ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th November 2007, 02:31 PM   #1
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
 
cmcaulif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
The latest from Dr Quintiere

Its actually a scale model that is refreshingly scientific:

Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1" Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421

Quote:
Abstract: This paper presents an experimental investigation of the World Trade Center Tower 1 (WTC1) collapse using a 1/20-scale model. The WTC1 fire on the 96th floor is reconstructed on a small scale, and structural members including the floor trusses and the exterior wall subsystem are built and tested under scaled fire load. Scaling rules are used to determine the values of the insulating material on the structural systems. This experimental study demonstrates the use of scaled models to investigate a real-world fire disaster. Results from the experimental investigation are compared to analytical results and visual evidence compiled in the National Institute of Standards and Technology report on the investigation of the collapse of WTC towers. This study helps engineers and researchers better understand the fire behavior and the associated structural response in WTC1, and a more solidly grounded collapse hypothesis can therefore pursued.
There is impact damage to the model's floor, which allows for more ventilation, but one key difference between the NIST simulations and this scale model is the combustible fuel load. For WTC 1, NIST used 20 kg/m2 for the base case and 25 kg/m2. This study takes the fuel load for the 96th floor to be 50 kg/m2, which is justified by a sourced analysis performed for Dr. Quintiere, though I haven't tracked down a copy yet. The trusses are fully fireproofed, yet reach temperatures much higher than NIST predicted a fireproofed truss would reach.

Observations of the model and the WTC fire progression seem to match quite well, however he concludes that his scale model predicts collapse at 102 minutes, matching the observed time to collapse initiation. NIST is cited as having said that three trusses must become disconnected for instability to occur, and at 730 C the trusses will fall off their seats, which would mean that his model agrees with the collapse initiation times. Although, I believe NIST had said that 730 C was the point where a truss would 'walk' off its seat, but not become disconnected, thus allowing the pull in action to become large.
cmcaulif is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2007, 02:55 PM   #2
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Is that available on line somewhere? Some people I know of need to see that. They are trying to paint Quintiere as a twoofer.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2007, 03:09 PM   #3
Mangoose
Muse
 
Mangoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 921
link
Mangoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2007, 03:15 PM   #4
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
The abstract is available online here, but you need a subscription to read the full text:
http://ascelibrary.aip.org/dbt/dbt.j...L&Issue=CURISS
Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2007, 03:18 PM   #5
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,272
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Is that available on line somewhere? Some people I know of need to see that.

You thinkin' of that Spooked guy of the chickenwire/can-of-kerosene fame?
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2007, 03:28 PM   #6
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Quintiere's long been an advocate of full-floor modeling, so it's good to see that he took the bull by the horns here. He's also long claimed that NIST greatly underestimated tower fuel loads, but I haven't seen the study on which he based that claim.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2007, 03:30 PM   #7
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
You thinkin' of that Spooked guy of the chickenwire/can-of-kerosene fame?
Spooked needs to see a doctor, not a study.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2007, 03:45 PM   #8
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
 
cmcaulif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Quintiere's long been an advocate of full-floor modeling, so it's good to see that he took the bull by the horns here. He's also long claimed that NIST greatly underestimated tower fuel loads, but I haven't seen the study on which he based that claim.
Here is the source he references, I still can't find a copy, I think I will email him.

Stewart, K. 2005. “Analysis of the fuel load calculations for the 96th
floor of the WTC North Tower: Private discussion and report for Dr. J.
G. Quintiere.” Dept. of Fire Protection Engineering, Univ. of Maryland,
College Park, Md.

his reasoning seems to be that 20 is the minimum, while in storage areas, the number can get up to 60. 50 was taken based on a survey of the floor and since '170 four-drawer lateral files should be included'

Its hard to really evaluate that without the Stewart report though.

Last edited by cmcaulif; 16th November 2007 at 03:51 PM.
cmcaulif is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2007, 04:05 PM   #9
slyjoe
Graduate Poster
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins
Posts: 1,776
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Spooked needs to see a doctor, not a study.
I have GOT to remember that one! Pithy too.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2007, 05:52 PM   #10
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Spooked needs to see a doctor, not a study.
Forget it, my practice is closed to insane truthers...lol

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2007, 05:57 PM   #11
Mangoose
Muse
 
Mangoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 921
leftysergeant -- You have a PM.
Mangoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2007, 06:15 PM   #12
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,272
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Spooked needs to see a doctor, not a study.

He he... can't argue with you there.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2007, 06:47 PM   #13
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
 
JimBenArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Spooked needs to see a doctor, not a study.
Maybe a doctor could use him in a study?
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
JimBenArm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2007, 09:15 PM   #14
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,760
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Forget it, my practice is closed to insane truthers...lol

TAM
Smart move, TAM
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2007, 09:19 PM   #15
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,760
Originally Posted by JimBenArm View Post
Maybe a doctor could use him in a study?
Perhaps as a blunt object.


{As in the old board game called "Clue": Doctor (X) in the Study with a Blunt Object.}
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2007, 01:29 PM   #16
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
 
cmcaulif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
Does anyone who has read the article have any comments? Even though a subscription is required it might be worth heading down to a local Uni to check it out, the journal is an American Society of Civil Engineers publication, which is usually easy to find.

I'm perusing some of his references and trying to find out about some of the error associated with this type of modeling, however error would seem completely irrelevant given the fact NIST predicts max temps for fireproofed trusses in WTC 1 at not much more than 400oC while Quintiere's model predicts truss temps at 800oC at the time of collapse. This definitely lends credence to the arguement that the fireproofing was not adequate, but it seems the discrepancy in numbers from NIST and Dr. Q boils down to their different fuel load estimates.
cmcaulif is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2007, 05:24 PM   #17
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
 
cmcaulif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
I have emailed Dr. Quintiere on his fuel load study and he sent me a copy. I can send a copy to someone if you like, or perhaps Gravy or someone else with a site could get in touch with him and get permission to host the document(I don't there is no copyright but that just seems like the way to go).

They compare their results with appendix J of the NIST preliminary report, which gives an estimate for the fuel loading. NCSTAR1-5 also describes how NIST came to their fuel load estimate as well if I'm remembering right.

A big difference between the two is this:

Quote:
NIST used a per desk weight rather than obtaining combustibles for the
entire floor and attributing that to their experiments. However, in the
impact zone, there are two conference rooms (~1,590 lbs (721 kg) of
combustible materials), 8 sets of four drawer lateral files (48 cabinets=192
drawers~13,824 lbs (6270.5 kg) (of paper that was likely dislodged by the
impact) and the paper storage area (~28,000 lbs (12,701 kg) of paper &
paper/office products) that directly contribute to the initial fire started by
the jet fuel.
that alone would bump up the fuel load considerably in the office area. The rest of the differences come from differences in the estimated paper weights(largely from above, and from estimated work station contents) and from furniture weights.
cmcaulif is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2007, 08:08 PM   #18
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by cmcaulif View Post
I have emailed Dr. Quintiere on his fuel load study and he sent me a copy. I can send a copy to someone if you like, or perhaps Gravy or someone else with a site could get in touch with him and get permission to host the document(I don't there is no copyright but that just seems like the way to go).
If it's published, there will be a copyright...

I'd be interested to read it, if you can toss it over easily -- drop me a PM. Scale models of complex phenomena are always interesting papers. It's not an easy thing to do.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2007, 08:33 PM   #19
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
NIST really cannot justify the fuel loads it uses for the WTC...

Why do I say that?

I have read Report No: NIST-GCR-96-697. "A survey of fuel loads in contemporaty office buildings" a detailed study of this topic published in 1996 and written under the auspices of............., you guessed it,....NIST!!!

And what does NIST-GCR-96-697 suggest that typical office fuel loads might be? (Remember for the WTC NIST use 4 or 5 psf)... Well 13 to 14 psf!

But it gets better!

I have also read NIST SP-1021, which is about the Cook County Office fire of October 2003. Here we read on page 75 that a typical office has a fuel load of 18 psf.

So who is NIST trying to kid with its 4-5 psf fuel loads for WTC 1 & 2?

And why?

I smell a rat!
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2007, 08:49 PM   #20
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
I dont know apollo, but what htey are guessins is the THEIR BEST guess . NO one knows the exact amount of combustibles on the floors that were hit by the planes, as that is something that will remain a variable.

Dont you think that NIST is basing their estimates on the best possible scenario? Taking the square footage of the floors; the average size of what an office would be in teh buidings based on the available floor plans? The average amount of combustibles found on a floor of an office building.

Seriously, this is nothing more than picking at minor details here. We know that even in a nearly "empty" office, the materials that served as fuel, within is hot enough to cause weakening of the steel supports.

I dont see how this has anything to do with the RESULTS. So what if NIST used a different amount than Quinterre did?

This is like arguing about how many dimples an orange has on its skin. Does the amount of dimples determine that its an orange or not?
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2007, 08:54 PM   #21
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
The important thing about fuel load is that it mostly affects the duration of a fire. A 20 kg/m^2 fire in the twin towers will only last about 1500 seconds and then its kaput because its run out of fuel. A 40 kg/m^2 combustible load allows the same, approx 2 MW per workstation, fire to burn for 50 minutes. This has important implications for the heating of steel above its critical temperature of 600 deg C. Certainly 20 kg/m^2 fuel load was insufficient to heat columns weighing over 5 tons to this temperature.
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2007, 09:34 PM   #22
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
The important thing about fuel load is that it mostly affects the duration of a fire. A 20 kg/m^2 fire in the twin towers will only last about 1500 seconds and then its kaput because its run out of fuel. A 40 kg/m^2 combustible load allows the same, approx 2 MW per workstation, fire to burn for 50 minutes. This has important implications for the heating of steel above its critical temperature of 600 deg C. Certainly 20 kg/m^2 fuel load was insufficient to heat columns weighing over 5 tons to this temperature.
Wouldn't the fact that the fire skipped a small-involved-area step of typical office fires aid in speeding the temp rise in the steel not to mention the initial bump in fuel load from the acellerant, the jet fuel?

This fire involved several adjacent floors at once right from the outset. Typically heat from a fire on one floor must be conducted through the ceiling to affect trusses and even if there is a fire on the upper floor its is significantly later and the fuel load on the original fire floor will have burned off to some degree. Such was not the case in the towers. Similarily a fire on one face of a column typically could take time to progress to engulf the coulmn. Such was not the case for some of the columns in the towers. Thousands of gallons of acellerant being tossed about has to make a difference.

ETA: basically the fact that the fire was immediatly a multistorey fire by the use of thousands of gallons of acellerant made the heat transfer to the columns more efficient than it would be in a typical office fire.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 20th November 2007 at 10:00 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2007, 09:41 PM   #23
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Wouldn't the fact that the fire skipped a small-involved-area step of typical office fires aid in speeding the temp rise in the steel not to mention the initial bump in fuel load from the acellerant, the jet fuel?
Quite obviously, the fire burned for a bit more than any 1500 seconds--so the NIST estimate was biased toward NON-COLLAPSE, again.
Apollo20, the non-scientific chemist, wants exact numbers, damnit! Whether they exist or not, and whether they are relevant or not.
None of this Enveloping the problem stuff, nosirebob! We must be exact. We must be precise, not accurate.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2007, 10:12 PM   #24
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
 
cmcaulif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
If it's published, there will be a copyright...

I'd be interested to read it, if you can toss it over easily -- drop me a PM. Scale models of complex phenomena are always interesting papers. It's not an easy thing to do.
The fuel load estimate, which on a side note may also have implications on the live load, since the estimated furniture weight and total weight was higher than NIST's estimate, was not published(as in published in a journal), it was a report prepared by Ms Stewart privately for Dr. Quintiere, I'm not sure how copyright works in that case.

But anyhow, PM sent.
cmcaulif is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2007, 10:52 PM   #25
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
 
cmcaulif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Quite obviously, the fire burned for a bit more than any 1500 seconds--so the NIST estimate was biased toward NON-COLLAPSE, again.
Apollo20, the non-scientific chemist, wants exact numbers, damnit! Whether they exist or not, and whether they are relevant or not.
None of this Enveloping the problem stuff, nosirebob! We must be exact. We must be precise, not accurate.
I'm not sure that biasing the fuel load towards non collapse is really acceptable, especially when there are some fuel sources that simply went unaccounted for, such as storage areas and conference rooms, which will play a part in heating the steel. Of course the numbers wont be exact, and the report wont be exact, but unless you are trying to recreate what was actually going on in the structure there is not much of a point in doing a study like NIST did.
cmcaulif is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2007, 11:07 PM   #26
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
 
cmcaulif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
The important thing about fuel load is that it mostly affects the duration of a fire. A 20 kg/m^2 fire in the twin towers will only last about 1500 seconds and then its kaput because its run out of fuel. A 40 kg/m^2 combustible load allows the same, approx 2 MW per workstation, fire to burn for 50 minutes. This has important implications for the heating of steel above its critical temperature of 600 deg C. Certainly 20 kg/m^2 fuel load was insufficient to heat columns weighing over 5 tons to this temperature.
I havent checked your numbers on burnout times, but the WTC fires were traveling fires, with a 'near field' where structural elements were exposed to flame, and a 'far field' which is away from the flame but is still subject to hot gases and soot. The far field can still have very high temperatures, even after all of the combustibles in it have been consumed. More on that from a very interesting paper from Dr. Barbara Lane and some of her associates at Arup Fire:

Rein et all, Multi-Story Fire Analysis for High Rise Buildings, 11th Interflam, London, September 2007 pp 605-616

Quote:
When a small fire is in the vicinity of a structural element, the temperature corresponds to the near field (in
the order of 1300°C). This heating would last for about 10 min to 20 min for typical office fuel loads (in
the range from 20 to 40 kg/m2) independently of the fire size. As reported before, for the average office
building, a heat released rate per unit area of 500 kW/m2 fire lasts for approximately 14 min to burn. As
the fire travels away from the element, the far field surrounds it and temperatures from 700 °C down to
200 °C are sustained, albeit for a period approximately ten times longer.
cmcaulif is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2007, 05:45 AM   #27
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
cmcaulif:

Thanks for starting this interesting thread.

Actually most of the heat released by the WTC fires escaped as SENSIBLE HEAT. It is a simple matter to calculate this and show that heat energy was lost to the combustion gases at a rate of about 300 MW per fire-affected floor, with no more than 25 % of the available heat energy being absorbed by the steel as radiant (infrared) energy. This should not be surprising since large industrial reheating furnaces in steel-works have thermal efficiencies of only about 30 % and these furnaces are DESIGNED to heat steel.

You know, if NIST had a good REASON to use very low fuel loads - say to be very conservative in its calculations - it should have said so. But since it did not, we have to assume that 20 kg/m^2 was NIST's best estimate. I beileve Quintiere is absolutely right-on in criticizing NIST for this!
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2007, 07:01 AM   #28
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,592
As I keep trying to tell you funny guys, the fake funny fires are so catalyzed.

Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post

The important thing about fuel load is that it mostly affects the duration of a fire. A 20 kg/m^2 fire in the twin towers will only last about 1500 seconds and then its kaput because its run out of fuel. A 40 kg/m^2 combustible load allows the same, approx 2 MW per workstation, fire to burn for 50 minutes. This has important implications for the heating of steel above its critical temperature of 600 deg C. Certainly 20 kg/m^2 fuel load was insufficient to heat columns weighing over 5 tons to this temperature.

Something's up with the fires:
  • WTC2's NE corner fire burned like a fireplace with a fake log and a gas feed. It even seemed to have have an On/Off valve.
  • There were other WTC2 fires seen that - according to NIST - did not follow natural fire progressions.
  • NIST cites other bizarre phenomena unusual for building fires.

You all should come join Bedtime Stories, with Max Photon, where we all sit around and watch NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C together. This is a NIST-narrated photo slide-show of the exterior of WTC2 from impact to collapse initiation.

NIST tells a very exciting story, and it will serve you well in this discussion and others to have familiarity with the strange zoology of observations.


Max Photon says the fires were deliberately catalyzed.


Max Photon

(The guy who says the fires were deliberately catalyzed.)


* * *
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2007, 07:03 AM   #29
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Would I be correct in assuming that storage areas, with a higher fuel load, would be located closer to the core rather than the perimeter? That would have implications as to near feild and far feild that cmcaulif brings up.

Also, on the floors most affected by impact the fuel load is rubblized office contents as well as aircraft debris (in the path of the aircraft) and would be more concentrated along one side of the core in the north tower at least.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2007, 07:06 AM   #30
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Quote:
Max Photon says the fires were deliberately catalyzed.


Max Photon

(The guy who says the fires were deliberately catalyzed.)
Max Photon is the guy who ignores the large aircraft crashing into the towers and the effect that would have on the burning contents in the towers.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2007, 07:24 AM   #31
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
Max Photon says the fires were deliberately catalyzed.


Max Photon

(The guy who says the fires were deliberately catalyzed.)


* * *
You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post
Alferd_Packer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2007, 07:31 AM   #32
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,592
NIST quotes low fuel loads for WTCs 1 & 2, to cloak supplementary catalysts.

Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
NIST really cannot justify the fuel loads it uses for the WTC...

Why do I say that?

I have read Report No: NIST-GCR-96-697. "A survey of fuel loads in contemporaty office buildings" a detailed study of this topic published in 1996 and written under the auspices of............., you guessed it,....NIST!!!

And what does NIST-GCR-96-697 suggest that typical office fuel loads might be? (Remember for the WTC NIST use 4 or 5 psf)... Well 13 to 14 psf!

But it gets better!

I have also read NIST SP-1021, which is about the Cook County Office fire of October 2003. Here we read on page 75 that a typical office has a fuel load of 18 psf.

So who is NIST trying to kid with its 4-5 psf fuel loads for WTC 1 & 2?

And why?

I smell a rat!

Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
The important thing about fuel load is that it mostly affects the duration of a fire. A 20 kg/m^2 fire in the twin towers will only last about 1500 seconds and then its kaput because its run out of fuel. A 40 kg/m^2 combustible load allows the same, approx 2 MW per workstation, fire to burn for 50 minutes. This has important implications for the heating of steel above its critical temperature of 600 deg C. Certainly 20 kg/m^2 fuel load was insufficient to heat columns weighing over 5 tons to this temperature.

Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
cmcaulif:

Thanks for starting this interesting thread.

Actually most of the heat released by the WTC fires escaped as SENSIBLE HEAT. It is a simple matter to calculate this and show that heat energy was lost to the combustion gases at a rate of about 300 MW per fire-affected floor, with no more than 25 % of the available heat energy being absorbed by the steel as radiant (infrared) energy. This should not be surprising since large industrial reheating furnaces in steel-works have thermal efficiencies of only about 30 % and these furnaces are DESIGNED to heat steel.

You know, if NIST had a good REASON to use very low fuel loads - say to be very conservative in its calculations - it should have said so. But since it did not, we have to assume that 20 kg/m^2 was NIST's best estimate. I beileve Quintiere is absolutely right-on in criticizing NIST for this!


Why does NIST have 4-5 psf fuel loads for WTCs 1 & 2, when 13-18 psf is expected?


If we view this through Paul's Magic Filter, which disambiguates the NIST reports using the constraint that the need for plausible deniability means the NIST reports do not lie, but rather, tell then ambiguated truth, then perhaps we can solve this mystery.

NIST is telling the truth that the office fuel loads - on the specific floors in question - were indeed 4-5 psf.

And it is true that 3-4 times NIST's fuel load is expected.


Here is the trick:

The difference between expected and NIST's number is the amount of supplementary catalyst used!

Get it?

By quoting a low fuel load, approximately the equivalent of 10 psf of supplementary catalyst could be cloaked by the difference!


Note that the catalyst - if care is exercised - can be made to heat the steel much more efficiently than a typical office fire. (For example, catalyst inside a box column will heat the steel very efficiently.)


Using this trick, plausible deniability has been successfully engineered.

However, it leaves the evidence hiding in plain view.


Max

* * *

Last edited by Max Photon; 21st November 2007 at 08:02 AM.
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2007, 08:24 AM   #33
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 30,389
Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
Why does NIST have 4-5 psf fuel loads for WTCs 1 & 2, when 13-18 psf is expected?


If we view this through Paul's Magic Filter, which disambiguates the NIST reports using the constraint that the need for plausible deniability means the NIST reports do not lie, but rather, tell then ambiguated truth, then perhaps we can solve this mystery.

NIST is telling the truth that the office fuel loads - on the specific floors in question - were indeed 4-5 psf.

And it is true that 3-4 times NIST's fuel load is expected.


Here is the trick:

The difference between expected and NIST's number is the amount of supplementary catalyst used!
You slipped up at your own game, Max. If you're right, then the amount of catalyst present was negative. NIST's numbers were smaller than the expected loads.

Nice try, though.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2007, 02:35 PM   #34
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
Dave Rogers:

I think Max's point is that a fuel load of 4-5 psf cannot explain the intensity of the observed fires in WTC 1 & 2, and I have to agree. Now, of course, that doesn't mean thermite was used, only that NIST's estimated fuel load is very strange.

jaydeehess:

What would the combustibles be in the core areas? Do you have any information on this? Surely the core of each tower was dominated by elevator shafts, hallways and stairwells. Once the spilled jet fuel burned off, what was left to burn in the cores?
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2007, 03:14 PM   #35
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
jaydeehess:

What would the combustibles be in the core areas? Do you have any information on this? Surely the core of each tower was dominated by elevator shafts, hallways and stairwells. Once the spilled jet fuel burned off, what was left to burn in the cores?
I am referring to the north tower specifically.

When the plane hit , it would have pushed the office furnishings into the core area on the floors where the fuselage impacted. The rubble that would have hit the core columns and piled up there included much of the aircraft debris.

So you end up with a longer burning fire within the core area if you assume that the debris contained most of the office furnishings from the office space between core and windows has now been concentrated in a smaller area in addition to aircraft debris that ended up there as well.


The famous photo of the woman in the impact hole shows that not much was left in the immediate area of the perimeter impact as the fire at that spot burned out fairly soon (which had little effect on fire weakening since it is at this part of the building that there were a lot of severed perimeter columns due to the impact itself). That is, there was little fire at the perimeter where the plane hit even if there was a much greater fire about 100 feet from the impact hole, at the core. That woman would be 100 feet, upwind, from a large fire. It would also explain why she is where she is. With a fire raging at the core she cannot get off that floor, and the coolest spot with fresh air would have been at the impact hole.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 21st November 2007 at 03:19 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2007, 05:33 PM   #36
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
jaydeehess:

Very interesting suggestion!

I think NIST do mention aircraft debris as a fuel source but I havn't seen much specific(s).

Seat cushions, upholstery, blankets, carpeting, ceiling and floor panels, etc, would add up to at least 5 tonnes of combustibles per aircraft, but this is small compared to the total fuel load from offices per floor.

However, the aircraft aluminum alloy is another story; but on that one NIST has apparently closed the book.....

Or perhaps, has never opened it!
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2007, 05:45 PM   #37
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,592
"Jets laden with fuel" cloaks "jets laden with aluminum"

Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
jaydeehess:

Very interesting suggestion!

I think NIST do mention aircraft debris as a fuel source but I havn't seen much specific(s).

Seat cushions, upholstery, blankets, carpeting, ceiling and floor panels, etc, would add up to at least 5 tonnes of combustibles per aircraft, but this is small compared to the total fuel load from offices per floor.

However, the aircraft aluminum alloy is another story; but on that one NIST has apparently closed the book.....

Or perhaps, has never opened it!

[bold mine]


This is an incredibly important point! No one thinks of the potential energy of the aluminum.


MAX-MIHOP says that the emotionally-potent oversimplification of "jets laden with jet fuel" actually serves to cloak the more complex reality - that the jets' aluminum carried enormous exploitable potential energy.

No one says, "the jets laden with aluminum."

(Remember, and aluminum/water/(hydrogen) explosion - for a given weight of aluminum - has a greater yield than an explosion from the same weight of TNT.)

Jet fuel cloaks aluminum, as cutting steel cloaks heat-weakening steel.


Max

* * *

Last edited by Max Photon; 21st November 2007 at 05:48 PM.
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2007, 06:05 PM   #38
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
jaydeehess:

Very interesting suggestion!

I think NIST do mention aircraft debris as a fuel source but I havn't seen much specific(s).

Seat cushions, upholstery, blankets, carpeting, ceiling and floor panels, etc, would add up to at least 5 tonnes of combustibles per aircraft, but this is small compared to the total fuel load from offices per floor.

However, the aircraft aluminum alloy is another story; but on that one NIST has apparently closed the book.....

Or perhaps, has never opened it!
How well does hydralic fluid burn? There's not much there but it would also be considered an acellerant given that it would spread out over a large area.

Then there is the issue of oxygen generators which could create a great deal hotter fire for a short time in very localized areas within the general fire zone.

Its not so much the total combustables that I see as the problem either, at least not for the north tower. Its the concentration of those combustables from one side of the tower into the core area on at least two floors. As you said the core columns would normally not be surrounded by much in the way of combustible material. In the north tower some of those core columns would have been. In the south tower it would be at the far side from the impact where the 'molten metal' is seen dripping from the corner fire.

As far as the jet fuel goes, again it is not so much that it adds to the fuel load but that it ensures that there is a major fire on adjacent floors immediatly as opposed to the typical progression of an office fire. Heat input to the columns would have the efficiency (perhaps not the correct wording....) of a multi level fire right from the outset.

As for the aluminum alloy, videos of air crashs such as the one in Toronto last year or the year before where it skidded off the end of the runway and caught fire, illustrate quite well that the aluminum does get consumed in those fires. The plane in T.O. was intact when it came to rest and caught fire, but by the time the fire was out much of the cabin was burned away.
So it would seem that one must allow for the aluminum to also be considered fuel load. I would think that its rubblized condition and mixing with the other fuel in the tower would aid in its being involved in the fire as well

Last edited by jaydeehess; 21st November 2007 at 06:15 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2007, 06:13 PM   #39
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Quote:
MAX-MIHOP says that the emotionally-potent oversimplification of "jets laden with jet fuel"
an emotional oversimplification much used by the CT crowd in which they attempt to say that the OT has the towers collapsing because the jet fuel fires weakened the steel.

In fact the jet fuel served not so much to cause the weaking but as an acellerant that had this office fire completely skip the typical step of one small point of origin and go straight to , large involved area on several floors step.

One thing is very very sure about the fire in the towers. It resembles a typical office fire only because there is stuff burning and smoke being created. Beyond that it is rather unique.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 21st November 2007 at 06:14 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2007, 08:13 PM   #40
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,592
What makes WTC2's fires unique? Let me count the ways...

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post

an emotional oversimplification much used by the CT crowd in which they attempt to say that the OT has the towers collapsing because the jet fuel fires weakened the steel.

That is a very good example.


Quote:

In fact the jet fuel served not so much to cause the weaking but as an acellerant that had this office fire completely skip the typical step of one small point of origin and go straight to , large involved area on several floors step.

That's is true for WTC1.

WTC2 has mostly stationary, localized fires.


Quote:
One thing is very very sure about the fire in the towers. It resembles a typical office fire only because there is stuff burning and smoke being created. Beyond that it is rather unique.

...what, with the:
  • flashes that look like thermite fuse
  • coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of old-fashioned steam-driven pipe organs
  • numerous major smoke releases - all 1 minute long, +/- a few seconds
  • pressure pulses
  • debris ejected at high speeds
  • falling debris
  • bright white glows
  • sequential metal flows
  • fires that suddenly appear and disappear
  • a 10 minute metal fire at Column 301/81st bolt-access-holes
  • hanging objects seen through open windows that change their positions
  • hanging objects seen through open windows that disappear and reappear.
  • Column 301/81 bowing inward and failing, initiating the collapse of WTC2
  • AND THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE CORRELATED!
Unique indeed.


Max

(so were the fires)

* * *

Last edited by Max Photon; 21st November 2007 at 08:14 PM.
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:37 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.