Did FEMA recently report temperatures of 2700 degrees F at GZ?

[RKOwens4]

This is from a conversation I had with Jason Bermas at Ground Zero:

Jason: "All right, how about the report... I have a 2700 degree temperatures fahrenheit at the World Trade Center and that was reported less than a week ago."

Me: "Which report was that?"

Jason: "It was in the newspapers. It was by FEMA. Do I really need to pull it up? Alls you have to do is type in '2700 degrees FEMA'".

At first I thought he was talking about the original FEMA report, which explicitly states in Appendix C that the temperatures didn't exceed 1800 degrees F. Halfway through, he changes it from being a report to something in the newspapers. I still have no idea what he's talking about. I've done several searches and nothing from FEMA about this comes up, nor do I remember hearing anything about this in the week before September 11th (or at all). I even checked Prison Planet during the weeks prior and they said nothing about it. Does anyone know what the heck Jason was talking about???

[T.A.M.]

tell him to provide a reference, or to shut the **** up.

TAM:)

[kookbreaker]

Bermas pulling facts out of his backside? What are the odds?

[ElMondoHummus]

If FEMA did make those measurements directly, I'm unaware of it. However, Bechtel did indeed take measurements, and they must have been subcontracted by somebody (Port Authority, NY City government, NY State Government, FEMA, etc.), so maybe this is what Bermas was referring to. Truthers don't stop and think about all the agencies that were involved at Ground Zero; their work seems to assume that it was all NIST and FEMA.

Anyway, Bechtel's Safety, Health, and Environmental team did say that they measured 2,800 degrees F in some spots. That was recorded in the periodical "Professional Safety", May 2002 edition. 911 Research has the article linked here (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm):


•The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared “extinguished” on Dec. 19, 2001.


This of course does not help the thermite thesis one bit, unless Jones et. al. are able to come up with a hypothesis on how thermite burns for weeks to months after the ignition event. For the rest of the world versed in physics, the real calculation to determine temperature is not simply the energy released by the combustion, but also the energy that leaves the system; if it's well insulated, and heat keeps coming in, of course temperatures can get quite high. I'll let posters better educated than me in physics go into more detail; suffice to say that it takes a suspicious mind to make this a suspicious fact. If Bermas is thinking this is somehow a sign of some sort of incendiary, he can then explain weeks to months burn issue for Jones, as well as why there were no other signs of thermite use, such as collections of previously molten iron.

[T.A.M.]

It actually helps disprove their crap.

If 2700F existed in the pile, it would account EVEN FOR Molten STEEL. What they have yet to EVER PROVE, is that temps of 2700F COULD NOT EXIST in the pile afterward.

Show scientific proof that such temps could not exist in the pile at GZ...come on, I dare you.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, also, I did Googlewhack for "2700 degrees FEMA". I got truther sites, a "rawstory.com" article on a CNN article about 9/11 conspiracy fantasists (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CNN_Conspiracy_theorists_not_swayed_by_0822.html), a couple of FEMA sites where the number "2700" wasn't in reference to temperature (example: "2700 customers in Escambia County are without power (http://www.fema.gov/emergency/reports/2007/nat101907.shtm)"...), and other, utterly irrelevant links. 3 pages in, the only hits that discussed FEMA and 2700 degrees in the context of 9/11 were truther sites. Go figure.

[ElMondoHummus]

It actually helps disprove their crap.

If 2700F existed in the pile, it would account EVEN FOR Molten STEEL. What they have yet to EVER PROVE, is that temps of 2700F COULD NOT EXIST in the pile afterward.

Show scientific proof that such temps could not exist in the pile at GZ...come on, I dare you.

TAM:)

Yes, TAM, I agree. Ryan Mackey has also pointed this out before. So much that conspiracy fantasists submit cannot be separated from the rubble pile fires. Molten steel could have occurred post collapse. The eutectic melting could have occurred post collapse. Fantasists don't seem to pay attention to that fact.

[RKOwens4]

I've done several more searches and still have no idea what he was talking about. I looked through 911truth.org's articles on its main page from August 5th - September 16th, 2008 and there's absolutely nothing about either FEMA or 2700 degree temperatures. Does anyone know of any way to get in touch with Jason Bermas (email address?) so that I can ask him to send me a link?

And I did ask one truther who was handing out AE911truth pamphlets and talking about molten steel if actual controlled demolitions have ever left behind pools molten steel... he then said thermite creates molten steel. When I told them that thermite has never been used in any controlled demolition in history, he immediately changed the subject. I would have asked Jason to explain how thermite can possibly create pools of molten steel, but he too kept rapidly changing the subject from one thing to another.

[ULTIMA1]

This of course does not help the thermite thesis one bit, unless Jones et. al. are able to come up with a hypothesis on how thermite burns for weeks to months after the ignition event. .

Well it could be 1 of the reasons why the EPA requested NASA to overfly the area with AVIRIS.

The EPA also originally thought that the radiation at the WTC and Pentagon was casued by Depleted Uranium from the planes.

Problem is the 757 and 767 do not cary DU they carry Tungsten.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Tell Jason you had and RFID chip planted in your forearm and watch him go apes***

[defaultdotxbe]

This is from a conversation I had with Jason Bermas at Ground Zero:

Jason: "All right, how about the report... I have a 2700 degree temperatures fahrenheit at the World Trade Center and that was reported less than a week ago."

Me: "Which report was that?"

Jason: "It was in the newspapers. It was by FEMA. Do I really need to pull it up? Alls you have to do is type in '2700 degrees FEMA'".

At first I thought he was talking about the original FEMA report, which explicitly states in Appendix C that the temperatures didn't exceed 1800 degrees F. Halfway through, he changes it from being a report to something in the newspapers. I still have no idea what he's talking about. I've done several searches and nothing from FEMA about this comes up, nor do I remember hearing anything about this in the week before September 11th (or at all). I even checked Prison Planet during the weeks prior and they said nothing about it. Does anyone know what the heck Jason was talking about???
well i just put "2700 degrees fema" into google and got a whole lot of nothing

if it was in newspapers ask for publication, volume and issue (and page, title and byline if possible) but i dont even think your gonna get anything

[ElMondoHummus]

Guys, he probably got it from us, and the article Dr. Greening found that I've oddly been getting a ton of use from. And true to truther form, the actual number is off:

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm


Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.


See my first post in this thread.

[Quad4_72]

Well it could be 1 of the reasons why the EPA requested NASA to overfly the area with AVIRIS.

The EPA also originally thought that the radiation at the WTC and Pentagon was casued by Depleted Uranium from the planes.

Problem is the 757 and 767 do not cary DU they carry Tungsten.

WTF are you talking about?

[ElMondoHummus]

WTF are you talking about?

Who knows? The only "radiation" study I'm aware of is the Lawrence Berkeley one on tritium levels at Ground Zero (http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1678&context=lbnl), it's not done by the EPA, and it's hardly lends itself to any radiation scares. The elevated levels identified in the study are minute, and easily attributable to mundane sources (glow-in-the-dark sights on law enforcement weapons from the WTC 6 armory, for example). But that's tritium, not uranium.

[gumboot]

WTF are you talking about?


Sounds suspiciously like that theory that modified aircraft with DU nose cones were used to hit the towers, since everyone knows an ordinary airliner would bounce off.

[TjW]

Well it could be 1 of the reasons why the EPA requested NASA to overfly the area with AVIRIS.

The EPA also originally thought that the radiation at the WTC and Pentagon was casued by Depleted Uranium from the planes.

Problem is the 757 and 767 do not cary DU they carry Tungsten.

WTF are you talking about?

The movable surfaces such as ailerons and elevators are "mass-balanced" on some airplanes. That is, they have weight added forward of the hinge point so that they balance at the hinge point. This helps to prevent flutter.
The denser the balancing material, the less of it you have to use, and so the lighter things can be overall.
Depleted uranium was formerly used by Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas, but I think practically every manufacturer has switched to tungsten now.
I don't know for a fact this is what he meant, but it's the only connection I have in my mind regarding depleted uranium and airplanes.

[Quad4_72]

The movable surfaces such as ailerons and elevators are "mass-balanced" on some airplanes. That is, they have weight added forward of the hinge point so that they balance at the hinge point. This helps to prevent flutter.
The denser the balancing material, the less of it you have to use, and so the lighter things can be overall.
Depleted uranium was formerly used by Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas, but I think practically every manufacturer has switched to tungsten now.
I don't know for a fact this is what he meant, but it's the only connection I have in my mind regarding depleted uranium and airplanes.

Dare I say, HE doesn't know what he meant...

[CurtC]

Anyway, Bechtel's Safety, Health, and Environmental team did say that they measured 2,800 degrees F in some spots.

Doesn't that mean that the 2800F underground temp was inferred from surface measurements of cooler temps?

[ElMondoHummus]

Doesn't that mean that the 2800F underground temp was inferred from surface measurements of cooler temps?

The article linked above doesn't go into that much detail. It merely notes the ranges.

It's all irrelevant to conspiracy fantasies anyway; those are post collapse measurements that don't necessarily indicate much about pre-collapse conditions. They show there were fires prior to collapse, and that's about it. Everyone figured that out a long time ago. :rolleyes:

[ULTIMA1]

Depleted uranium was formerly used by Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas, but I think practically every manufacturer has switched to tungsten now..


Exactly the point. The EPA just assumend the planes were carrying DU because the older planes like the 747 carried lots of DU, but the 757 and 767 carry tungsten not DU.

There have been accidents with older 747s that casued radiation from the DU they carried.

[ElMondoHummus]

Exactly the point. The EPA just assumend the planes were carrying DU because the older planes like the 747 carried lots of DU, but the 757 and 767 carry tungsten not DU.

There have been accidents with older 747s that casued radiation from the DU they carried.

You've mentioned this before, and it's been discussed before.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4111644#post4111644

Maybe you're relying on early reports instead of final ones again, but the fact remains that, regarding Ground Zero in New York, the EPA does not list uranium as one of the detected elements in their monitoring program. They don't mention it in regards to the Pentagon either (http://www.epa.gov/wtc/pentagon-air-sampling.htm). They may have thought this at first, but I don't see any documentation that confirms that, let alone anything about uranium detection now. At any rate, they certainly aren't saying that there's any uranium contamination now. And with respect to Ground Zero at least, there's barely any additional radiation above normal there, and the increase that does exist has been attributed to the liberated tritium, which I've discussed above.

I don't know where you're going with this - supposed uranium in jetliners is irrelevant to any conspiracy theory - but it's not even applicable outside conspiratorial thinking, because as best I can tell, the EPA isn't even discussing uranium at either site. They're certainly not publishing any findings. So what's the point of this?

[Homeland Insurgency]

This of course does not help the thermite thesis one bit, unless Jones et. al. are able to come up with a hypothesis on how thermite burns for weeks to months after the ignition event.

Hmmmm... what is your thesis on what can ignite a fire that burns at 2,800 degrees after weeks or months?

[TjW]

My theory is that the ignition was accelerated by kerosene, and then the fuel of office contents was burned in a reasonably well insulated area with a restricted oxygen supply. Because there was oxygen, the fire didn't go out.
Because the oxygen was limited, the fuel didn't burn fast, so the fire went on for months.
Because the area being burned was reasonably well insulated, the area the fire was in got hotter and hotter.

[ElMondoHummus]

We need no "thesis" on what ignited the fire. We have observed that the jets hit and that fires followed.

The fact that it reached 2800 degrees in the rubble pile indicates nothing about the state of the towers prior to collapse. And it can be attributed to the radically different conditions present in the rubble pile.

[defaultdotxbe]

Hmmmm... what is your thesis on what can ignite a fire that burns at 2,800 degrees after weeks or months?
assuming its even true what is your theory on what can ignite and fuel a fire that burns for 2,800 degrees after weeks or months? since you will will probably reject ElMondoHummus and TjW's posts

[Homeland Insurgency]

assuming its even true what is your theory on what can ignite and fuel a fire that burns for 2,800 degrees after weeks or months? since you will will probably reject ElMondoHummus and TjW's posts

TjW's reply just leave me to believe that TjW doesn't accept the NIST assertion that the Jet Fuel that wasn't consumed by the giant fire ball burned off in twenty minutes.

I don't reject ElMondoHummus and his reply because like me he obviously doesn't know what could cause those kinds of temperatures. I don't have a theory or pretend to know what happened on 9/11 for the first time in history.

If kerosene or anything else can ignite a fire or accelerate it to eventually reach 2,800 degrees because of debris piles and oxygen conditions then why couldn't thermate be involved? And if there was Thermate or explosives involved how does it take away from any of the conditions described by TjW?

One doesn't negate the other.

[funk de fino]

TjW's reply just leave me to believe that TjW doesn't accept the NIST assertion that the Jet Fuel that wasn't consumed by the giant fire ball burned off in twenty minutes.

I don't reject ElMondoHummus and his reply because like me he obviously doesn't know what could cause those kinds of temperatures. I don't have a theory or pretend to know what happened on 9/11 for the first time in history.

If kerosene or anything else can ignite a fire or accelerate it to eventually reach 2,800 degrees because of debris piles and oxygen conditions then why couldn't thermate be involved? And if there was Thermate or explosives involved how does it take away from any of the conditions described by TjW?

One doesn't negate the other.

neither thermate or explosives were found at the site

[ElMondoHummus]

If kerosene or anything else can ignite a fire or accelerate it to eventually reach 2,800 degrees because of debris piles and oxygen conditions then why couldn't thermate be involved? And if there was Thermate or explosives involved how does it take away from any of the conditions described by TjW?

One doesn't negate the other.

That's a terrible argument, based more on wishful thinking than solid consideration of the facts. Thermate/thermite or explosives are ruled out for a plethora of other reasons, and has been for a long time now. A failed thesis cannot be reintroduced simply because high temperatures are being discussed, not when the evidence falsifying the notion still exists and hasn't changed. The eutectic erosion found by Biederman, Sisson, and Astaneh-Asl argues against thermate; so does the lack of hardened pools of formerly molten iron. As well as the lack of reports of such flows from people high up in the tower. And so on. There's no need to rehash failed arguments from the past; suffice to say that whatever the temperatures were in the rubble piles, they were not caused by a fast acting incendiary that is incapable of adding heat to the system after a few minutes, much less several weeks. And as I said before, the temperatures can easily be explained by the different conditions present in the rubble piles. Fires that were spread out over multiple floors and acres were compressed and concentrated; aflame segments that spanned 2 or 3 floors before collapse were reduced to mere feet high after collapse. Flammable office contents that were spread out over acres and vertically over stories were simply compressed. That alone changes the conditions; the fact that the rubble pile, with all the concrete that was available, was insulative adds to the conditions, as does the fact that airflow is radically changed, since the formerly, relatively open floors get incredibly reduced. So, the post collapse conditions consisted of highly restricted but not eliminated airflow to take heat away, an insulative environment, and a fuel source - office contents - thats now densly packed. All that argues qualitatively for higher temperatures than would exist in the towers pre-collapse, even before we get into the nitty-gritty of quantitave arguments.

The fact is that high temperatures in the debris piles indicate nothing about the pre-collapse conditions, other than that a fire existed. And that we already knew from direct observation. There's nothing about the pile temperatures or conditions to indicate any presence of any incendiaries or explosives, and much evidence contradicting those propositions. Thermate or bombs are dead ideas.

[jaydeehess]

neither thermate or explosives were found at the site

Although thermate would raise the temp of debris proximate to it to a very high temp, it would burn out quickly. It cannot burn slowly, it requires no oxygen supply.

In order to raise the temp of a large volume of debris to a high temp over a long time span one requires that a constant heat input be in place AND that heat not be able to 'escape' the volume very efficiently(insulation).

I believe that the greater temps involved are also a result of the 'cooking' of material not directly involved in the fires.
Fire in one area creates heat warming up debris nearby that is not involved in the fire, volitiles cook off, both gaseous and liquid whch flow into pockets. The fire moves through the material eventually reaching these pockets which can burn at even higher temps than plain paper, carpeting, etc. thus inputting more heat to the volume, cooking material at greater distance,,,,, and this continues for months with the hottest areas moving around the pile slowly(another aspect that cannot be explained by thermate(ite))

Since the debris pile fires have no bearing on the collapses they were of no interest in any NIST study. It would however make for a decent masters degree study.

[TjW]

TjW's reply just leave me to believe that TjW doesn't accept the NIST assertion that the Jet Fuel that wasn't consumed by the giant fire ball burned off in twenty minutes.

I don't reject ElMondoHummus and his reply because like me he obviously doesn't know what could cause those kinds of temperatures. I don't have a theory or pretend to know what happened on 9/11 for the first time in history.

If kerosene or anything else can ignite a fire or accelerate it to eventually reach 2,800 degrees because of debris piles and oxygen conditions then why couldn't thermate be involved? And if there was Thermate or explosives involved how does it take away from any of the conditions described by TjW?

One doesn't negate the other.

You would be wrong. To my way of thinking it doesn't matter if the jet fuel burned out in twenty minutes, or twenty hours, or twenty days.
The point is, it started a large fire.


While we can't rule out thermate (or mite or whatever vowel movement is popular this week with twoofers) as an ignition source, neither can we rule out kitchen matches, or cigarette butts or dragons or an evil twin of Johnny Storm who transdimensionalized in from a parallel fictional universe to perform felony arson.

Now, while dragons and the evil Johnny can't actually be ruled out, eyewitnesses failed to see, or at least to report them, and there was no forensic evidence (like, perhaps a fireproof reptile scale of unknown origin or... well, I have to admit I don't know what sort of forensic evidence the evil Johnny would leave behind, so maybe we're on to something there... )

Curiously, bystanders did see big airplanes fly into the buildings just before the fires started. Some may have jumped to the conclusion that the two events were related.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Still one does not cancel out the other especially in a real investigation.

For instance in something like arson the object is to destroy a structure and hope that you have cloaked the real cause of the fire to anyone investigating it if it's for something like insurance reasons. I'm not claiming 9/11 was because of insurance reasons I'm just pointing out that an investigation doesn't just focus on what seems to be the obvious cause.

According to the official explanations for all three global collapses the reasons given were not primarily because of structural damage from the plane crashes or because of jet fuel fires. Building content fire is given as the main culprit in the collapse of three steel constructed high-rise buildings for the first time in history.

Now someone tell me how 2,800 degrees is associated with building content fire. The premise of some of your answers is that even if there was 2,800 degrees in the piles like some claim it doesn't mean thermate was involved.

Fine. Then what? Or are you just going to go back to 2,800 degrees is not proven? That's all you needed to say in the first place. Stop pretending.

[defaultdotxbe]

If kerosene or anything else can ignite a fire or accelerate it to eventually reach 2,800 degrees because of debris piles and oxygen conditions then why couldn't thermate be involved? And if there was Thermate or explosives involved how does it take away from any of the conditions described by TjW?

One doesn't negate the other.
ever hear of ockhams razor? elements should not be multiplied beyond necessity

if a fire fueled by office debris can reach 2800 degrees then thermate is an unnecessary element

[Homeland Insurgency]

ever hear of ockhams razor? elements should not be multiplied beyond necessity

if a fire fueled by office debris can reach 2800 degrees then thermate is an unnecessary element

Yes I've heard of Occam's razor. I think I even know how to spell it.

I've just never heard of building content fire being the cause of a global collapse of a steel constructed high-rise before 9/11. We're not even talking about buildings that were totally engulfed in flames.

Again in investigating something like fire an arsonist would depend on the investigator settling on the simplest solution. Occam's razor could be his best friend.

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes I've heard of Occam's razor. I think I even know how to spell it.

I've just never heard of building content fire being the cause of a global collapse of a steel constructed high-rise before 9/11. We're not even talking about buildings that were totally engulfed in flames.

Again in investigating something like fire an arsonist would depend on the investigator settling on the simplest solution. Occam's razor could be his best friend.
condisering william of ockham was from ockham, surrey i prefer to spell it ockham

and an arson investigator would not conclude arson if there is no evidence for it, as that would be needless expanding the elements, contrary to ockhams razor

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes and we shouldn't rule out space beams and aliens either since there's always a possibility of anything we can possibly imagine.

[TjW]

Still one does not cancel out the other especially in a real investigation.

For instance in something like arson the object is to destroy a structure and hope that you have cloaked the real cause of the fire to anyone investigating it if it's for something like insurance reasons. I'm not claiming 9/11 was because of insurance reasons I'm just pointing out that an investigation doesn't just focus on what seems to be the obvious cause.

Perhaps it would be wisest, then, for a perpetrator of felony arson who does not want his evil deed discovered not to use a substance which would leave behind obvious evidence of its use, particularly when it isn't necessary.


According to the official explanations for all three global collapses the reasons given were not primarily because of structural damage from the plane crashes or because of jet fuel fires. Building content fire is given as the main culprit in the collapse of three steel constructed high-rise buildings for the first time in history.

If you refer to NIST as "the official explanation", then I believe their conclusion was that it was the combination of physical damage, loss of fireproofing, and the fire that led to the collapse.
It was expert critics of the NIST report, some from other countries, that examined the data, did additional testing, and supported the idea that because of the towers structure, they could have fallen just from the fire.

Now someone tell me how 2,800 degrees is associated with building content fire. The premise of some of your answers is that even if there was 2,800 degrees in the piles like some claim it doesn't mean thermate was involved.

Fine. Then what? Or are you just going to go back to 2,800 degrees is not proven? That's all you needed to say in the first place. Stop pretending.

Nope. I'm saying 2800 degrees is a plausible temperature to be found after some time in the huge rubble pile with a building content fire. This is not to be confused with conditions in a content fire with the building still erect.

No one has claimed evidence of 2800 degrees in the towers before they fell, and it is not a necessary condition for the towers failure.

2800 degrees days or weeks later in the rubble pile has an explanation that is consistent with the physics and chemistry of fire.
It would not be relevant to why the buildings fell because it didn't happen before they fell.

What am I pretending?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Perhaps it would be wisest, then, for a perpetrator of felony arson who does not want his evil deed discovered not to use a substance which would leave behind obvious evidence of its use, particularly when it isn't necessary.

There was no obvious evidence of over a thousand victims remains at the WTC site. There were no black boxes discovered. Were these things not there also?

If you refer to NIST as "the official explanation", then I believe their conclusion was that it was the combination of physical damage, loss of fireproofing, and the fire that led to the collapse.
It was expert critics of the NIST report, some from other countries, that examined the data, did additional testing, and supported the idea that because of the towers structure, they could have fallen just from the fire.

It was building content fire according to the gospel you come here to defend. This is the first time in history three times in one day. Sounds like faith.

Nope. I'm saying 2800 degrees is a plausible temperature to be found after some time in the huge rubble pile with a building content fire. This is not to be confused with conditions in a content fire with the building still erect.

What are you basing this plausibility on?

No one has claimed evidence of 2800 degrees in the towers before they fell, and it is not a necessary condition for the towers failure.

2800 degrees days or weeks later in the rubble pile has an explanation that is consistent with the physics and chemistry of fire.
It would not be relevant to why the buildings fell because it didn't happen before they fell.

Consistent with what past examples?

What am I pretending?

You are pretending to know why the buildings fell.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Yes and we shouldn't rule out space beams and aliens either since there's always a possibility of anything we can possibly imagine.

I think I can rule out that you have anything of value to add to this conversation.

[Homeland Insurgency]

condisering william of ockham was from ockham, surrey i prefer to spell it ockham

and an arson investigator would not conclude arson if there is no evidence for it, as that would be needless expanding the elements, contrary to ockhams razor

An arson investigator would not rule out arson without investigating it. A real investigation would not rule out the obvious past example causes of steel structured high-rises collapsing without investigating it. Especially in light of how the building was attacked before.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I think I can rule out that you have anything of value to add to this conversation.

Let me rephrase what I think he's trying to say, in the form of a question. How stupid does the hypothesis have to be for it to be thrown in the "ridiculous" category. Is the possibility of nuclear weapons felling the towers worth investigating, or is even considering a waste of time? How about Judy Wood's energy beam theory? How about the yet to be discovered "thermate cutter charge?" What crosses the line between worth investigating and waste of time because it's so ridiculous?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Let me rephrase what I think he's trying to say, in the form of a question. How stupid does the hypothesis have to be for it to be thrown in the "ridiculous" category. Is the possibility of nuclear weapons felling the towers worth investigating, or is even considering a waste of time? How about Judy Wood's energy beam theory? How about the yet to be discovered "thermate cutter charge?" What crosses the line between worth investigating and waste of time because it's so ridiculous?

Well let me ask you something. What has ever been the cause before or since 9/11 that has initiated global collapse of a steel structured high-rise? Do you just believe in a stupid never seen before hypothesis where 9/11 is concerned?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Well let me ask you something. What has ever been the cause before or since 9/11 that has initiated global collapse of a steel structured high-rise? Do you just believe in a stupid never seen before hypothesis where 9/11 is concerned?

Please don't answer a question with a question, or two.

[Jonnyclueless]

Well let me ask you something. What has ever been the cause before or since 9/11 that has initiated global collapse of a steel structured high-rise? Do you just believe in a stupid never seen before hypothesis where 9/11 is concerned?

A stupid never before seen hypothesis would be arguing that it must be a controlled demolition since never in history has a controlled demolition been responsible for the collapse of a 110 story building.

But the main point is that there is no evidence for a controlled demolition. To make an argument of "Well, what you suggest has never happened before and therefore must be unlikely. So then I will just insert anything I want with no requirement of evidence of plausibility" doesn't work.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Please don't answer a question with a question, or two.

I'm responding but no one wants to clarify. Why is it less valid to investigate what has happened before instead of something that has never happened before or since and never will again?

[Homeland Insurgency]

A stupid never before seen hypothesis would be arguing that it must be a controlled demolition since never in history has a controlled demolition been responsible for the collapse of a 110 story building.

But the main point is that there is no evidence for a controlled demolition. To make an argument of "Well, what you suggest has never happened before and therefore must be unlikely. So then I will just insert anything I want with no requirement of evidence of plausibility" doesn't work.

A stupid never before seen hypothesis would be arguing that it must be a building content fire since never in history has a building content fire been responsible for the collapse of a steel structured high-rise.

I'm not inserting anything. You are the one with the first time in history theory.

[Jonnyclueless]

What has happened before?

And why is it more valid to investigate something for which there is no evidence or plausibility to? It would be a waste of money and resources. NIST has better things to do than chase fairytale scenarios for which there is no evidence to support.

The researchers investigated the CAUSE of the collapse. This notion that a cause can only be found if something is specifically looked for is nonsense. They looked for the cause and found it. Had the cause been a controlled demolition, then that's what they would have found.

[Jonnyclueless]

A stupid never before seen hypothesis would be arguing that it must be a building content fire since never in history has a building content fire been responsible for the collapse of a steel structured high-rise.

I'm not inserting anything. You are the one with the first time in history theory.

And never before in history has a controlled demolition been responsible for a high rise collapse. Never before in history has thermite been used for a controlled demolition.

Again, they search for the CAUSE of the collapse. had it been a controlled demolition it would have been found. Please explain in great detail how this works. That unless someone isn't saying "Hey we think it's a controlled demolition" that the evidence somehow changes? Please explain the proper procedure for investigating a building collapse.

[Homeland Insurgency]

What has happened before?

The towers were attacked before with explosives. Steel structured high-rises have come down before because of explosives never because of fire.

And why is it more valid to investigate something for which there is no evidence or plausibility to? It would be a waste of money and resources. NIST has better things to do than chase fairytale scenarios for which there is no evidence to support.

How is building content fire plausible or the simplest explanation? I wasn't the one to bring up Occam's razor. NIST seems like they're into building fairytales.

The researchers investigated the CAUSE of the collapse. This notion that a cause can only be found if something is specifically looked for is nonsense. They looked for the cause and found it. Had the cause been a controlled demolition, then that's what they would have found.

They did? I thought they speculated on the cause of the collapse for lack of any evidence like the steel that was carted away? Part of this speculation was the removal of fireproofing on the towers. Their whole theory on why the towers collapsed was based on this speculation. WTC-7 that is now also claimed to have fallen because of building content fire wasn't hit by an airplane to remove any fireproofing. Oh well. it's good enough for you.

[TjW]

Perhaps it would be wisest, then, for a perpetrator of felony arson who does not want his evil deed discovered not to use a substance which would leave behind obvious evidence of its use, particularly when it isn't necessary.

There was no obvious evidence of over a thousand victims remains at the WTC site. There were no black boxes discovered. Were these things not there also?

It's true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But neither is it evidence for a conspiracy.


If you refer to NIST as "the official explanation", then I believe their conclusion was that it was the combination of physical damage, loss of fireproofing, and the fire that led to the collapse.
It was expert critics of the NIST report, some from other countries, that examined the data, did additional testing, and supported the idea that because of the towers structure, they could have fallen just from the fire.

It was building content fire according to the gospel you come here to defend. This is the first time in history three times in one day. Sounds like faith.



If by "it", you mean what caused the towers to fail, I'm afraid you're in the wrong thread. This topic is hot spots in the debris pile, weeks after the collapse.

What does the "gospel I've come here to defend" have to say regarding hot spots in the debris pile weeks after the collapse?

Nope. I'm saying 2800 degrees is a plausible temperature to be found after some time in the huge rubble pile with a building content fire. This is not to be confused with conditions in a content fire with the building still erect.

What are you basing this plausibility on?


Knowledge of physics. Given a release of energy, (such as a smoldering fire) and an insulative barrier to restrict the loss of energy through conduction, convection, or radiation (such as a large debris pile), the temperature will go up until the energy loss rate is equal to the energy release rate.

No one has claimed evidence of 2800 degrees in the towers before they fell, and it is not a necessary condition for the towers failure.

2800 degrees days or weeks later in the rubble pile has an explanation that is consistent with the physics and chemistry of fire.
It would not be relevant to why the buildings fell because it didn't happen before they fell.
Consistent with what past examples?


I emphasized the part of my reply that you apparently didn't understand.
If you can give me an example of a cause that happens occurs after the effect, I'll be very surprised.


What am I pretending?

You are pretending to know why the buildings fell.

I thought we were discussing the plausibility of 2800 degree hot spots in a debris pile. Perhaps you want a different thread?

You seem to have a disconnect here. All anyone is saying about hot spots in the debris pile weeks after the collapse is that they're immaterial to how the towers came down, because they happened much later.

Assuming that we can at least agree that before they fell, the towers were on fire:

Thermite brought the towers down? There might, or might not, be hot spots in the debris pile.
Explosive CD brought the towers down? There might, or might not, be hot spots in the debris pile.
Heat weakening of structural members and subsequent global collapse? There might, or might not be hot spots in the debris pile.
Heat weakening and distortion of structural members during the fire and pulling apart during a cooling phase? There might, or might not, be hot spots in the debris pile.

Now, in the actual event, there were hot spots measured in the debris pile.
Is there a plausible physical mechanism for this involving only things documented to have been present? Yep.
Could any reasonable amount of therm/ate/ete/ite/ote/ute still have been burning weeks later? Nope.
Would a hot spot need to have started at therm[vowels in any order]te temperatures to be at 2800 degrees weeks later? Nope.

[defaultdotxbe]

How is building content fire plausible or the simplest explanation? I wasn't the one to bring up Occam's razor. NIST seems like they're into building fairytales.
the "simplest explanation" is a misrepresentation of ockhams razor

"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". An alternative version "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_razor

we know planes crash into the buildings, and we know the buildings were on fire, therefore william of ockham would demand we investigate those as the cause of the collapse before positing additional entities such as thermite and explosives

[Grizzly Bear]

The towers were attacked before with explosives. Steel structured high-rises have come down before because of explosives never because of fire.

Structural steel has in fact failed in fire (windsor tower upper floors are my favorite example), but of course who am I kidding? Most people ignore the gaping hole that wasn't present at all in any prior example of the same construction. Not one has ever been ignited on 6-10 floors simultaneously, and certainly nothing of the same height. No example was ever left unattended either. The combination of circumstances is unique, and it's no surprise that 9/11 was in few ways if any a text book case.


How is building content fire plausible or the simplest explanation? I wasn't the one to bring up Occam's razor. NIST seems like they're into building fairytales.

For starters you should have at least read the 2005 specifications manual (http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/2005_Specification/2005Specification_third_printing.pdf) quite some time ago. Steel loses strength in fire and undergoes thermal expansion/contraction in fire and thermal variations. Lack of precedence is invalid reason to advance the argument for controlled demolition, particularly when steel can and does fail in fire. The only reason steel frame construction has such a good track record in this area is because engineers actually spend the time to ensure that these structures are sufficiently protected, let's not forget that building fires don't typically involve a 767 plowing through the building at over 400 miles an hour. If CT'ists were familiar in the slightest with this point, then this 1st time in history BS wouldn't be an issue in the first place.



They did? I thought they speculated on the cause of the collapse for lack of any evidence like the steel that was carted away? Part of this speculation was the removal of fireproofing on the towers. Their whole theory on why the towers collapsed was based on this speculation. WTC-7 that is now also claimed to have fallen because of building content fire wasn't hit by an airplane to remove any fireproofing. Oh well. it's good enough for you.

To begin with, finding signs of controlled demolition would never have required them to specifically look for it. So much in the manner of remnants would have been left behind that it would have been nearly impossible to hide within a 16-acre debris field. Debris was everywhere, on roofs of surrounding buildings, inside surrounding buildings, all over the street... everywhere. Firget about just the main debris pile, signs would have been obvious everywhere regardless of who was searching for what.

As for the collapse of building 7 compare with WTC 1 & 2, it can be summarized in a few sentences; WTC 1 & 2 were severely weakened and had parts of the main fire protection removed and they fell much sooner accordingly. Compare that with WTC 7 which received comparatively light structural damage by the time the fires started, and then burned for several hours unattended. In effect the length of time compared with the relative damage explains a great deal of the details necessary to be drawn out.

[Jonnyclueless]

The towers were attacked before with explosives. Steel structured high-rises have come down before because of explosives never because of fire.

When the towers were attacked with explosives, they didn't come down and there was actual evidence of explosives. They didn't make up a story of airplanes and holograms and what not.

And no 110 story building has EVER been brought down with explosives. EVER. No building PERIOD has ever been demoliished with thermite. And no thermite has ever produced molten metal for weeks afterwords. So if you're going to play that angle, then you are coming up short.


How is building content fire plausible or the simplest explanation? I wasn't the one to bring up Occam's razor. NIST seems like they're into building fairytales.

It's not. It seems you haven't bothered to read the NIST report have you? But thank you for pointing this out as it explains how you have no understanding.



They did? I thought they speculated on the cause of the collapse for lack of any evidence like the steel that was carted away? Part of this speculation was the removal of fireproofing on the towers. Their whole theory on why the towers collapsed was based on this speculation. WTC-7 that is now also claimed to have fallen because of building content fire wasn't hit by an airplane to remove any fireproofing. Oh well. it's good enough for you.

No, they didn't speculate anything. And no the steel was not carted away. Again, thank you for pointing out that you did not even bother to read the NIST report that you criticize.

You forgot to explain how an investigation works where certain aspects have to be directly investigated and how that changes the physical evidence. And since you bring up aspects of WTC7 9when convenient) you should also read that report which shows they DID address controlled demolition and conclusively ruled it out. If you would like to point out the error in the report, then please do so.

[PhantomWolf]

I thought they speculated on the cause of the collapse for lack of any evidence like the steel that was carted away?

I guess the twisted impact columns from WTC 1 that are sitting as a sculpture in NIST's main foryer, don't actually exist then.....

[Homeland Insurgency]

When the towers were attacked with explosives, they didn't come down and there was actual evidence of explosives. They didn't make up a story of airplanes and holograms and what not.

And no 110 story building has EVER been brought down with explosives. EVER. No building PERIOD has ever been demoliished with thermite. And no thermite has ever produced molten metal for weeks afterwords. So if you're going to play that angle, then you are coming up short.

It's not. It seems you haven't bothered to read the NIST report have you? But thank you for pointing this out as it explains how you have no understanding.

No, they didn't speculate anything. And no the steel was not carted away. Again, thank you for pointing out that you did not even bother to read the NIST report that you criticize.

You forgot to explain how an investigation works where certain aspects have to be directly investigated and how that changes the physical evidence. And since you bring up aspects of WTC7 9when convenient) you should also read that report which shows they DID address controlled demolition and conclusively ruled it out. If you would like to point out the error in the report, then please do so.

How could they know there were no explosives when they didn't have the steel the explosives would have been attached to?

NISTNCSTAR1-3
E.2 Inventory of recovered steel.
A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged;
These samples represented a quarter to a half percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.

236 pieces out of 200,000 tons? Are you sure that's enough? What does one of the NIST experts say?


Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies

By KENNETH CHANG
Published: October 2, 2001
Dr. Astaneh-Asl hopes to conduct what is, in essence, an autopsy of the buildings felled by the terrorist attacks, to understand precisely how they fell apart. Dr. Astaneh-Asl and other engineers had assumed that the estimated 310,000 tons of steel columns and beams were being taken to Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island with the rest of the debris, to be sifted by investigators. But because the steel provides no clues to the criminal investigation, New York City started sending it to recyclers.

The steel scrap is worth only a few million dollars, a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars the cleanup will cost, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said. The knowledge that can be gained from it could save lives in a future disaster.

''For the sake of those 6,000 people,'' he said, ''we should learn something about it.''

And no 110 story building has EVER been brought down by building content fire. EVER. No steel constructed high-rise building PERIOD has ever suffered global collapse with by building content fire. And no building content fire ever produced molten metal for weeks afterwords. So if you're going to play that angle, then you are coming up short.

So if not thermate (which I wasn't the one to bring up) then what?

Facts please. Not borrowed far fetched speculation.

[TexasJack]

And no 110 story building has EVER been brought down by building content fire. EVER.

First how many 110 story buildings are there? Of those buildings, how many have been hit by airplanes and dumped hundreds of gallons of jet fuel?

[Jonnyclueless]

How could they know there were no explosives when they didn't have the steel the explosives would have been attached to?

Well for one thiey DID have the steel. They still DO. But thank you for pointing out that you haven't even bothered to read the NIST report which shows how they conclusively ruled out explosives. Now could you please explain to us how you think an investigation for explosives is done? I have asked you 3 times now and you have provided no answer. Surely if you are going to accuse them of doing it wrong (while not even having bothered to read how it was done) then you must know the correct way to do it no? Let us know. You started by saying they need the steel. Then what?


236 pieces out of 200,000 tons? Are you sure that's enough? What does one of the NIST experts say?

Absolutely. If you had even bothered to read the report you would know the answer. They specifically chose steel sections that were part of the impact zone.



And no 110 story building has EVER been brought down by building content fire. EVER. No steel constructed high-rise building PERIOD has ever suffered global collapse with by building content fire. And no building content fire ever produced molten metal for weeks afterwords. So if you're going to play that angle, then you are coming up short.

This building was not brought down by fire. It was brought down by a combination of structural damage and fire. Can you list some other 110 story buildings that suffered structural damage and fire and remained standing? And this does not change the problem with your argument is that you are trying to hand wave the research done by several hundred engineers and replace it with wild conjecture that is even more flawed than your claim.

And yes, other building fires most certainly HAVE produced molten metal. The difference is that none have been this big as no one before has ever flown planes into buildings of this size and design before.

I can't even say you're coming up short because you have no argument here. If you would just try to educate yourself and do the actual work of reading the work, then you would understand the problems with these over used 9/11 cult arguments.

So if not thermate (which I wasn't the one to bring up) then what?

Facts please. Not borrowed far fetched speculation.

Facts please? What facts have you used in determining a controlled demolition? And don't pretend you don't support the thermite argument. You certainly have. The 10,000 page NIST report is all facts. What facts do you have? you call making an empty claim that explosives weren't looked for facts? Again, please explain the proper research procedure.

[UNLoVedRebel]

A stupid never before seen hypothesis would be arguing that it must be a building content fire since never in history has a building content fire been responsible for the collapse of a steel structured high-rise.

I'm not inserting anything. You are the one with the first time in history theory.

Can you name one building at least half the size of the twins, that have been brought down by explosives?

[defaultdotxbe]

And no 110 story building has EVER been brought down by building content fire. EVER.
no 110 story building has EVER been brought down by controlled demolition. EVER

No steel constructed high-rise building PERIOD has ever suffered global collapse with by building content fire.
no steel contructed high-rise building PERIOD has ever suffered a global collapse with thermate

And no building content fire ever produced molten metal for weeks afterwords.
and no thermate reaction has ever produced molten metal for weeks afterwards

So if you're going to play that angle, then you are coming up short.
so if your going to play that angle, so can i

Facts please. Not borrowed far fetched speculation.
practice what you preach

[Homeland Insurgency]

Can you name one building at least half the size of the twins, that have been brought down by explosives?

Can you name one building at least half the size of the twins, that have been brought down by building content fire?

[Homeland Insurgency]

no 110 story building has EVER been brought down by building content fire. EVER


no steel contructed high-rise building PERIOD has ever suffered a global collapse by building content fire


and no building content fire reaction has ever produced molten metal for weeks afterwards


there you go


learning anything yet?

[johnny karate]

no 110 story building has EVER been brought down by building content fire. EVER


no steel contructed high-rise building PERIOD has ever suffered a global collapse by building content fire


and no building content fire reaction has ever produced molten metal for weeks afterwards


there you go

No 110-story building as ever collapsed at all prior to 9/11, regardless of the cause. The argument that a unique event couldn't have occurred because it's never occurred before is beyond stupid.

learning anything yet?

Yes.

I've learned that according to your logic the Twin Towers didn't actually collapse.

[Homeland Insurgency]

No 110-story building as ever collapsed at all prior to 9/11, regardless of the cause. The argument that a unique event couldn't have occurred because it's never occurred before is beyond stupid. Yes. I've learned that according to your logic the Twin Towers didn't actually collapse.

Rubbing your nose in your own stinky argument doesn't smell very good does it Johnny?

But do you learn?

[gmanontario]

no 110 story building has EVER been brought down by building content fire. EVER


no steel contructed high-rise building PERIOD has ever suffered a global collapse by building content fire


and no building content fire reaction has ever produced molten metal for weeks afterwards


there you go


learning anything yet?

Yes I have. It happens by reading and comprehending all the posts and visiting links from people who actually know what they're talking about.

Try it some time.

You're welcome. :rolleyes:

[johnny karate]

Rubbing your nose in your own stinky argument doesn't smell very good does it Johnny?

Actually, there is no way you could possibly rub my nose in my "own stinky argument" because that's never happened before, and according to you, things that have never happened before can't possibly happen.

Also, since you never actually said those words before, you didn't just say them now, so your post I quoted above never actually happened.

[defaultdotxbe]

Also, since you never actually said those words before, you didn't just say them now, so your post I quoted above never actually happened.
this could get real philosophical real quick

[johnny karate]

this could get real philosophical real quick

It is not possible for you to have posted that.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Let me rephrase what I think he's trying to say, in the form of a question. How stupid does the hypothesis have to be for it to be thrown in the "ridiculous" category. Is the possibility of nuclear weapons felling the towers worth investigating, or is even considering a waste of time? How about Judy Wood's energy beam theory? How about the yet to be discovered "thermate cutter charge?" What crosses the line between worth investigating and waste of time because it's so ridiculous?

Well look here. The debunkers tried to gang up thinking that if they get the last word in it actually means something. Just more delusional for their delusional world.

I wasn't the one to bring up thermite.

I never mentioned nuclear weapons.

I never mentioned energy beams.

I brought up building content fire.

Why does that scare you?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Well look here. The debunkers tried to gang up thinking that if they get the last word in it actually means something. Just more delusional for their delusional world.

I wasn't the one to bring up thermite.

I never mentioned nuclear weapons.

I never mentioned energy beams.

I brought up building content fire.

Why does that scare you?

It doesn't "scare" me at all. Any moron can set markers for "first time in history". It won't contribute to our understanding of the collapse. It's just one more tactic the truthers use to tap dance around their kooky multi-hyoptheses.

[Homeland Insurgency]

It doesn't "scare" me at all. Any moron can set markers for "first time in history". It won't contribute to our understanding of the collapse. It's just one more tactic the truthers use to tap dance around their kooky multi-hyoptheses.

I'm not the one with the kooky multi-hyoptheses. I never put one forward.

You on the other hand claim to know what happened on 9/11. That's how you keep painting yourself into a corner where I can make fun of you.

And I'm having a lot of fun. That's why I come here. It's a lot of fun.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I'm not the one with the kooky multi-hyoptheses. I never put one forward.

You on the other hand claim to know what happened on 9/11. That's how you keep painting yourself into a corner where I can make fun of you.



I certainly hope I know what happened on 9/11; it's not that hard to figure out. You seem to have no interest in the events of that tragic day. I'm sorry you have such a lack of respect for the truth.

[Homeland Insurgency]

I certainly hope I know what happened on 9/11; it's not that hard to figure out. You seem to have no interest in the events of that tragic day. I'm sorry you have such a lack of respect for the truth.

It's not hard to figure out? So what took so long? I'm sorry you have so much respect for authority. Or is it denial?

[UNLoVedRebel]

This conversation is going nowhere fast.

[Thunder]

I'm not the one with the kooky multi-hyoptheses. I never put one forward.

.

Yelling "9-11 was an inside job" is accusing the United States government of being involved in the terror attacks of 9-11. It assumes a conclusion to a "new investigation" that has yet to take place.

Truthers constanly yell about the government deciding who was responsible for 9-11 before there was an investigation.

Yet truthers are doing the exact same thing, without a "proper investigation".

[Homeland Insurgency]

This conversation is going nowhere fast.

That's why we are all here. The investigations into 9/11 have gone nowhere.

You don't know what happened on 9/11. Stop pretending like you do.

[Thunder]

That's why we are all here. The investigations into 9/11 have gone nowhere.

You don't know what happened on 9/11. Stop pretending like you do.

Dude. WE know what happened on 9-11. Most of the world knows what happened on 9-11. If 9-11 truthers choose to DENY what happened that day..that is their problem.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Dude. WE know what happened on 9-11. Most of the world knows what happened on 9-11. If 9-11 truthers choose to DENY what happened that day..that is their problem.

Yeah here in your own little world. How cute.

[UNLoVedRebel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8dX3foxozQ

What caused this building to collapse?

a) the impact damage and fires
b) explosives
c) other

[Homeland Insurgency]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8dX3foxozQ

What caused this building to collapse?

a) the impact damage and fires
b) explosives
c) other

c) other: There would need to be a real investigation to determine that.

[UNLoVedRebel]

c) other: There would need to be a real investigation to determine that.

Please provide an explanation why you don't need a "real investigation" to determine the cause of this structure.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZkr0A9633Q&feature=related

[UNLoVedRebel]

How about this? Do you need a "real investigation" to determine what caused this structure to collaspe?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=p22OkclAU3o

[Jonnyclueless]

c) other: There would need to be a real investigation to determine that.

What would a real investigation be?

Seeing as you think using scientific studies and engineering as well as physical evidence constitutes a fantasy world, yet making conjecture and making specualtion based on absolutely no facts seems reasonable to you, I think you ma need to define "real".

[Grizzly Bear]

That's why we are all here. The investigations into 9/11 have gone nowhere.

You don't know what happened on 9/11. Stop pretending like you do.

People who don't understand why buildings have specific code requirements in the first place don't understand why buildings fail. I'm tempted to call your response an extension of an appeal to complexity (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#complexity), since clearly because you assume that the collapse is otherwise too complex to understand without a new investigation, then everybody else's knowledge is as good as yours.

Investigations of the collapses have built upon the information of construction materials that has existed for decades, but not one person who argues for CD or a new investigation ever cares to bring that up.

[jaydeehess]

Please provide an explanation why you don't need a "real investigation" to determine the cause of this structure.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZkr0A9633Q&feature=related

How about this? Do you need a "real investigation" to determine what caused this structure to collaspe?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=p22OkclAU3o

Hmmm, first one is really, really loud while the second one is not nearly as loud.
First one follows months of prepartation during the last stages of which explosives were actually loaded into the structure whereas in the second case no explosives were ever noticed but a fire had been burning during the day that the building did collapse(completely).

Now back to the original thread,,,,,,,,
An underground fire involving the building contents can explain the hot spots moving around during the weeks that the underground volume was so hot.
An underground fire involving the building contents can explain the length of time that the underground was hot.

If HI has another explaination for these two aspects then perhaps he'd care to let us know what it is.

Back to the thread derail,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
the TM, it seems to me, ALWAYS tries to take each aspect of the insults to the building in isolation.

The towers had large holes blown in them and a significant removal of their structural integrity on the impact floors by the impact of the aircraft.
-The TM then states that the buildings withstood this insult and indeed they did.

The towers then had thousands of gallons of jet fuel dumped into the very same impact floors and that fuel ignited.
-The TM then states that the jet fuel burned off in a matter of seconds or minutes and would not have been enough to heat the steel to a temp such that it would loose much strength, and indeed this is true.

The impact and resultant shredding of the aircraft plus the tossing about of building contents abraded the spray on fire insulation and drywall firestop from a significant amount of the steel structural members.
-The TM attempts to minimize this aspect or ignore it completely. (for instance: Originally Posted by RedIbis
"No, I'm alluding to the preposterous NIST claim that the removal of fireproofing in the towers accelerated the steel temp.")

The building contents were ignited by the jet fuel fire and continued to burn right up to collapse and spread to virtually all floors above the impact zone.
- The TM then states that structural steel buildings have never suffered a gloabal collapse due to fire, which is arguable but has some merit.

HOWEVER, the TM simply cannot seem to allow for the combination of the loss of integrity due to initial impact, the loss of a significant amount of fire insulation on the structural steel, and the ignition of large area fires on several floors all at once. Furthermore the contribution of the long span, open area design meant that those long span trusses that tied the perimeter and core columns and supplied lateral support between those two vertical column systems were the weak point in relation to fire damage.

A further misunderstanding by many in the TM (if perhaps not by HI personally) is the claim that the perimeter columns did not support gravity loads. Of course they did, to even suggest they didn't belies a complete and utter lack of comprehension of physics. If the perimeter columns supported only the gravity load of the columns themselves, and none of the load from the floors, then the trusses would neccessarily be in cantilever action at their connection to the core, a situation that would be ridiculous to believe.

[jaydeehess]

What would a real investigation be?

Seeing as you think using scientific studies and engineering as well as physical evidence constitutes a fantasy world, yet making conjecture and making specualtion based on absolutely no facts seems reasonable to you, I think you ma need to define "real".

In the TM, real evidence=videos, and most commonly youtube videos followed by a handwaving arguement that equates the subjective 'looks like' opinion with 'truth.

[RKOwens4]

I sent an email to Jason Bermas the evening that I posted this thread asking for a link, which he hasn't responded to and it doesn't look like he will.

By the way, this is the video of the exchange: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNJFJjSQA9I

[jaydeehess]

Just to add to my post above;
HOWEVER, the TM simply cannot seem to allow for
the combination of the loss of integrity due to initial impact,
a condition that has never occured before in the history of large structures and aviation (please do not compare a B-25 impact to that of a 767 it is like saying that having a bee fly into your chest is the same as having an eagle do the same)

the loss of a significant amount of fire insulation on the structural steel,
something that has occured only due to terrorist explosive blasts perhaps but those are thankfully relatively rare and are not followed by thousands of gallons of liquid fuel

and the ignition of large area fires on several floors all at once.

again, something that has never occured before in the history of large office structures.

[alexi_drago]

How many of these large office structure fires before or after 9/11 have been in structures designed with all supporting columns positioned at the central core or the perimeter of the building with such large uninterupted floor spaces?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Do you just believe in a stupid never seen before hypothesis where 9/11 is concerned?


This is what he was trying to clarify. At what point do you consider a "hypothesis" to be stupid? This post of yours seems to indicate that at least one standard of yours is, "if it's never happened before, it's a stupid hypothesis".

Surely even you can understand how ridiculous that stance is...

[Wayne1954]

I was looking for references for the 2800 degree temperatures quote regarding Ground Zero in the aftermath of the destruction of the three skyscrapers. In the first post, there was a quote, but no reference. Now that I found the quote, I think I should post the link to the source documents:

SH&E at ground zero
May 1, 2002 | Vincoli, Jeffrey W; Black, Norman H; Burkhammer, Stewart C | Copyright (Copyright American Society of Safety Engineers Feb 2009)
www [dot] highbeam.com/doc/1P3-120177409 [dot] html
911research [dot ] wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1 [dot] htm ( archived version)

Also, the following appears to be a comprehensive discussion of the temperatures from a variety of sources in this paper. It looks like the surface temperatures subsided in the following week(s) from what Vincoli, Black and Burkhammer said had been reported to them initially.

911research [dot] wtc7.net/papers/dreger/GroundZeroHeat2008_07_10[dot] pdf

[cjnewson88]

SH&E at ground zero
May 1, 2002 | Vincoli, Jeffrey W; Black, Norman H; Burkhammer, Stewart C | Copyright (Copyright American Society of Safety Engineers Feb 2009)
www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-120177409.html

www.911research.wtc7.net/papers/dreger/GroundZeroHeat2008_07_10.pdf

Fix them for you.
Welcome to JREF.


holy mother of old threads..

[cjnewson88]

If this hasn't been posted in this thread, RKOwens4's RIP videos has a debunking section for Bermas's 2700F claim.

Beginning at 7:30
RhP_QzxpO-o

Edit: This link Ryan is linking in the video is This (http://infowarrior.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/91601-newsday-fema2700.jpg)