Originally Posted by yesme
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.