Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-16-2012, 08:22 AM #85
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesme View Post
I did read that, yes they tested beams at 250oC for 15 mins with and without fireproofing, yes,yes, we know that.

In order to make their "model" work, you know the computer model they did, they up the conditions to 800oC when they had no proof it ever got that hot.
So you haven't read the report once? I'm not surprised you're going to shy away from posting about it, you've got nothing.
__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 08:24 AM #86
yesme
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Pope View Post
Read the damn report. Nothing you are saying is relevant.
Thanks pope, go back to the dope.
yesme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 08:28 AM #87
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesme View Post
I did read that, yes they tested beams at 250oC for 15 mins with and without fireproofing, yes,yes, we know that.

In order to make their "model" work, you know the computer model they did, they up the conditions to 800oC when they had no proof it ever got that hot.

Simply because any other lower temp they tried would not work, so they made their "conditions" fit the result so it looks nice and tidy.
Read the goddamn report, you obviously don't know how the temperatures were attained.


Quote:
Originally Posted by yesme View Post
Name one other fire investigation done where the heat tested for was 4 times what was found on site please.


READ THE ****ING REPORT!
__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 08:33 AM #88
yesme
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1VENOM View Post
Read the goddamn report, you obviously don't know how the temperatures were attained.






READ THE ****ING REPORT!

i've read the ****ing report dip****

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05138.pdf

page 136 and 137 is where the numbers in your bull**** table comes from.

Notice it was not testing the conditions in the building that day, but testing what the metal could withstand, bare metal and fireproofed metal.

These tests in no way say or state that the conditions in the tower that day were as hot as their tests go up to.

please, find page number and report back asshat.
yesme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 08:36 AM #89
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Try the abstract (page iii).
__________________
"Originally posted by visualx: hey everyone, look at me. i call people poor though i make absolutely nothing; brag about my job as an intern or some ****; hate on people for not being fat like me; and absolutely never have any idea what i'm talking about, though i always have a ****ing righteous indignation with everything i say! aren't i ****ing amazing?! do you all like me yet?! oh, you know that hate is just a guise! good thing i have a ****ing amazing life! now let me go **** my fat girlfriend and cry myself to sleep"
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 08:42 AM #90
Space Pope
 
 
Space Pope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesme View Post
I did read that, yes they tested beams at 250oC for 15 mins with and without fireproofing, yes,yes, we know that.

In order to make their "model" work, you know the computer model they did, they up the conditions to 800oC when they had no proof it ever got that hot.

Simply because any other lower temp they tried would not work, so they made their "conditions" fit the result so it looks nice and tidy.


Name one other fire investigation done where the heat tested for was 4 times what was found on site please.
They determined the temperatures with a computer model, one which uses methods that have been in use for decades, to determine the expected temperature based on the variables in involved. They know what was in the building, they know the shape/size of the rooms, and with that you can build a very reasonable model of the situation and determine the expected temperatures that would result from a fire in those conditions. This isn't' anything new. They then went and verified their models bey building replicas and comparing the results produced by the program to experimental data.

The model showed the expected temperature in the building given the known conditions, and the experimental results verified that the model worked correctly. I use the same computer programs every day at work to simulate heat transfer to metallic structures through conduction, convection, and radiation, and they work. All of the designs produced based on these models exhibit the behaviors suggested by the models. None of this is new.

You continue to insinuate that they have no way of knowing that the metal got to 800 degrees, but they do, and the means used to determine it completely reasonable. You also imply that because a minuscule sample that was tested, collected from a pile of rubble, and what part of the building it came from completely unknown, did not exhibit the conditions presented by the models, somehow invalidates them. If you had any working knowledge of standard engineering practice and computer modeling, you would know that such assumptions are ridiculous.

Your argument is baseless conjecture stemming from a totally lacking knowledge of the process involved, while there is backed by real scientific testing and well proven computer modeling techniques. You have provided nothing to suggest that the techniques used to determine the temperatures reached in the fires are invalid.
Space Pope is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump