove that real professionals with real knowledge and real expertise just got it all wrong ~ well, it was just too hilarious to leave buried in the archives.

:D

Edit to add: I thought it was particularly endearing to include a food dish for the non-existent bunnies, but it is rather sad to see that the bowl was empty. Seems that the only conspiracy that has been exposed here is a conspiracy to starve non-existent bunnies.

Or something like that :D


:rofl:

[greyl]

90. Sources tell me that spooked is a scientist.

I can't reveal the sources till a blonde horse wins the triple crown.

Till then,

[Jazz2006]

91. Sources tell me

that petgoat has no sources and that bunnies are still starving in spooked's world.

:rofl:

Edit to add: Oh, and I can't reveal my sources until the moon is in the seventh star and Jupiter aligns with Mars again.

[greyl]

92. How do we prove that we're friendly to the honest ones? nt

[Jazz2006]

93. Same as always, by words and actions. n/t

[greyl]

94. Take care of your goodness.

[Jazz2006]

95. Always.

Edit to add: I'm off on Sunday morning heading out of town for a few days and will not likely be online again until at least late Tuesday ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oddly, perhaps, I'm actually looking forward to that.

That said, I look forward to seeing you next week some time :D

[mirandapriestly]

176. That ought to be easy

S(he) won't have anything to do.

[Jazz2006]

184. Ohhhhh, you so totally dissed me!

Whatever shall I do?

Pfft.

[petgoat]

97. If you would bother to look at spooked's blog and take a

look at his profile, you would see he claims to be a biomedical researcher.

I see no reason to doubt this claim. I see much reason to doubt Jazz's
claim that she is a lawyer. Perhaps the strain of remaining rational,
diplomatic, credible, and scholarly in her professional life causes her to
"cut loose" in an anonymous and unsupervised context.

[Jazz2006]

102. Thanks for your input.

You are, as usual, wrong, but thanks just the same.

[petgoat]

96. Ah, there's those prize-winning emoticons again.

They not only sway the judge, they're the key to publication in prestigious
scientific journals.

Spook's very quick-and-dirty experiment of course proves nothing, but instead
of ridiculing the very concept of science (a favorite freeper tactic) it might
be well to propose improvements to the model.

Do you think that setting a thirty-foot-tall model on fire could not possibly
teach us something?

According to Kevin Ryan, NIST's workstation burn tests doubled the amount of
hydrocrabon fuel available and over-ventilated the fires.

According to Kevin Ryan, NIST's floor tests doubled the load on the floor,
used 1/2 the fireproofing that was actually in place, put the floors in a
furnace for two hours, and even then the floors only sagged a few inches.
They then put in the computer model the parameter of a 42" floor sag.

It would appear that spooked's experiment is at least more honest than NIST's.

I would suggest you save your ridicule for those that deserve it.

[petgoat]

98. Sorry, you lose. My emoticons are bigger than yours.

[Jazz2006]

103. Thanks again x2 for your input.

Gee, you responded twice over the course of several hours to the same "Bunnies" post, yet your responses indicate a preoccupation with emoticons of all things. Strange, that.

[mirandapriestly]

178. OMG, bwahaha.

You've got "it" down.

[Jazz2006]

183. Thanks for your observation.

Too bad you didn't have some REALLY BIG emoticons to outsize goat's, though, because obviously that's what's really important to folks like you.

[Jeroen]

100. Suggestion for 2 new experiments: WTC 7

Exp.1:

Take the same construction, call it WTC 7, place it somewhere safe and wait patiently for it to collapse.

Exp.2:

Take the same construction, call it WTC 7, place it somewhere safe and shout ‘pull it!’
(wait patiently for it to collapse)

[bobby911]

101. yep...scaling is the problem

a foot tall cage vs a thousand plus foot tall building won't work.

Interesting experiment though.

[lcwilson]

104. WTC test

I consulted a standard handbook - Perry's Chemical Engineers'
Handbook, Sixth Edition, page 23-65.  It has a nice graph of
the stress (load on the beam due to the weight of the building
above it) versus temperature giving the rate of creep (beam
starting to deform and fail).  Two important points that are
broad generalizations: below about 800 F, the rate of creep is
so low that you don't need to worry about it.  At about 1200
F, carbon steel can only support a stress of 600 psi with an
acceptable rate of creep, versus the typical design spec of
30,000 psi at room temperature.  This is a reduction in the
strength of the beam of 50 times, well past any safety factor.
 

The reason the rabbit hutch test failed is because the WTC had
walls and kept the heat in.  Redo the test with a thermocouple
to see how hot the fire can get when you have good insulation
around it and a good chimney to draw the air in.  My son's
forge regularly gets to the point that the steel starts to
melt (2800 F), using only charcoal and a blower.  When the
steel gets hot enough, it will fail.  When your test
reproduces the conditions in the WTC, it will fall down as
well.

Perhaps we can get the opinion of a real mechanical engineer
or fire safety engineer.  I am a chemical engineer and know
enough to stay away from serious designs and get the right guy
to do the design for me if I need something like this. 
However, I have worked in labs for 20+ years and done some
experiments at these temperatures, etc. so this critique of
the rabbit hutch experiment is based on sound science.

[greyl]

105. Welcome to DU! :) nt

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

112. Welcome to DU ryams!

Certainly spookeds model may be flawed, but what exactly about it
is crazy?

How would you propose to build a better model?

Maybe some group should take this on as a project. Put
$10,000 into building a model to see if the collapse
mechanisms proposed by NIST are possible.

[ryams27]

118. Thanks...

"what exactly about it is crazy?"

Hmmm...let's see. How about we start with the fact that spooked spent hours of his free time conducting one of the most laughable "experiments" I've ever seen in order to lend credibility to some bizarro conspiracy theory about what took place on 9/11? Yeah, nothing crazy about that at all, is there?

My only question is how does spooked find time for such undertakings with the hordes of beautiful women undoubtedly beating down his door?

[petgoat]

123. That's circular reasoning.

Spooked's experiment is crazy because it's laughable to test a "bizarro" theory.
You're making me dizzy.

Can you name some specific criticism of spooked's experiment?

My only question is how does spooked find time for such undertakings with the
hordes of beautiful women undoubtedly beating down his door?

Now you're applying unjustified imaginings to the issue. If you take a careful look
at spooked's photos (something we spend a lot of time doing here, squinting at low-res
photos) you'll see what appears to be a wedding ring. Unless that photo has been reversed,
it appears that he has all the beautiful women he can handle as it is.

[greyl]

128. Psst, they've been banned. Thanks for rolling out the red carpet

for RW trolls.

[Bolo Boffin]

132. That wasn't just a RW troll! That was Jonah his own self!

At least that's my theory and I'm sticking to it. That comment about "hordes of beautiful women", especially when Spooked911 is so obviously married...that's vintage Jonah obtuseness in my book.

Jonah Goldberg, trolling the Sept. 11 Forum. It is but to laugh.

[greyl]

134. You might be correct, but I'm not convinced. ;)

Besides, it doesn't matter much anymore anyhow.

[Bolo Boffin]

113. Lookee here...

ryams27 posts here on this thread for the very first time, and voila! this thread gets linked in the National Review's Corner. Jonah Goldberg, no less...

So in honor of the paste-eater's very first venture to the Sept. 11th Forum here at DU, a special link to The Love Song of J. Edgar Goldstein. Enjoy!

http://faultline.org/index.php/site/comments/the_lap_dog_rides_a_white_steed/

Let us go then, you and I,
Where my leer is sprawled out upon the thigh
Of the lefty chick that waits upon my table;
Let me binge, in certain half-deserted streets,
With friends with pointed sheets
Through restless nights in Internet tirades
And sawed-off guys in chicken-hawk brigades:
Guys that swallow all my tedious arguments
Pusillanimous stray vents
That prompt in sane folk moral indigestion …
Oh, do not ask my meaning!
Let me get on with my preening.

On my blog the women come and bitch
Reading Ivan Denisovitch.

The yellow peril rubs its back against the window-panes,
The Muslim ghosts there, laughing at me through the window-panes
Licked their tongues onto the corners of them, grinning,
Lingered upon the tools that praise my brains,
Let roll from off their backs my words of brave calumny
Slipped by, the terrorists, made a sudden leap,
And seeing that it was a late-lit Stoli night,
Read half my latest post, and fell asleep.

More, lots more, at the link.

And when I consider what damage this might have done to the reputation of DU, except that OCT DUers continue without pay or gratitude to oppose idiotic theories and demonstrations such as these, I rejoice. Good work out there, my homies!

[greyl]

114. Nice job. :)

:thumbsup:

It's no mystery to most people that a small percentage of posters on all message boards are insincere, misguided, or delusional. It's pretty desperate insincere, misguided and delusional of Jonah Goldberg to broadbrush DU with this OP.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NoiseLTD]

115. Please tell me you're joking.

This is the kind of thing that gives DU a moonbat image.

[greyl]

116. Welcome to DU, however

isn't judging DU based on this OP kind of like judging Mozart based on the composition of his bowel movements? ;)

[petgoat]

124. Do you have any specific criticisms, or any constructive

suggestions for improvements? Or are you just against backyard science period?

[greyl]

125. You said "spooked's experiment proves nothing".

I agree.
See ya.

[NoiseLTD]

127. See Fair Enough...

See my previous. I am aghast that anyone would draw such sweeping conclusions from such an experiment. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[NoiseLTD]

126. Fair enough...

I'm not judging DU based on this single post, notice I said "this is the kind of thing"...

I still can't tell if he's joking. I am an electrical engineer. We are into validation. Sometimes the Navy builds scale models of ships to test their radar cross section (rcs), scaling wavelengths similarly. They can build a model of a ship whose rcs is known and compare it to the scale model, (called "validation") and then they'll know if the technique works. This helps them make decisions about how to build great big expensive ships before they are actually built. They must think that it's worthwhile, in that it provides useful results and has advantages over pure digital simulation.

Here you have someone without any apparent engineering background making very coarse analogies and drawing sweeping conclusions. Stop me if you've heard this: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You have someone positing a conspiracy of staggeringly vast size and audacity, based on an experiment that would fairly rate a failing grade as a high school science project. He then gets on the internet samizdat machine and declares that NIST, the military, the President and everyone else are engaged in some sort of bizarre conspiracy.

There are words in the English language for people like this. The most flattering that comes to mind is hoaxer, or perhaps troll. Are you sure you're not being set up by some Freeper?

The only people who could possibly find this kind of demonstration "convincing" are those who are already convinced. It is one of the fallibilities of human nature to accept ideas that confirm our prejudices and reject those that challenge them. We need to fight this all too human tendency if we are to see things clearly and realistically.

[greyl]

129. Yep, I pretty much agree with all of that.

The Carl Sagan "Extraodinary claims..." quote is a part of the lexicon here. You may consider spending a few minutes checking older posts to get a feel for the place. There are a couple threads about confirmation bias that you might find interesting. ;)

[NoiseLTD]

131. links?

>> There are a couple threads about confirmation bias that you might find interesting. ;)

links?

[greyl]

133. Here ya go:

Confirmation Bias - an obstacle to finding truth

Very cool animation using a card trick to illustrate confirmation bias

[petgoat]

135. "You have someone positing a conspiracy based on..."

You're mischaracterizing spooked's esperiment completely.

He doesn't claim it proves anything except that a rabbit cage is a lot stronger
than you might expect. His conclusion is not, as you claim "that NIST, the
military, the President and everyone else are engaged in some sort of bizarre
conspiracy."

His conclusion is "it is not clear why the much stronger steel columns in the WTC
towers weakened so much from fires that the towers underwent global collapse."

That was not clear before the experiment, and it's still not clear after the
experiment.

Spooked is to be praised for actually challenging his assumptions through test.
Imagine how embarassed he would be if the rabbit cage collapsed.

It was a physical test of a physical question. Your apparent belief that the
answers to physical questions are dictated by political considerations of
conspiring government agencies is irrational, and your outrage that somebody
went to the trouble to do the experiment and share the results is unjustified.
Of course the experiment is flawed. Don't you have any constructive suggestions?

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

136. well said amigo

[enough already]

137. This confirms what I've suspected all along

Fire didn't bring those buildings down. Bush did it.

[Codeine]

138. This confirms nothing

except that wackjobbery and balderdash are the watchwords and countersigns of far too many DUers.

[BuddyYoung]

139. Yes, far too many DUers waste time because of so much...

" wackjobbery and balderdash ", but the OCT'ers are nothing if not clever, and they're very good at employing the kinds of tactics which you so rightly decry.

[Bolo Boffin]

140. Don't you know any other tunes, Buddy?

:nopity:

This one's getting old.

[BuddyYoung]

143. C'mon boloboffin, that one's getting old.

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

144. You're telling me.

Maybe we can chip in and buy you a new songbook, if you're still posting here at Xmas.

[BuddyYoung]

149. I've already told you, and so have plenty of other people.

Maybe we can chip in and buy you a twin, that way you won't have to exert yourself so much, if you're still posting nonsense at Xmas and trying to pass it off as the God's honest Bush truth.

Give it up, bolo. The informed world has long known that Larry when used a common CD industry saying, he meant exactly what everyone in the CD industry means whenever they use the same phrase: pull it means bring the building down - which is exactly what happened, and you know it.

[Bolo Boffin]

153. You do know two songs!

CT, CT, Rah Rah Rah

and

Pull It!

[BuddyYoung]

158. Three: You forgot about "I Can See Thru OCT'er BS Clearly Now".

OCT'er, OCT'er, Rah Rah Rah

Pull It! Pull It! Pull It!

Progressive OCT'er, uh huh. Just plain folks, uh huh, uh huh, uh huh. No hidden agenda. Uh huh, uh huh, uh huh.

[carlvs]

150. They don't need a songbook,

What these loons really need is some classes in physics, structural engineering, and especially critical thinking

[grytpype]

141. :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

This is a joke, right?

[The Night Owl]

142. Great work! Now try a scientific experiment.

:eyes:

Please get real.

[aikoaiko]

146. wtf?

Someone told me about this post and I thought it was a joke.

[slackmaster]

148. Consider it a joke at your own risk

[sighkobabl]

171. Serious Stuff!

This is no joke... think about it!

[slackmaster]

147. I'm glad the bunny got away

:crazy:

[joshbetts]

151. Structural engineering

More info.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf

And by the way...I'm a structural engineer.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

156. what's your take on the molten steel/iron dripping out the..

side of the building prior to the collapse? any ideas re: the source of the energy required for this?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=911+molten+steel

[joshbetts]

161. what's your take on the molten steel/iron dripping out the..

I watched the movie. It appears to me to be burning plastic or rubber.

How do you know its molten steel/iron dripping? Can you provide evidence? Are you open to the possibility that teh burning or "molten" substance could be plastic, rubber, or some other material?

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

163. serious?

not at all consistent w/ the attributes of melting plastic or any similar substance

[joshbetts]

164. serious?

Yes, I'm serious.

Regardless, I think the movie is irrelevant. It is pure speculation to state what it is without proof. If it is what you say it is, then some sort of phenomena occurred due to the relationship of the flammable material, steel/iron and flow of air. Again, speculation. Please review the links that I posted and this document.


http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

167. the laws of physic aren't up for debate

Although the molten iron/steel pouring out the side of the building cannot be proven beyond doubt it’s not unreasonable to presume it is what is appears to be. It’s widely accepted and has been proven w/ photo and video evidence that molten steel/iron was found at the base of all three buildings. This would indicate that at some point in time before or during the event there was enough energy to produce this result; kerosene from jet fuel, the subsequent fires, and/or kinetic energy from the collapse aren't enough. The only way this is irrelevant is if validity isn’t important when forming your opinion… basically you’d be saying we witnessed a miracle. Which is fine, but don’t expect everyone to fall for it.

[joshbetts]

168. BrokenBeyondRepair,

The links I provided prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the structural members failed due to the impact from the planes and the subsequent fire. These events propagated a progressive collapse.

Where is your proof the 767 and fires are not enough to cause the failure.

Please provide calculations showing what is required for the failure.

Did you review the documents I linked?

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

169. obviously, there is reasonable doubt

documents that attempt to explain the causes of the failure don't explain the molten steel/iron; the energy to product molten steel/iron requires a source.. which was my original question.

i don't believe in miracles:
http://nexus.webelements.info/?q=node/980

[petgoat]

174. It is disingenuous to require proof of a proposition when you

know the proof has been destroyed.

Imagine a drunken husband. He's chomped down a few breath mints, he's hidden
the bottle, and he's indignantly demanding proof that he's drunk.

[joshlbetts]

234. I'm not being disingenuous.

Please do not accuse me of dubious behavior.

When a building or bridge or other substantial structure is built in the United States, it must be designed by a professional engineer (structural / civil) (PE). And when I say designed, I'm talking about using mathematical equations to model natural events that we may and probably will never witness and designing the primary and secondary members, connections, etc. to resist these forces.

Professional engineers must have years of experience and education before they can take their licensing test.

Once they pass the test, they take an oath.

The oath is to protect the life, health, property, and welfare of the people of the state they are licensed in.

A PE is then given a seal with their license # and every project they take responsibility for will bear their seal.

So, please, do not accuse me or the other tens of thousands of structural/civil PE's of dubious or subversive behavior.

I'm in agreement with the final report from NIST.

The WTC buildings standing for as long as they did is a testament to the skill and experience of my profession.

As far as the site you linked to in an earlier post, the joists running perpendicular to the main floor joists were used to brace the chords of the barjoists. These barjoists are typically used to reduce the unbraced length of the chord. Also, there were structural drawings for the WTC. Please see the links I provided.

[dailykoff]

236. Which link contains structural drawings for the WTC?

The actual drawings, not cartoons?

I'd be very interested in reviewing these drawings so could you please be specific? Thanks.

[joshlbetts]

260. dailykoff, Here are some copies of the actual drawings and calculations.

If you are seeking the original signed and sealed set, you will not be able to attain them. I suggest contacting the port authority for copies of the originals.

http://www.panynj.gov/

All of the links were found in the previous links as references, etc.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixb.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixb.pdf

[dailykoff]

276. Thanks, that's helpful.

I thought there were some in there but these NIST documents are not exactly well indexed and Google didn't help. When I'm on a faster connection I'll comb through these links.

[aikoaiko]

172. The burning drips look a lot like burning molten plastic.

What about it doesn't look like burning polymer?

[petgoat]

173. It appears to be giving off light. In my experience burning

plastic makes flames but is not incandescent.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

177. this is the only image of melting plastic i could..

find online. would be interesting to see if anyone could get plastic or a similar material to turn orange and glow... and what temp would be required


also, watch the the way it bounces off the side of the building as it falls; helps speculate it's weight/composition..

if i were making a bet i'd go w/ molted steel/iron

but also have to accept that this can never be proven beyond doubt; unlike the molten steel/iron at the base of the buildings

[aikoaiko]

179. Just put a plastic bag on a stick and stick over a small fire.

The bad will melt and ignite, and then the plastic will drip off while burning. The so called "molten steel" looks like burning, dripping plastic. No significant heat source is neccesary -- just an ordinary fire would be sufficient.

In Boy Scouts we called them zip sticks because they make a ziiiiiiiip sound as the plastic drips.

[petgoat]

191. Sounds like an easily-tested hypothesis. Please provide

images demnstrating your thesis. Thanks. We are researchers here.

[aikoaiko]

253. I hate to break this to you, but pictures on the internet is not science.

Do it yourself to see.

But for your sake, here is picture of a burning cd case. Different plastics burn and drip differently, but this pic should to acknowledge that the so called "molten steel" in the video might be burning plastic.

[petgoat]

257. It proves my point. The material in the firefall at WTC2 was incandescent

and exhibited no flames.

Your CD case is not incandescent, and it flames.

[aikoaiko]

269. sorry, I don't think you don't understand what you're seeing.

Your use of the word incandescent is idiosyncratic. A flame is incandescent.

The drips of plastic in the picture are flaming. theres the big hunk of plastic, the puddles at the base, and the thing melting globs oozing down. The thin drips are difficult to see, but they too are flaming (or incandescent). In the video, most of the drips are small, but some are bigger and you actually see the flames better.

As I said, there is little way of knowing what those flaminging, flowing globs are, but they certainly could be burning plastic.

I'm out of here -- too much internet tinfoil hattery. No wonder the 9/11 discussions were banished from GD.

[petgoat]

270. I understand what I'm seeing just fine. Maybe my diction is off.

Imagine a campfire in the dark. You have flames giving off light, you have coals giving off
(feeble) light, and you have burning wood which does not itself give off light (unless it's
coals).

What I call incandescent is coals. Molten steel is also incandescent. It makes light
in the dark.

In your picture of burning plastic, I see flames, but I see no plastic "coals".

I therefore dispute the assertion that the yellow firefall off WTC2 could have been
burning plastic.

[petgoat]

189. "can never be proven beyond doubt"

I don't think so. Melt steel, melt aluminium, melt plastic, pour them off a fifty-foot
drop. Videotape them, compare, contrast.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

194. there will always be those that doubt or..

just don't have the capacity to interpret what they are seeing; successfully convincing the majority is somewhere between improbable and impossible.. unless of course you throw a pregnant virgin and a guy walking on water into the story.

personally, i have little doubt that it's exactly what it appears to be.. molten steel or iron; the attributes fit like a glove.

but at the same time i'm always willing to listen to alternative theories.

[petgoat]

197. It looks like molten steel to me, and no alternate explanation

has any credibility. But I'm always willing to listen.

[Jazz2006]

200. Then take your own suggestion.

Melt steel, melt aluminum, etc. etc. etc. and post images of your results here.

[petgoat]

204. I don't need to. I already have, I've melted plastic, steel, and

aluminium and I know what they look like. Educate your ownself.

[Jazz2006]

209. So post your images as you've asked others to.

And be sure to include the contaminants that were so obviously present in the circumstances.

[Jazz2006]

218. Oh, and that reminds me.... epistemology

...which your posts here indicate that you are very fond of when it comes to posting about people who disagree with you but which your posts here also indicate that you are strangely silent on when it comes to people who agree with you.

To paraphrase your own self (btw, that's two words, not one), why on earth should anyone believe that you've melted plastic, steel and aluminum and know what they look like? What expertise do you have?

Why should anyone believe that you have any idea whatsoever about how various burning metals might interact with contaminants? (Oh, wait, you weren't actually able to answer that, so let's leave it at why should anyone believe, according to YOUR standards, that you have ever done what you claim to have done?)

Your standards (see Pamela Anderson thighs subthread) here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=95567#95790

[Jazz2006]

198. Melt steel, melt aluminum, melt plastic, pour them off a fifty foot drop..

video tape them, compare, contrast.

That's a great suggestion. Please provide images demonstrating your undertaking of same. Thanks. We are researchers here.

[petgoat]

201. The ball's in your court. Everyone knows plastic make flames,

not incandescent flows. Everyone knows Aluminium flows while still silvery at 600 degrees.
Only molten steel looks like that.

Give it up, Jazz. The truth is on our side.

[Jazz2006]

203. No, it isn't.

You're the one who suggested the experiment.

So, go to it!

But be sure to add in all of the contaminants that would also have been present if you want to make it a "scientific" experiment and not merely a bunny cage debacle.

[petgoat]

205. So take my suggestion. Let's build a bad model that endures,

a bad model that collapses, improve both, and after five or six cycles let's build a
$10,000 100 foot model that seems realistic.

The US gov't will never do this. They want to use computers instead.

[Jazz2006]

208. According to your suggestion (which you've now changed), it is so

simple...

so what's stopping you?

[petgoat]

231. Sorry, I got this experiment mixed up with another one I

was discussing with rman below. I'd had a few bottles of wine.

What's stopping me? Money, time, lack of a backyard, wishes to not get on some
kind of police list for indulging in incendiary behavior.

Maybe we could get the burning man people to build a 200 foot model of the WTC
instead. After the fire burns out they can bring it down with thermate.

[Jazz2006]

291. "I'd had a few bottles of wine."

Sure. Fair enough.

But what about those photographs of you melting plastic, steel, and aluminimum as referenced in the subthread above which you "mixed up" with this one?

It's only reasonable to expect that you would voluntarily provide the photographic evidence that you consistently demand of others, particularly in light of the epistemologist standards that you claim to uphold - even if you do so only vis a vis those who disagree with most of the conspiracy theories espoused here and not vis a vis those who buy into them.

I'll wait.

[Jazz2006]

294. Have you recovered sufficiently from those "few bottles of wine" yet to

provide those photographs of you melting plastic, steel, and aluminimum as referenced in the subthread above which you "mixed up" with this one?

[petgoat]

300. Nope, nor have a got photos showing rain is wet and sun is dry. nt

[Jazz2006]

307. I'm not surprised that you haven't backed up what you said.

I've read hundreds of threads in the archives, after all.

So many tinhatters seem to view themselves as internet warriors, indefatiguably seeking "truth" by.... um, scouring the internet.

And then spreading any and all manner of conspiracy theories and asking - nigh, demanding - that those who don't buy into the conspiracy theories provide photographic and all other manner of evidence to disprove the conspiracy theories dreamt up by the conspiracy theorists. Yet it seems that they somehow can't manage to provide any evidence of their own, don't do any calculations of their own, don't conduct any experiments of their own (with the exception of those involving bunnies), don't interview anybody on their own, don't even call people on the telephone to ask questions, etc., and yet... and yet.... they still call themselves "truthseekers".

It seems rather as though they are "seeking the truth" only so far as they don't have to actually do anything other than scour the internet to find it.

Seems bizarre to me, as that's not the way I conduct research.

[Jazz2006]

185. Couldn't it be aluminum from the airplane that was burnt up inside the

the building?

That seems the most logical to me as a non-engineer.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

190. unlikely..

even if fire from jet fuel was a sufficient energy source:

http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Al/heat.html

molten aluminum

[Jazz2006]

196. That's not convincing.

I've seen that same photo countless times but it doesn't strike me as conclusive evidence that the dripping stuff could not have been aluminum in circumstances other than those in the photograph.


And, btw, your second photo is showing as a broken link.

[petgoat]

199. Aluminium melts at 600 degrees, at which point it is silvery,

If you heat it to 1000 degrees, it gets orange. Please explain the
crucible which contained the Aluminium while it was being heated from
600 to 100o degrees.

[Jazz2006]

202. Sorry, but I'm not convinced by your say so that it could not have

been aluminum in the circumstances.

I'm not convinced that in circumstances that are not "controlled environments", for instance in circumstances such as those that occurred at the WTC towers on Sept. 11/01, that the dripping could not have been aluminum which would obviously have been co-mingled with various and sundry other substances melting and burning at the same time.

Got anything that shows aluminum melting in a non-controlled and contaminated environment?

[petgoat]

206. Pffft. nt

[Jazz2006]

210. I didn't expect you to be able to respond meaningfully.

I was right.

Talk is cheap, after all.

[petgoat]

212. Pfft.

Get a graphics ecpert to validate bolo's Quicktime captures.
They don't match the Windows Media captures.

[Jazz2006]

213. Pfft is right!

Like I said, talk is cheap.

You have called upon others to conduct experiments and post images of same here for your consideration, while insinuating that unless they do, their word is not to be believed, yet you are not willing to do so yourself even though you claim to have conducted experiments yourelf (well, at least you claim to have melted various items) without ever having posted images of same.

When asked to take into consideration the realities of a non-controlled environment, you simply cannot and will not.

Pfft is right!

[Jazz2006]

215. Oh, an edit which I should respond to, I see.

Your initial post just said "pfft" but since you've now added to it, so shall I add to my response.

Our conversation has absolutely nothing to do with graphic experts or bolo's quicktime captures or your wm captures... but your edit certainly does illustrate once again your habit of moving the goalposts, changing the subject, and obfuscating when you find yourself unable to back up the assertions that you made, and/or unable or unwilling to undertake yourself that which you think assert others should undertake to to satisfy you, and/or unwilling to concede a point that should rightly be conceded.

Rather blatantly transparent, that.

[mirandapriestly]

238. Pearls at Swine, PG...nt

[Jazz2006]

241. LOL.

"Pearls at swine".

Three whole words of yet another intended insult without substance, and you still get it wrong?

:rofl:

[capt havermeyer]

152. This is pretty funny

Thanks for going to the effort an of doing this. I don't think it adds light, but it definitely adds some smoke!

[TheRealSwede]

155. Science Experiment

Great experiment! Wonderful theory! Reminds me of another stellar example of medieval scientific thought. The one where you bind and throw a suspected witch into a pond and if s(h)e floats you take it as proof of guilt and promptly burn him/her as a witch. And if s(h)e drowns, why then you celebrate his or her innocence. Yup, its right up there with that kind of thought process.

[JudgeSmails]

165. Fantastic

I'm going to try this at home, except I'll try using miniature columns and floor joists. It may take some time to recreate but I'll post my results when I'm done. I like your gumption.

[what the]

170. Test Explosive Demolition Hypothesis

Repeat the experiment with small firecrackers taped to the metal mesh. If your model does not collapse, you will have disproved the explosive demolition hypothesis.

[petgoat]

175. Now that's funny! Let's try the thermate hypothesis instead, ok? nt

[what the]

287. Blacksmith's forge

1. A blacksmith's forge uses wood charcoal and air to heat iron or steel red hot, sufficiently soft for shaping with a hammer. A proper kerosene fire would also soften steel. This rabbit hutch fire was small and not in good contact with the metal.

2. Heat can't escape quickly from large structures, it builds up inside. That's why underground coal seam fires are almost impossible to extinguish. The rabbit hutch was small and wide open and easily lost heat to its surroundings.

3. When Sherman's army was marching through Georgia, they destroyed lengths of railroad iron by heating the rails in wood fires and then bending the rails around trees-- "Sherman's neckties," they called them. Wood does not burn as hot as kerosene.

4. The stress that a large, relatively inflexible steel beam would experience in a fire has no counterpart in a few inches of heated chicken wire. Steel beams expand under heating and this causes deformation-- joints will fail from the stress and long lengths of steel beam will twist and sag. An amount of relative expansion in large steel beams sufficient to cause structural failure would be impossible to detect in the wire simply by casual observation. The top cinder block may have lifted up a millimeter or two as the chicken wire was heated-- nobody would be able to tell from just staring at it. This is perhaps a few percent expansion; think of this propagated over hundreds of feet of rigid steel beams that are riveted tightly to other steel beams that have not been heated and have not expanded.

[petgoat]

293. Charcoal forges have forced air. They also have.... charcoal.

Heat can't escape quickly from large structures

It can if the windows are open. Also the core columns would have
conducted heat away from the fire zone rapidly.

"Sherman's neckties," They subjected the rails to tremendous
lateral forces.

Steel beams expand under heating

Conduction spreads the heat out and neutralizes the expansive pressure

[what the]

309. Heat conduction etc.

1. Combustion temperature: "It is necessary, when forging puddled iron always to do heavy forging at a high temperature - around 1350 to 1450 degrees Centigrade (bright to sparkling white heat). At these temperatures, the iron will move very quickly, whilst doing no damage to the grain structure. Finishing work, bending etc., can be done at red heat." http://www.realwroughtiron.com/wiac.asp

Edit: No reasonable person is claiming that the steel structure melted. That is not the model for the collapse.

2. The larger the structure, the less heat escapes. The center of a large building can easily be 100 feet away from the outer wall.

3. Regarding conduction of heat by steel beams, I made an estimate with really optimistic assumptions:
-----------------------------------------------
Thermal conductivity of carbon steel: approx. 35 W/(m.deg.C.)
Cross sectional area of steel beam: assume approx. 1 ft.^2, or approx. 0.1 m^2.
Assume that the no heat is lost from the beam to the surrounding structure, which is a very bad assumption, and favors you, not me.

Rate of heat transfer for a 500 deg. C. temperature difference over 30 meter length:

Q = (Area)(Thermal Conductivity)(Temperature Difference)/(Length)

= (0.1 m^2)(35 kW/(m.deg.C)(500 deg.C)/(30 m)

= 59 W.

Over a span of 30 m (about 100 feet) the heat flux is 59 watts. Imagine heating one end of a steel beam with a 60 watt light bulb. In fact it would be less heat flux than that because of heat loss to the surrounding structures in contact with the beam.
-------------------------------------------------------

4. "Sherman's neckties" were created by the force of a few soldiers pressing the rail against a tree.

[Carefulplease]

310. You stole those words from my mouth...

In French we say: "Vous m'avez volé les mots de la bouche!" There ought to be an English equivalent to this handy expression.

I produced much the same argument very recently in another forum regarding the very same issue. You beat me to the punch here. Very well explained.

[Jazz2006]

186. LOL ~ good one!

It would be just as - if not more - scientific, relevant and impressive as the poor starved bunny experiment.

[allfathersgodi]

182. You guys are nuts

Hardly a scientific exploration of the effects of a 200,000+ pound aircraft impacting at 400 mph upon a building, an hour of Jet Fuel burning (that has a maximum burn temperature of 980 degrees Celsius or roughly 1700 degrees) that is contained within a structure also with paper and other combustible materials burning. With several thousand tons of concrete and steel perched above it.

The melting point of steel is 2500F, but it weakens as temperature climbs. Never-mind that aircraft are almost exclusively Aluminum which is a key component of Thermite. Thermite's other ingredient is iron-oxide (which can be found in some portions of aircraft as steel rusts, but also in BUILDINGS as the steel support beams rust!)

This heat (which weakens steel) coupled with several thousand tons of concrete and steel above the impact points and heat source, can very well bring down the World Trade Centers, can cause the weakened steal to buckle, causing several thousand tons of concrete and steel to fall. So, at the impact point you have a void suddenly develop (perhaps 3-4 stories, perhaps as much as 45 feet).

7,000 tons of concrete and steel, falling just 5 meters has 350,000 ton impact force. This impact is taken on the load bearing structures. Bolts shear, welds break apart. With a ten meter fall this impact force doubles to 700,000 tons, again, falling on the load-bearing structures. This impact energy is transmitted all across the building, again, shearing bolts and breaking welds.

Thus you see what some conspiracy theorists see as the effects of explosive demolition charges...

[rman]

188. Sorry, doesn't prove a thing either way.

Everything depends on properties of the buildings that are not trivial to reproduce in a scale model. Not that it's impossible, but it is not trivial.

It doesn't look like you made much effort to accurately reproduce the buildings' strength, loads etc.

All that you prove is that it's possible to create a scale model that does not collapse. Likewise it would be possible to create a scale model that does collapse.

In fact it would be possible to build a complete building that would collapse due to damage and fire. Not that it would make any sense to do so, but your scale model doesn't prove that the buildings would not collapse under those circumstances.

[petgoat]

192. Ahhhh, you're getting to the synthesis.

Let's make a rabbitcage model that does collapse, and criticize that. And make a rabbitcage
model that doesn't, like spooked's, and criticize that. And alter the models to create an
in between model that actually provides some basis for constructive discussion.

[rman]

193. Not just any model

In order for such an experiment to be useful, the model should be an accurate structural representation of a WTC tower.

[petgoat]

195. Not necessarily. Building bad models can be helpful to

uncover the factors that facilitate and that obstruct collapse.

I say let's build a bunch of bad ones before designing a good one.
And then let's build that 100 feet tall, invite the press, etc.

[rman]

207. What's a good model, how do you know it's good?

Collapse or no collapse can't be the criteria since that's what you want to prove or disprove.
It's only a good model if it accurately represents the structural properties of the real thing. I doubt that any of us has the means to model it accurately, or to even come up with a reasonably accurate approximation.

[petgoat]

211. "I doubt that any of us has the means"

Some of us have connections to scientists and engineers who prefer to
remain anonymous. (Which is not to say that I do.)

[rman]

214. We can't go on unverifiable information

It's not scientific.
Also if we do have the means to model it accurately, there'd be no point in making various "good" and "bad" models (to which there's no point to begin with) - i we do have the means we should just make an accurate model and be done with it.

[petgoat]

232. We don't have the means to model it accurately.

We don't even have the blueprints.

Building bad models with a known error would be the way to home in on the gray zone
where the errors are not known.

It's like this: suppose you've camped by a river and gone for a hike and gotten
semi-lost in the woods. You want to go back to your camp. If you aim right for
it and you miss it, then you don't know whether to look upstream or downstream.
But if you incorporate a deliberate error by aiming for a spot deliberately upstream
of your camp, then you can just follow the river down and find it.

In the same way, deliberately flawed models help you home in on the precision zone
where small changes have big effects. It's like a tricky piece of carpentry-- you cut
it too big at first and trim it down. If your first cut aims right at what you think
is the right length, you might cut it too small.

[rman]

237. it'd not be a known error because we have no reference,

no blueprints etc; we don't know where the carpet has to fit.

[petgoat]

258. I didn't mean a "known error" as in a "measured" or

"precisely estimated" error. I meant it as "an error gross enough that we can be confident
it's an error".

Sorry about my sloppy diction. I was thinking out loud.

[rman]

271. np. However,

if we don't know with some acuracy how large the error is, then isn't it useless?
I'd say whatever model we build we can be sure it has errors - but we don't know how large those errors are. I think it would be an unproductive (though possibly fun) way to spend time.

[petgoat]

299. We can't know how large the error is until we experiment and

get some results.

I was not talking about error in terms of how far off we are from a fair
simulation of the WTC structure, because without access to the blueprints
we can't know what a fair simulation is. Furthermore, I doubt we can
assemble the expertise to do an accurate model, anyway.

What we can do is build a model that has the error of being much too strong
to collapse, and another that has the error of being much too weak to endure.
From those starting points we can build weaker strong models and stronger weak
models so that we can get finer control over whether a model fails or not.

And if we had the expertise and a couple of million dollars, we might actually
learn something.

[Carefulplease]

311. Fine procedure for challenging the Titanic hoax.

I have some doubts myself about the official explanation of the sinking of the Titanic. Such unprecedented breaking-in-half of a big boat due to ice alone smells of controlled demolition. Besides, Osama Bin Laden wasn't even born at that time. Who would have moved the iceberg right in the path of the Titanic? What is the probability of this slow moving ice mass getting right there in that precise spot of the ocean just when the Titanic sailed by?

The chances of this are one in 100000000000000000000000.

There were numerous reports of explosions before the sinking. There are also countless witness reports of gas bubbles. Only thermite could produce so many bubbles and melt enough ice to drown so many people. (The official explanation is that people drowned in seawater or died of hypothermia. This makes no sense. Sea water is salty and has so much buoyancy that it is impossible to drown in it. And if people had felt so cold despite being fully clothed, they would just have rubbed each other in the back and would have lit fires on floating rafts.)

I am currently challenging the official story with a scientific experiment. I am performing tests with a plastic duck and an ice cube in my bathtub. The duck wouldn't sink however hard it bumps the cube. Yet the steel of the Titanic was so much stronger than the plastic of my duck. As for the ice of the alleged "iceberg" well, ice is ice. Also, the ice often melts even before the duck gets in its path. The official story is clearly ridiculous. I might post pictures soon.

I'll try again tomorrow with a paper boat instead of a duck and I'll use more ice. I know my little Titanic will eventually sink. Then I'll learn something.

If we could get enough people interested, we could apply for a 10 million dollars grant and construct a more accurate model of the Titanic -- somewhere in between a plastic duck and a paper boat. If they would release the original blueprints of the Titanic and allow us to examine the original steel, our task would be greatly facilitated. But no, they even illegally let the iceberg melt. This is criminal destruction of evidence. They will not get away with it.

[BuddyYoung]

312. New kid in town, posting like the old OCT'ers in town. Imagine that!

A comedian, too. Does anyone here know anyone who is a Progressive that doesn't want people discussing their search for the truth about 911?

Does anyone here know of any rightwingnuts that post messages here at DU designed to suppress, distract, mislead, and otherwise frustrate the efforts of people who want to learn the truth about 911? Me, too, but don't name them, because they're experts at using the "alert" button to get messages deleted and people banned from DU that aren't rightwingnuts.

Why do they hate Truth Seekers?

[Bolo Boffin]

313. Glass houses, Mr. June 26th. n/t

[BuddyYoung]

315. See post #314

nt

[salvorhardin]

314. You know...

One of Willis Carto's old publications was called The Truth Seeker. When you capitalize that phrase you're invoking (unintentionally I hope) everything Carto stands for. Like holocaust denial. Of course, I've also seen the American Free Press (another Carto operation) quoted from here in the dungeon... Back in the day, Carto's Liberty Lobby used to like to play nice with the Larouchies too.
http://www.americanreview.us/carto.htm
http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/liblobby.html

[Carefulplease]

229. The press might be interested...

They might be interested to see a 100 feet tall
burning rabit cage -- especially if there is a
wererabbit in it ;-)

[allfathersgodi]

228. The Stupidity of the Left

If Al Gore was president and this happened on his watch (the planning was going on before Bush's inauguration). It would be the Republicans who are throwing around the conspiracy theories and the Democrats would be the ones defending the accepted theory on the collapse.

This is merely the Left's hatred of George Bush affecting critical thinking...

*note, I am a registered Democrat in the State of TN

[petgoat]

230. Good point, but I'd like to think some Democrats and

independents who believe in the truth would be offended enough by whitewash
investigations to demand new ones, and that the Democrats would not enforce
a coverup culture to prevent new investigations the way the Bushcists do.

[mirandapriestly]

243. Actually quite a few GOP have come out

on this one, even a former member of Bushlers administration

[omenapoint]

233. is this a joke?

If so, it is in very poor taste. Thousands of our countrymen were murdered that day by Islamic Fascists.

[demfool]

235. You are an idiot

You are deeply stupid, a total fool

[mirandapriestly]

264. See how easy it is

for freepers to post here? Just because someone has 3000 posts (that they got in a week) doesn't make them any different from this poster.

[rman]

272. And who would suspect that anyone with a screen name

that includes the words "dem" and/or "blue" and/or "lib", would in fact be neither democrat nor blue nor liberal?

[BuddyYoung]

273. Surely, just another one of those totally unexpected COINCIDENCES. nt

nt

[mirandapriestly]

274. Are you saying that

people say they are democrats or liberals when they aren't??? I just can't believe that.

[rman]

275. Incredible and unprecedented as it may seem,

i suspect that's in fact the case.

[mirandapriestly]

283. I'm shocked.nt

[Stella_Artois]

252. You are famous

This thread is being linked to on many different forums as proof that DU is full of crackpots.

Congrats.

[spooked911]

254. So I'e heard. Although I'm not really clear why what I did is so

ridiculous.

It's a simple model to shed light on a complex system. Scientists do this sort of thing all the time. It's their bread and butter.

I did not draw any elaborate conclusions. I did not say this proved anything.

Moreover, I invited people to try their own experiment, and as far as I can tell, no one has.


I think it's sad that this has become the subject of such ridicule.

Moreover, note I said nothing political here, nothing about Bush.

It's just an experiment that I thought was interesting and worth sharing.

I am indeed a biomedical scientist-- a molecular biologist, not an engineer. But I have friend who is an engineer who thought what I did was cool.

[DrDebug]

262. Those people don't talk for all of us

Asking questions, finding relations, creating experiments and creating hypothesis are the corner stones of investigations. You have proven that a steel frame can sustain a lot of heat.

Do you remember those bunsen burners in high school (maybe it's a thing of the past and they don't have them anymore nowadays). What did they always put on top of that?



Was it because metal spreads heat evenly so in for example a skyscraper, the heat gets spread through the steel throughout the skyscraper thus requiring an immense amount of heat for a prelonged period of time thus making a metal grid structure incredibly strong even if it is missing some parts.

Then again what do I know
...
What does the bilboard say?
Come and play,
Come and play,
Forget about the movement

Freedom, Rage against the Machine

[Old and In the Way]

265. I agree.

"I think it's sad that this has become the subject of such ridicule."

At least you tried to test the collapse hypothesis.
I'm kind of surprised that the skeptics wouldn't encourage and dialogue on how to make it a better model for testing the idea, rather than insulting you. Wouldn't this be precisely the way for all of us to validate either side of the debate?

Perhaps your crude idea has provided someone with inspiration to develop a more exact model that would further the discussion and our understanding of the WTC collapse event.

Anyway, I appreciate your attempt to test the hypothesis....

[mirandapriestly]

266. What is the saying

about protesting too loudly? ;) If people really think someone is "an idiot" they don't pay attention.

[spooked911]

267. what's funny to me is how they point to this experiment

as primary evidence that I'm a kook or crankpot-- but not to posts where I say the 2nd hit videos were faked or no plane hit the WTC.

Why does THIS post amuse them so?

It is just because it is easy to look at the pictures as opposed to, say, reading and thinking critically?

[emMingo]

277. Because those of us living in NYC

are pretty sure that that second plane hit that tower. Because we saw it hit the $#(@ing tower.

[mirandapriestly]

279. uh-huh, sure you did.

[BuddyYoung]

278. Different reasons, depending on where one is coming from

For those who can't or won't think, it's easy to dismiss ideas that reinforce present beliefs, but for MOST of "them", it's nothing more than fear of the truth reaching more people. In fact, for some, their very livelihood may depend on their ability to shout down or SHUT down the truth.
You have the satisfaction of knowing what you have accomplished that no one else has even dared try.
Equally important is that you've managed to unwittingly frighten the bejesus out of a whole slew of disinformants.

[mirandapriestly]

280. They NEVER post on the threads

where you have to actually KNOW something. I noticed that Jazz "kicked" this thread, then after that if got a bunch of freepers attention and a bunch of them showed up here. A coincidence, I'm sure.

[BuddyYoung]

285. I hadn't noticed that, but you are certainly right. A jazz bump, then

KaBOOM, here they come "doin' their thing" for Mr. Rove and Mr. bin Laden.

As far as "knowing" something, the freeper definition of "knowing" is very elastic. If for example, a NYC firefighter says they heard explosions in the WTC building basement, it's either a lie or the firefighter misinterpreted what they heard. If Mr. Rove says it, why it's the Gospel truth and you'd better know it.

[Jazz2006]

289. Lol ~ that must be it.

I am such a freeper than after I kicked this thread that I found so amusing in the archives, none of them noticed it for a week while CTers kept it kicked and kicked and kicked in the interim.

Yep, makes perfect sense.

:crazy:

[Bolo Boffin]

284. Once they saw these pictures, there was no need to look for

further evidence.

[Jazz2006]

288. It's could be the footwear.

But more likely, it's the out and out humour of the "experiment" being presented complete with photos as though it's even remotely scientific when it is, on its face, clearly not.

The "fake second hit video theory" and the "no-plane theory" threads don't have the same visual impact as home photos of bunny cages and running shoes purporting to simulate the events of Sept. 11/01, that's true, but even despite the lack of home photos, they have been done to death and have long been dismissed by most people as "very thick gauge tinfoil territory", so they are largely ignored on that basis.

Oh, and as a head's up, be careful about using the term "critical thinking" or "thinking critically" - at least one of your staunchest supporters here seems to think that anyone who uses those words is a freeper troll shill bushlover.

[Generarth]

308. I think you did it with the full knowledge of the results

ie the linking to other forums and so on. I'm a frequent poster on one of those forums and you don't help the 9/11 cause with this crap. But I don't think you intended to.

[mirandapriestly]

263. Those who say that about DU are going to say it anyway

The Freepers, that you care so much about, have always done that. What's so interesting is why are so many freepers reading the 911 forum?

[Stella_Artois]

286. Who knows

Maybe its because someone has taken pictures of himself standing on chickenwire and is claiming it as proof that WTC was a government job. Perhaps they like things that validate their belief that DU is full of crackpots.

[petgoat]

298. Spooked is not claiming the rabbit cage experiment

proves the WTC was a gov't job.

Are you hostile to science in general, or only to this particular
experiment?

[Name removed]

256. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

290. LMAO...Can you say "not to scale"

stack 15 of your wireframes on top of each other.

Think the bottom one would crush? of course not.

Now stack 15 WTC on top of each other (in your mind obviously). No doubt that the bottom 110 story building could not support the load.

If you hold your chickenwire toy horizontal, will it fall apart? Now imagine picking up the WTC from the bottom and shaking it. It'll collapse before its inclined 20 degrees.




Sorry, 1st grade levle "science" experience make for entertainment and little else.

[petgoat]

297. Not to scale is right.

Since not the entire WTC was on fire, spooked's model was clearly not meant to
simulate the 100-story tower, but only one floor on fire. Since the height-width
ratio exceeded that of the WTC by a factor of 14, spooked's model actually gave a
tremendous advantage to the WTC.

Unsupported column length and all that. It simulates a section of tower 14 stories
high with no floors.

Welcome to the 9/11 Forum! Keep questioning!

[boolean]

301. How?!

You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it so:

"Since the height-width ratio exceeded that of the WTC by a factor of 14, spooked's model actually gave a
tremendous advantage to the WTC."

Uh, no. The chicken wire has the advantage in this "experiment". It's much smaller and doesn't have to take on as much weight. The fire was nowhere near as hot as it should be. Etc, etc etc...

Tell you what, I'm going to do an experiment that proves that a hydrocarbon fire does weaken a structure. First, I'm going to get a flamethrower and light it and leave it on. Then, I'm going to build a "WTC tower" model with paper clips. Then, as the flamethrower is heating up the paper clip structure, I'm going to get a crane, pick up a Hummer V6 with it, and place it on top of my paper clip model.

If the model crushes, I'll conclude that yes, a hydrocarbon fire can indeed collapse a building.

Now, here is what I want YOU to do. Tell me if there are any flaws in my experiment, and if so, what they are.

[petgoat]

304. Welcome to DU, Boolean

Flaws in your experiment:

1. You don't tell us how many BTUs your flamethrower produces

2. You don't tell us how big your model is going to be

3. You don't tell is if, or how, you're going to join your paperclips

4. Your Hummer V6 would appear to be out of scale with your paper clip test zone

I'm sure there are more, but that will do for starters

[boolean]

305. Now it's my turn

1) spooked didn't tell us how many BTU's his fire produced
2) spooked's model is too small
3) spooked didn't consider whether or not the links of the rabbit wire were in any way parallel to the WTC towers
4) spooked's foot appears to be out of scale

[petgoat]

306. Ok

spooked didn't tell us how many BTU's his fire produced

I supposed that when he said a "cup" of kerosene he meant 237 milliliters.
If he did not measure the fuel, that was a mistake.

spooked didn't tell us how many BTU's his fire produced

Then the remedy is to scale up the effort, not to ridicule it.

spooked didn't consider whether or not the links of the rabbit wire
were in any way parallel to the WTC towers

I'd imagine that he considered it but since rabbit wire was what he had
available, he thought it was better to go ahead and try it. If you study
the WTC perimeter column "trees" you see there is a great deal of lateral
bracing provided. The rabbit wire simulates this--how accurately I couldn't
say.

spooked's foot appears to be out of scale

True, but it only goes to demonstrate that the model was far far stronger
than you might think.

[Redstone]

316. You REALLY need to find a different hobby. Just friendly advice.

Redstone

[Lithos]

317. Locking

This thread has become more personal than a discussion of it's content. It is probably best to relegate this to the archives for citation.

Lithos
DU Moderator