BustedWing
Premiership Player
- Aug 29, 2013
- 3,091
- 2,038
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
OK! Back at it...
Lets start from the beginning and work our way through shall we?
980 is the number. the recorded temperature is above that. that should be the end of the discussion, not whether this is a "gotcha" over 1100 vs 1000.
I want you to remember that term - peer review. Its going to be important shortly.
This is a rather silly argument. A "general office fire" vs what was observed at the WTC site - do you think they are comparable? Should they be compared as two similar things? Really?
I would also love to know why on earth you are now contending that the fires were only 593 degrees C, thus it was definitely NOT aluminium that was melting, when earlier you were contending that the melted material was steel/iron/thermatic reacion, which has a MUCH MUCH higher melting point.
Which is it here Crankitup? Were the fires too cold to melt aluminium and ALSO hot enough to melt steel/iron burn thermite? Are you not now just citing anything that is against the official story, regardless of whether it contradicts your earlier positons?
Here's a link to the CSTAR paper related to the fire temps, and the modelling and methodology used to arrive at their conclusions: https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101420
Very simply put, it factored in things like ignition source, Oxygen and supplementary fuel (like all the stuff in the building), insulation, duration of burn etc etc etc.
VERY IMPORTANTLY - it was peer reviewed. If you don't know what this means, and why this is something you should not ignore, let me know, and I will explain why this means the argument: "But NIST is wrong check out this blog!" carries very little weight with me, and why it shouldnt with you either.
From 2003.
Thats 5 years BEFORE NIST released their findings.
a blog post that is anonymous. That went though (of course) zero peer review. That was published in 2003.
This carries more weight to you and is more believable to you than a paper that was independently peer reviewed, and published? Why? This is fascinating to me....
How do you think this might impact the 5x holding capacity? None at all? Some? Lots? Did you consider this when you made your point?
Think about that for a moment.
Lets start from the beginning and work our way through shall we?
Are we really going to argue semantics that 1000 isnt "approximately 1100"? Given the threshold being discussed is UNDER BOTH VALUES, why does this even matter?So you said in post #1,064 that "The fires at the impact sites were recorded at approximately 1100°C .." which turns out to be an error. What you've just posted says that NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius.
980 is the number. the recorded temperature is above that. that should be the end of the discussion, not whether this is a "gotcha" over 1100 vs 1000.
They've released drafts, and then released later versions, with clarifications and deeper analysis. This is precisely what should be done as a paper goes through peer review process.Regarding NIST lying or being wrong - all I said was they have admitted their errors regarding other crucial elements relating to that day. Is this news to you? You've never heard that before?
I want you to remember that term - peer review. Its going to be important shortly.
Gotta go. Hopefully this will do for now.
https://skysaver.com/blog/hot-can-fire-get-skysaver-rescue-backpacks/?v=7516fd43adaa
This is a rather silly argument. A "general office fire" vs what was observed at the WTC site - do you think they are comparable? Should they be compared as two similar things? Really?
I would also love to know why on earth you are now contending that the fires were only 593 degrees C, thus it was definitely NOT aluminium that was melting, when earlier you were contending that the melted material was steel/iron/thermatic reacion, which has a MUCH MUCH higher melting point.
Which is it here Crankitup? Were the fires too cold to melt aluminium and ALSO hot enough to melt steel/iron burn thermite? Are you not now just citing anything that is against the official story, regardless of whether it contradicts your earlier positons?
Here's a link to the CSTAR paper related to the fire temps, and the modelling and methodology used to arrive at their conclusions: https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101420
Very simply put, it factored in things like ignition source, Oxygen and supplementary fuel (like all the stuff in the building), insulation, duration of burn etc etc etc.
VERY IMPORTANTLY - it was peer reviewed. If you don't know what this means, and why this is something you should not ignore, let me know, and I will explain why this means the argument: "But NIST is wrong check out this blog!" carries very little weight with me, and why it shouldnt with you either.
This whole next wall of text is something that does the rounds from time to time. Do you know what it is? Its a blog post from an anonymous blogger.THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?
From 2003.
Thats 5 years BEFORE NIST released their findings.
a blog post that is anonymous. That went though (of course) zero peer review. That was published in 2003.
This carries more weight to you and is more believable to you than a paper that was independently peer reviewed, and published? Why? This is fascinating to me....
Sure, but what was sustaining the fires past those four minutes? Why is this relevant at all?I'll add one more point. The FEMA report on 911 said that the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes
Id like a citation please. In any case, the FEMA report was released in 2002 as a paper on the performance of the towers. It is a totally different thing to the NIST report, which is different again to the 9/11 commission report. I hope you're not confusing the three here...and the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 290C
Are you forgetting something here? Something that is pretty important to the holding capacity of the towers? Something like a plane flying into the towers, servering core support beams, an explosion, a fire etc etc?the crucial thing to remember is that the WTC was built to hold 5 times its load. So even if the steel got hot enough to reduce it's holding capacity to 20%, it should still have remained standing.
How do you think this might impact the 5x holding capacity? None at all? Some? Lots? Did you consider this when you made your point?
Think about that for a moment.
Last edited: