What really happened ....11 september

[dpt]

I simply don't understand your reasoning as to how this evidence contradicts
the results of the simulation of the air temperatures.

of course it contradicts the results: the map i posted shows the areas of the
cores of the 94th floor in blue indicating that temps there were below
300-C.

There's no of course about your statement at all. You are comparing
apples and oranges here. Air temperature does not equal steel temperature.

Isn't that clear enough?

Steel takes time to heat up. It doesn't immediately come to equilibrium
with the surrounding air temperature, nevermind the upper level air
temperature alone, because it has a non-zero heat capacity. If the steel isn't
heated for a long enough time, then in general it will not reach as high a
temperature as the air that surrounds it.

So, especially if we have an incomplete sample of the steel from the fire
floors, we can expect to find that quite a bit of the sampled steel was not
heated to temperatures above 600 C, and even to find that a lot of it was only
at 300 C or less is not surprising. This is especially expected to be
true for steel from the perimeter tube columns which were far from the fires,
and it is true also to some extent for the large core columns, which are at
times exposed to very high temperatures in the fires, but which also have
large heat capacities due to their mass.

It would be only the smallest steel structural elements that we would expect
to see heated to near the full temperatures achieved in upper level air in the
simulations, namely the much smaller diameter components of the floor support
joists.

That is precisely what is found in the sample and it is not inconsistent with
the simulations in any way.

i can't see any reason to state that temps reached at some point
500-1000-C on both floors, there's just no graph of the 94th floor indicating
that ...only the 97th, u say shows that. if nist didnt mention the 94th floor
in the p28/78 quote it would be a totally different matter but the 94th is
there and the temps were attributed to it as well. that seems inescapable to
me.

Please look at the graphics again. I'm sorry that I was sloppy in what I said
last night about the graphic which you posted. I should have studied it more
carefully first. But I now believe that the graphics clearly show that high
simulated temperatures were reached in parts of the cores of both
floors, the 94th and 97th, though not over the whole of the cores, and not
necessarily for the whole time that the fires burned.

Certainly temperatures higher than 300 C are evident in the graphics.

What is it that you think should have been found in the temperature
history analysis of the steel samples in order for thermal failure to have
been a possibility?

much higher and persistent temperatures.

I've addressed this question about the seemingly low temperature
the steel in the sample reached above.

But: Have you considered that the temperatures that are measured in the
samples may well already be sufficient to cause serious structural problems,
given the existing damage. Also it seems to me reasonable to imagine that some
of the steel which was heated to the highest temperatures was not contained in
the sample, especially if it came from the core of the building, and was buried in the rubble pile.

 

[dpt]

But on the 97th, those temperatures were there in the core, at least for some
time in the simulation. And obviously, we only have a few frames to look at,
not the full time history of the temperature profile.

You drew an extremely strong conclusion. You said that temperatures never
reached above 300 C in the core, in the simulations, based on a picture of the
94th floor at one instant: 15 minutes after impact.

well, first, it is pure speculation that other diagrams of the temps were made
and i cant see any good reason why they weren't included in the report since
they would be extremely relevant.

It's not pure speculation that other diagrams were made. The diagrams I am
talking about are in the report. You just need to look for them. And in fact,
I think they already show that temperatures well above 300 C existed in upper
layers of the air, over at least some fraction of the core.

yes and we can keep arguing forever here without going anyhere. what's evident is that we need a new investigation, there's not a shred of doubt about that.

But arguing is the only way to have a hope of settling things

thx and have a good 1.

You too.

 

[dpt]

Quote from Bitstream:

dpt, i'd like to discuss wtc7 and eventually wtc5-6 with u going forward. i think the colllapse of wtc7 is very telling and the least analyzed.

cheers

Happy to, but it will be harder for me to discuss WTC 7 and the others
intelligently, as I have not made much of a study of the evidence so far. I
regarded those collapses as secondary to the main event, and probably
explainable by the large amount (1 million tonnes total) of rubble that fell
from the main towers, pretty much all over the place, together with other
specific details of what was in those buildings.

Cheers!

 

[dpt]

Further on the simulated core temperatures on the 94th floor, fifteen minutes
after impact, as depicted in Figure 6-36 page 127 of the report:

It's actually worth estimating and recording the temperature for each core
column from the diagram. There are six rows of columns extending left to right
in the graphic, and there are varying numbers of columns in each row. So I'll
number the columns using two digits xy, with x denoting the row that a column
belongs to and y denoting the position along the row, starting from 1 on the
left/bottom corner and increasing towards the right/top corner.

Column Temp

11 100
12 300
13 450
14 650
15 850
16 850
17 750
18 750

21 200
22 150
23 50
24 200
25 500
26 750
27 750
28 800

31 200
32 0
33 100
34 250
35 50
36 450
37 850

41 300
42 0
43 50
44 100
45 300
46 300
47 750
48 800

51 500
52 500
53 500
54 100
55 200
56 400
57 900
58 850

61 150
62 800
63 600
64 200
65 200
66 650
67 950
68 950

So of the 47 core columns there are 22, by my estimate, in upper layer air
having (simulated) temperatures of 300C or below, and 25 in air at temperatures of above
300C.

If air volume were roughly equal, considered on a per column basis (which
isn't quite true, of course) then temperatures in about 53% of the core are
above 300C, while temperatures in about 47% are at or below 300C.

The mean temperature at the columns in the part of the core above 300C is roughly 702C and
the mean temperature at the columns in that part below 300C is roughly 159C.

The overall mean simulated upper air temperature at the columns is thus about 450C.
Considerably above 300C, though also well below 1000C.

 

[Bitstream]

Quote from dpt:



Have you looked at the graphic of the 97th floor and compared it with the
graphic of the 94th floor, that you posted, as

Nevermind for the moment what you or I think it is that the quote says.

Let's just try to clarify this one issue of what can be deduced from the
graphics about the simulated temperatures in the upper layer air of the
core, on levels 94 and 97.

First let's consider the graphic of temperatures on the 94th floor, fifteen
minutes after impact. It is figure 6-36 on page 127 of the final NIST report.

Looking as carefully as I can, I count on this graphic at least 13 core
columns within the region where upper layer air temperatures are between
800-900 C (yellow-yellow orange). These columns are mostly on the right
hand side of the core on the diagram, though there is one on the upper left
hand side. This is not in agreement with what you said above, that
temperatures in the core never reached above 300 C.

Do you agree?

true enough, picture was too small and i didn't notice the external regions of the cores did extend to the fire areas. so i should have said temps were mostly around 300, not below 300.
unfortunately tho, and even if they were higher than 300-c, nist implies temps between 500 and 1000 were consistent throughout the core; that's a far cry from what diagram says.. and that's misleading.

The graphic of the 97th floor temperatures that I am referring to is the lower
left panel in Figure 6-37 on page 128 of the final report.

Unfortunately it is harder to see, since it is projected at an angle in a 3-d
representation. I can't reliably count the number of core columns that are
exposed to high temperature so easily on this graphic.

It is apparent though, that some, not insignificant, areas in the center and
left corner of the core have upper layer temperatures ranging from 800-1000 C
(yellow to yellow orange).

i think u got the wrong page cuz on page 128 there's a picture of the gash in the tower in reference to floor 81.

It also is apparent that most of the area of the core is at temperatures
above 500 C on this graphic (green areas), and that, in fact, only the
lower right corner of the core is at temperatures below 300 C (light blue
regions).

Do you agree?

on the 97th it seems the case but those temps as i explained u earlier couldn't be sustained. infact those around 900-1000-c [if there in the first place and i think there's a very good chance they were not] should have lasted only a few seconds not minutes. why highlight them in the study; the effect should have been pretty insignificant in such a massive structure that facilitate conduction. and the same applies for lower temps around 600-700-C. now way they could have been persistent. infact nist in its research complete ignore the effect of conduction and even admits it when conducts an experiment with a cut section of steel dumped into a furnace.
i will get back to u with a few telling statements in the nist report that proves the study was incomplete and deeply flawed.

 

[Bitstream]

Quote from dpt:

Further on the simulated core temperatures on the 94th floor, fifteen minutes
after impact, as depicted in Figure 6-36 page 127 of the report:

It's actually worth estimating and recording the temperature for each core
column from the diagram. There are six rows of columns extending left to right
in the graphic, and there are varying numbers of columns in each row. So I'll
number the columns using two digits xy, with x denoting the row that a column
belongs to and y denoting the position along the row, starting from 1 on the
left/bottom corner and increasing towards the right/top corner.

Column Temp

11 100
12 300
13 450
14 650
15 850
16 850
17 750
18 750

21 200
22 150
23 50
24 200
25 500
26 750
27 750
28 800

31 200
32 0
33 100
34 250
35 50
36 450
37 850

41 300
42 0
43 50
44 100
45 300
46 300
47 750
48 800

51 500
52 500
53 500
54 100
55 200
56 400
57 900
58 850

61 150
62 800
63 600
64 200
65 200
66 650
67 950
68 950

So of the 47 core columns there are 22, by my estimate, in upper layer air
having (simulated) temperatures of 300C or below, and 25 in air at temperatures of above
300C.

If air volume were roughly equal, considered on a per column basis (which
isn't quite true, of course) then temperatures in about 53% of the core are
above 300C, while temperatures in about 47% are at or below 300C.

The mean temperature at the columns in the part of the core above 300C is roughly 702C and
the mean temperature at the columns in that part below 300C is roughly 159C.

The overall mean simulated upper air temperature at the columns is thus about 450C.
Considerably above 300C, though also well below 1000C.

yeah still much lower than the nist states. not much higher than i said.

 

[Bitstream]

Quote from dpt:



There's no of course about your statement at all. You are comparing
apples and oranges here. Air temperature does not equal steel temperature.

Isn't that clear enough?

ror, who said that temps were in the steel core, I never implied that. i dont know what gave u that idea, i was referring to the map that shows temps were mostly at 300-c, and as for your calculation summed together at 450-C.

Steel takes time to heat up. It doesn't immediately come to equilibrium
with the surrounding air temperature, nevermind the upper level air
temperature alone, because it has a non-zero heat capacity. If the steel isn't
heated for a long enough time, then in general it will not reach as high a
temperature as the air that surrounds it.

exactly, the steel cores could not have reached high enough temps to weaken, not in a million yrs.

So, especially if we have an incomplete sample of the steel from the fire
floors, we can expect to find that quite a bit of the sampled steel was not
heated to temperatures above 600 C, and even to find that a lot of it was only
at 300 C or less is not surprising. This is especially expected to be
true for steel from the perimeter tube columns which were far from the fires,
and it is true also to some extent for the large core columns, which are at
times exposed to very high temperatures in the fires, but which also have
large heat capacities due to their mass.

It would be only the smallest steel structural elements that we would expect
to see heated to near the full temperatures achieved in upper level air in the
simulations, namely the much smaller diameter components of the floor support
joists.

That is precisely what is found in the sample and it is not inconsistent with
the simulations in any way.

yes it is, because they conduct experiments heating steel at much higher temps than found without taking into account conduction.

if all the evidence, photographic and material, is consistent with temps around 300-C, with nothing suggesting higher temps were present, why on earth make tests with more than double temps and take out the equation the extremely important factor of conduction. it's absurd in my view, it only serves the purpose of finding a fitting explanation for a natural collapse: and that's the only thing in which the nist is consistent throughout the report.

Please look at the graphics again. I'm sorry that I was sloppy in what I said
last night about the graphic which you posted. I should have studied it more
carefully first. But I now believe that the graphics clearly show that high
simulated temperatures were reached in parts of the cores of both
floors, the 94th and 97th, though not over the whole of the cores, and not
necessarily for the whole time that the fires burned.

Certainly temperatures higher than 300 C are evident in the graphics.

not consistently though as nist states. not even close as high as portrait.

I've addressed this question about the seemingly low temperature
the steel in the sample reached above.

But: Have you considered that the temperatures that are measured in the
samples may well already be sufficient to cause serious structural problems,
given the existing damage. Also it seems to me reasonable to imagine that some
of the steel which was heated to the highest temperatures was not contained in
the sample, especially if it came from the core of the building, and was buried in the rubble pile.

not at all, as i said the steel was specified to stand temps of a whopping 2000-C without major problems as kevin ryan of UL states.

and i think it is incorrect to assume temps were higher in other samples, when infact photographic evidence suggest the contrary.

 

[Bitstream]

Quote from dpt:

Happy to, but it will be harder for me to discuss WTC 7 and the others
intelligently, as I have not made much of a study of the evidence so far. I
regarded those collapses as secondary to the main event, and probably
explainable by the large amount (1 million tonnes total) of rubble that fell
from the main towers, pretty much all over the place, together with other
specific details of what was in those buildings.

Cheers!

i think u'll have a very hard time finding a plausable explanation for a natural collapse of wtc7, very very tough time. u cant make much of a case for rubble hurting the bdg because other bdgs nearer the towers were hit directly by a humongous quantity of rubble yet they stood.

everything observed in the videos and photos is perfectly constistent with demolition. infact all the signatures of a classic demolition are present.

 

[Bitstream]

Quote from dpt:


It's not pure speculation that other diagrams were made. The diagrams I am
talking about are in the report. You just need to look for them. And in fact,
I think they already show that temperatures well above 300 C existed in upper
layers of the air, over at least some fraction of the core.

i was looking at only a part of the report and the maps weren't there. for what i understood, i thought YOU were speculating. i now have the complete pdf and saw them all. funny how almost all the maps show very low temps. only the couple of floors we analyzed have relatively high temps...as i suspected.

But arguing is the only way to have a hope of settling things

well, i think in this case we may never reach an agreement since u seem determined to look at the collapse as "natural" when you should consider the very likely possibilty of demolition. all the visual evidence points at that: u may try to explain out all the inconsistencies with other possibilities yet the similarites with classic demolitions are uncanny and difficult to ignore.

You too.

thx.

 

[Bitstream]

Quote from hapaboy:

Charlie Sheen!!

Now THERE'S a guy whose credibility cannot be questioned!!

ROFLMAO!!

yeah on the other hand your words carry a lot of weight innit. lmaopimp.

deliberate character assassination posts are much easier than discuss central issues with 911. this is a pattern i saw over and over within neocunts reactions to the extreme courage charlie sheen has demonstrated.

u should be ashamed of yourselves.