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. 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. 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.
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. But arguing is the only way to have a hope of settling things You too.
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!
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.
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. 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. 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.
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. exactly, the steel cores could not have reached high enough temps to weaken, not in a million yrs. 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. not consistently though as nist states. not even close as high as portrait. 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.
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.
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. 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. thx.
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.