Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

ew

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[img]http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2013/10/Crispians+Conspiracy+Flowchart.jpg[/img]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

It' funny that after watching Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, it has slightly changed my perspective in this whole tragedy. Being in the Engineering field I did have my doubts on the structural integrity on the building being able to freely collapse, however going through the NIST investigations it did shine some light on how and why these buildings have collapsed the way that they have. Guess you could really say this is the first of its kind being a structural steel framed building of its height and FSR to have under gone this. Well going back to Moore, what I believe Fahrenheit pointed out was the failure of a government more than anything else.

Anyone else seen Fahrenheit 9/11?

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

nsa

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

Failed this time.

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[url="http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm"]http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7236-fireproofing-key-to-twin-towers-collapse.html"]Fireproofing key to Twin Towers' collapse - tech - 06 April 2005 - New Scientist[/url]

[url="http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp"]McGraw-Hill Construction | ENR - Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing[/url]

[img]http://www.debunking911.com/wtc1sfrm.jpg[/img]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

:lol: lol didn't think so

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

Details, nuance and non black or white reasoning are not usually things conspiracy theorists like dealing with. ;)

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

Oy oi what's going on here then?

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[QUOTE=FFF;1117246]Oy oi what's going on here then?[/QUOTE]

Reading through the thread, I would have thought that was obvious. The alpha dog is away, so a subservient dog has come and taken a shit, and all the other dogs have come to take a sniff.

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

umad chunky?

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

Come on Reso, if a bear shits in the woods on acid and nobody sees it, does it smell like rainbows?

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;1117257]umad chunky?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=floridaorange;1117258]Come on Reso, if a bear shits in the woods on acid and nobody sees it, does it smell like rainbows?[/QUOTE]

Case proven sniff sniff sniff

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[QUOTE=King Coe;1117262]Case proven sniff sniff sniff[/QUOTE]

Sniff away maestro, that's naaaasty :lol:

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[QUOTE=floridaorange;1117263]Sniff away maestro, that's naaaasty :lol:[/QUOTE]

And so speaks the biggest shit sniveler of them all, why don't you book a booth and tell us about your love for Chloe (even though you have no idea about the music she plays) or even when you turned to religion, that was top drawer comedy. The forum had become a haven for shit snivelers and you are the biggest of them all. So off you go cry to pickle and bump another birthday thread, woof woof

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[QUOTE=thebanned1;1113637][URL]http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm[/URL]

[URL="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7236-fireproofing-key-to-twin-towers-collapse.html"]Fireproofing key to Twin Towers' collapse - tech - 06 April 2005 - New Scientist[/URL]

[URL="http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp"]McGraw-Hill Construction | ENR - Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing[/URL]

[IMG]http://www.debunking911.com/wtc1sfrm.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Is that on top of your bean can theory? Or is it instead of? lol

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

Rough week guvna?

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

Still waiting for the sleeper cells nom nom nom nom

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

ZZz. This bores me. BBL.

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[QUOTE=thebanned1;1117198]:lol: lol didn't think so[/QUOTE]

So here we have, in this weeks news, parcel bombs sent to Forces recruitment centres. Only who did it? Even newsnight where sceptical, oh it was the Irish!

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

The what rish?

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

The Irish, no forensics, no investigation, no one claiming responsibility, it was the Irish. lOl. It's almost like it couldn't have been no one else lOl

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

No parcel bombs dispatched from the Uk gov post room that day so it defo wasn't al Qaeda LoL. paddy's taking the piss

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[QUOTE=audrey_w;1104706][IMG]http://www.freemyspacegraphics.com/Graphics/Funny_Animations/images/funny_1.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]

She obviously didn't have fire proofing

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

Looks like the Alpha Male is back LOL

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

Science is mere speculation. Opinions of the brainwashed masses are FACT. Hahahaha

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

As shpira said, "the idiots are winning" LOL

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[QUOTE=King Coe;1117271]Is that on top of your bean can theory? Or is it instead of? lol[/QUOTE]

hard scientific proof... where is your's in the conspiracy theory that has obviously brainwashed your mind into thinking the government are responsible for the killing of over 3000 of their own people in aid to gain valuable oil contacts blah blah blah

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

i mean that is a sound theory, doesn't sound crazy in the slightest... oh whats the word for it... not black op something else

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[QUOTE=thebanned1;1113637]

[URL="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7236-fireproofing-key-to-twin-towers-collapse.html"]Fireproofing key to Twin Towers' collapse - tech - 06 April 2005 - New Scientist[/URL] [/QUOTE]

I'm guessing you didn't bother reading this before you posted it

[QUOTE]. But some experts remain unconvinced by the study's conclusions. James Quintiere, of the University of Maryland, US, says he does not understand how fireproof insulation could have been dislodged from the buildings' floors and columns.

"Everything I see points to the fact that there may not have been enough insulation," he told New Scientist, adding that the fuel loads used in the report's calculations may have been too low.

And Barbara Lane, leader of the Structural Fire Group at UK engineering company Arup, adds: "[We] don't believe that [the dislodging of fireproof material] has been substantiated in any of the published data to date." She adds that it is difficult to extrapolate heat assessments of a material to what might happen when it is actually in place in a building.

Lane also questions recommendations concerning the use of thermally-resistant window assemblies to slow the spread of fire. "This is of considerable concern as even this form of glass can fail under direct flame impingement," she says.

The complete report is comprised of more than 10,000 pages, the preliminary 3400 pages of which were released on Tuesday. The remainder of the study is planned for release in July 2005, when the institute will also make recommendations concerning building design and construction.[/QUOTE]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[QUOTE=King Coe;1117361]I'm guessing you didn't bother reading this before you posted it[/QUOTE]

nope didn't read

[quote][COLOR=#CCCCCC][I]But [b]some[/b] experts remain unconvinced by the study's conclusions.[/quote][/I][/COLOR]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[QUOTE]"Everything I see points to the fact that there may not have been enough insulation," he told New Scientist, adding that the fuel loads used in the report's calculations may have been too low. [/QUOTE]

what fuel loads?

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[QUOTE=King Coe;1117365]what fuel loads?[/QUOTE]

i,m not sure but wouldn't the insulation need to be a certain thickness for a certain amount of fire ? e.g. a gallon of fuel = insulation 2 inch thick ?

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

How about the next time a steel framed building is due for demolition, as an experiment, fill it with aviation fuel and set it alight. Then see if the steel structure collapses. Would be interesting.

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[QUOTE=audrey_w;1117378]How about the next time a steel framed building is due for demolition, as an experiment, fill it with aviation fuel and set it alight. Then see if the steel structure collapses. Would be interesting.[/QUOTE]

i think the twin towers were a unique design which makes that idea pretty difficult plus they would need to fly planes into it so see what damage to the structure that made

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[QUOTE=thebanned1;1117384]i think the twin towers were a unique design which makes that idea pretty difficult plus they would need to fly planes into it so see what damage to the structure that made[/QUOTE]

No jet fuel in Building 7 and had there been it would have burnt up in the explosion.

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

Yeah, i'm not saying this would conclusively prove either way what happened that day to those 3 particular buildings. But, as an experiment, it could be used to see what kind of temperatures are created in the steel and the stress on the structure could be measured too. For the sake of this experiment it may be worth remembering that building 7 wasn't hit by a plane and no aviation fuel was involved in it's fires

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

Within a steel-frame compartment (3 m by 7 m by 4 m) lined with calcium silicate board were placed four steel components: two trusses, one thin-walled column, and a rod. The components either were uninsulated or had fibrous sprayed fire-resistive material (SFRM) applied; two thicknesses were tested. The 2 MW and 3 MW fires were generated using liquid hydrocarbon fuels introduced by a two-nozzle spray burner onto a 1 m by 2 m pan. The fuels were a commercial blend of heptane isomers and a mixture of the heptane blend with toluene. Six experiments were conducted.Measurements were made of a large number of parameters, including the heat release rate; the radiative and total heat flux at various targets in the compartment, including locations near the floor and the ceiling;the temperatures of insulated and uninsulated steel components; the concentrations of soot, oxygen,carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide; and the vertical profiles of gas-phase temperature. A video record was made from several orientations. Nearly 350 ch annels of data were acquired. Following the establishment of baseline signals from all of the measurement devices, the burner was ignited and burned at a steady rate. The test continued until the surface temperature of any one of several steel components present in the compartment reached approximately 600

In conclusion,

For each test, a prediction of the thermal environment in the compartment was determined using the NIST FDS fire model. A prediction of the rise of the steel temperature for the simulated thermal environment was made using the NIST FSI. A comparison of the FDS predictions and the experimental results showed that the predictions were within experimental and model uncertainty. The steel temperatures predicted by the FSI and the ANSYS finite-element models compared favorably with the measurements within experimental uncertainty and model sensitivity.

[url="http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101034"]http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101034[/url]

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

[QUOTE=Illuminate;1117388]. The 2 MW and 3 MW fires were generated using liquid hydrocarbon fuels introduced by a two-nozzle spray burner onto a 1 m by 2 m pan. The fuels were a commercial blend of heptane isomers and a mixture of the heptane blend with toluene. [/QUOTE]

Hardly your standard office fire, as was the case in building 7

Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???

Bit of a obscure situation, as a standard office fire would not be started by a jet engine that just crashed into your building.