Burning jet fuel in the WTC towers

[Homeland Insurgency]

Still waiting for an alternate theory regarding how the columns bowed inwards.

Still waiting for how NIST proved their theory of building content fire causing the collapse of a steel structured high-rise for the first time in history.

[dtugg]

Still waiting for how NIST proved their theory of building content fire causing the collapse of a steel structured high-rise for the first time in history.

So in other words, you have no explanation for how the columns were pulled inwards. Thanks for clearing it up.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Logical fallacy of exclusion (http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/exclus.htm) bolded and noted.

So you don't have another steel constructed high-rise suffering global collapse for the first time in history other then 9/11?

To bad for you and your faith.

[A W Smith]

What are you talking about? You were the one claiming Accelerants did something on 9/11 they never did before. I was just pointing it out.


Excuse me? accelerants never did this before?
A fire is a self sustaining, exothermic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exothermic_reaction) oxidation reaction that emits heat and light. When a fire is accelerated, it can produce more heat, consume the reactants more quickly, burn at a higher temperature, and increase the spread of the fire. An accelerated fire is said to have a higher "heat release rate," meaning it burns more quickly

do you come here on slow days just to get your ass handed to you? or are you a full time fool?

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[Homeland Insurgency]

So in other words, you have no explanation for how the columns were pulled inwards. Thanks for clearing it up.

No I'm still waiting for a real investigation. You see I'm not very religious.

[AJM8125]

So you don't have another steel constructed high-rise suffering global collapse for the first time in history other then 9/11?

To bad for you and your faith.

How does something happen for the first time in history more than once?

[dtugg]

No I'm still waiting for a real investigation. You see I'm not very religious.

It was a real investigation. The vast majority of experts in the world accept it. The opinion of people with no expertise means nothing. And yes you are religious, twooferism is your religion.

And you don't have an explanation as to why the columns bowed inwards.

[DGM]

Still waiting for how NIST proved their theory of building content fire causing the collapse of a steel structured high-rise for the first time in history.
UN-FOUGHT. Do you plan to show some day that any high rise building has NOT collapsed when the fires were UN-FOUGHT. I know it's an inconvenient fact but hey, It sucks to be you. Hey maybe you can claim the FDNY was in on it (that would help your case).

[Homeland Insurgency]

Excuse me? accelerants never did this before?
do you come here on slow days just to get your ass handed to you? or are you a full time fool?

I'm not disputing the definition of an accelerent I thought you were. I'm telling you the jet fuel accelerant was burnt up according to your own official version long before the towers collapsed. It's not a cause according to them. How does it feel to have your ass handed to you by your own bible? lol

[Homeland Insurgency]

UN-FOUGHT. Do you plan to show some day that any high rise building has NOT collapsed when the fires were UN-FOUGHT. I know it's an inconvenient fact but hey, It sucks to be you. Hey maybe you can claim the FDNY was in on it (that would help your case).

I want you to show me ANY steel constructed high-rise that has suffered complete global collapse from anything other then explosives.

You see you don't even have a case.

[DGM]

I not disputing the definition of an accelerent I thought you were. I'm telling you the jet fuel accelerant was burnt up according to your own official version long before the towers collapsed. It's not a cause according to them. How does it feel to have your ass handed to you by your own bible? lol
Yet another stundie. The sad part is he won't know why.

[A W Smith]

I not disputing the definition of an accelerent I thought you were. I'm telling you the jet fuel accelerant was burnt up according to your own official version long before the towers collapsed. It's not a cause according to them. How does it feel to have your ass handed to you by your own bible? lol
It burned up because its an accelerant! It made the fire spread faster, burn faster and hotter, Good grief troofer ignorance is astounding.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Such tantrums.

"I'm gonna stundie you and all my friends I've never actually met are gonna laugh at you twoofer. There take that!"

lol

Stundie away. You have nothing.

[DGM]

I want you to show me ANY steel constructed high-rise that has suffered complete global collapse from anything other then explosives.

You see you don't even have a case.
Why would I want to show something like that? It has no comparison to what happened in NY. Unfortunately you (and a handful of other "truthers") can't see why.

[dtugg]

I want you to show me ANY steel constructed high-rise that has suffered complete global collapse from anything other then explosives.

You see you don't even have a case.

Well, if we are going by what has never happened before, no steel high rise had ever been wired for demolition without anybody noticing. And no building had been wired for demolition while still occupied. And no steel high rise as tall as WTC1,2, or 7 had ever been demolished with explosives.

[Homeland Insurgency]

It burned up because its an accelerant! It made the fire spread faster, burn faster and hotter, Good grief troofer ignorance is astounding.

According to your own official version is the jet fuel a cause of the collapse?

Was there even any jet fuel in WTC-7?

No need to cry.

Your faith is both astounding and scary.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Well, if we are going by what has never happened...

Stop right there. You're already going by what has never happened before. No need for any other scenarios. Back up the first time in history version you already have.

[Homeland Insurgency]

“While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3)

Read it yet?

[Grizzly Bear]

You all seem to throw out examples without granting any concern for how differences in construction affect the collapse mechanisms.


There have been other buildings hit by planes and stood.

Good... now are any of them comparable to the trade centers?

Are they built of the same material
Same structural systems
Same/Similar floor spans
Same height

If you want to confront me with examples include case studies of all of them.
The floor is yours. I want you to convince me as an architect that your examples will hold up to their comparisons.

For all of your other fire related examples. Can you answer to the criteria I gave you then? I'll isolate it from the mess specially for you:


How many skyscrapers are built using the same methods as those used in the world trade center? Here's a diagram of the structural plan for you

How many precedents do you have that resulted in multiple structural members being either completely severed or damaged by an impacting 767?

How many precedents do you have where there was a combination of both impact damage and a multifloor fire that was ignited simultaneously by a planes fuel payload, in addition to having areas of fire proofing removed by the impact?

How many of your precedents actually have a steel core? (I ask because a lot like to use the Madrid tower as a precedent without even bothering to look up that it has a concrete core)

How many sky scrapers have been set ablaze with the lowest fire being 75 stories in the air, out of reach of conventional firefighting methods?

How many skyscrapers have been set ablaze and had all of their mechanical sprinkler systems destroyed/incapacitated/overwhelmed)
How many skyscrapers are built using long-spanning lightweight floor systems?


ETA: Ultima, when will you confront these issues head on.


The WTC itself had a severe explosion
No significant fire followed the explosion either, short of small electrical fires caused by damage to the infrastructure. Most of the damage was caused to non-load bearing elements (several slab collapses in the basement levels, and partitions), but none of the major load bearing columns were significantly compromised by the blast.

I repeat: None of the load bearing columns were significantly compromised, and there was no fire matching the magnitude observed in 2001

and fire on a lower floor in the 70's.
You've missed the part where:

There was no loss of fire proofing
No impact damage
fire was also ignited in one spot, not 6 floors all at once
Fire propagated over time, not already burning half the area of 5 to 6 floors
It was readily accessible to conventional firefighting methods despite the lack of sprinkler systems.


We need not look any further then right there as far as design.
Yes, you do... all you managed to do was show that singularly, fire under very conventional circumstances would not compromise the structure precisely because the damage characteristics were different and fire fighting methods were still viable.

Neither of your comparisons are valid in the context of 9/11.


It was much lower with many more floors above it weighing down. No collapse.

In the 90's it was hit with a bomb in the basement. The basement which means every floor was weighing down on it. No collapse.

And damage from both was significantly different. Neither the explosion, nor the fires took place concurrently.

The fires in both the 1970's incident, and those in the 1993 bombing bear zero resemblance to the magnitude of those observed on September 11th.

The south tower had the same damage as the north tower, but it occurred 15 stories lower... it collapsed in half the time it took for the north tower.


I didn't say anything about controlled demolition.
You certainly appear to imply it, or favor it, pick whatever you want.

Pretend to debunk controlled demolition all you want...
There was never any need to. The entire premise it sits itself on is invalid. It had zero scientific merit whatsoever, end of story.

it's never going to prove your fairytale true even if you could which you haven't yet.
You need to work on your comparisons before you lecture anyone about how valid their argument is. Between yourself and Ultima, neither of you have presented a single comparison that would convince any competent architect or engineer that your claims have any merit.

The lack of precedents is irrelevant, because it has never happened before is no guarantee that it will never happen at all. Engineers know what fire does to steel, It's been known, and no amount of spinning can make it disappear

[dtugg]

Stop right there. You're already going by what has never happened before. No need for any other scenarios. Back up the first time in history version you already have.

I've backed it up. You, nor anybody else, can counter the the floors sagging causing the perimeter columns to bow and eventually snap fact. Twoofers never touch it because they can't.

And seriously, if never happening before is an argument, it should equally apply to the secret demolitions of huge occupied skyscrapers. Why the double standard?

[Grizzly Bear]

“While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3)

Read it yet?

He is not claiming that the jet fuel was the primary fuel source, he's giving you the context in gigantic bolded letters. The fuel acted exactly as was stated; an accelerant, not a primary fuel source.

I do hope you know what an accelerant is HI... it's exactly what got 6 floors of both towers burning the moment the planes pile-drived themselves into the towers

[Grizzly Bear]

And seriously, if never happening before is an argument, it should equally apply to the secret demolitions of huge occupied skyscrapers. Why the double standard?

I think the difference is that they work on the predisposition that because fire has never before collapsed a skyscraper, that it can never happen even if you have circumstance 'X' added into the equation. It's a very nasty predisposition at that

[UNLoVedRebel]

Don't even know your own fairytale huh?

I don't have a fairytale. I read the NIST reports. I read Kevin Ryan's critiques. I know when people are parroting those Kevin Ryan critiques.

[Homeland Insurgency]

You all seem to throw out examples without granting any concern for how differences in construction affect the collapse mechanisms.


Good... now are any of them comparable to the trade centers?

Are they built of the same material
Same structural systems
Same/Similar floor spans
Same height

If you want to confront me with examples include case studies of all of them.
The floor is yours. I want you to convince me as an architect that your examples will hold up to their comparisons.

For all of your other fire related examples. Can you answer to the criteria I gave you then? I'll isolate it from the mess specially for you:


How many skyscrapers are built using the same methods as those used in the world trade center? Here's a diagram of the structural plan for you

How many precedents do you have that resulted in multiple structural members being either completely severed or damaged by an impacting 767?

How many precedents do you have where there was a combination of both impact damage and a multifloor fire that was ignited simultaneously by a planes fuel payload, in addition to having areas of fire proofing removed by the impact?

How many of your precedents actually have a steel core? (I ask because a lot like to use the Madrid tower as a precedent without even bothering to look up that it has a concrete core)

How many sky scrapers have been set ablaze with the lowest fire being 75 stories in the air, out of reach of conventional firefighting methods?

How many skyscrapers have been set ablaze and had all of their mechanical sprinkler systems destroyed/incapacitated/overwhelmed)
How many skyscrapers are built using long-spanning lightweight floor systems?


ETA: Ultima, when will you confront these issues head on.



No significant fire followed the explosion either, short of small electrical fires caused by damage to the infrastructure. Most of the damage was caused to non-load bearing elements (several slab collapses in the basement levels, and partitions), but none of the major load bearing columns were significantly compromised by the blast.

I repeat: None of the load bearing columns were significantly compromised, and there was no fire matching the magnitude observed in 2001


You've missed the part where:

There was no loss of fire proofing
No impact damage
fire was also ignited in one spot, not 6 floors all at once
Fire propagated over time, not already burning half the area of 5 to 6 floors
It was readily accessible to conventional firefighting methods despite the lack of sprinkler systems.



Yes, you do... all you managed to do was show that singularly, fire under very conventional circumstances would not compromise the structure precisely because the damage characteristics were different and fire fighting methods were still viable.

Neither of your comparisons are valid in the context of 9/11.



And damage from both was significantly different. Neither the explosion, nor the fires took place concurrently.

The fires in both the 1970's incident, and those in the 1993 bombing bear zero resemblance to the magnitude of those observed on September 11th.



You certainly appear to imply it, or favor it, pick whatever you want.


There was never any need to. The entire premise it sits itself on is invalid. It had zero scientific merit whatsoever, end of story.


You need to work on your comparisons before you lecture anyone about how valid their argument is. Between yourself and Ultima, neither of you have presented a single comparison that would convince any competent architect or engineer that your claims have any merit.

The lack of precedents is irrelevant, because it has never happened before is no guarantee that it will never happen at all. Engineers know what fire does to steel, It's been known, and no amount of spinning can make it disappear

You can bloat up your posts all you want as if quantity means relevance. I already answered all of this the first time. Stop asking me questions and support your fairy tale already. I don't have one to support.

[Homeland Insurgency]

I don't have a fairytale. I read the NIST reports. I read Kevin Ryan's critiques. I know when people are parroting those Kevin Ryan critiques.

The only thing I've parroted is NIST. Maybe Ryan was parroting it too. If you read NIST you would know that.

[dtugg]

You can bloat up your posts all you want as if quantity means relevance. I already answered all of this the first time. Stop asking me questions and support your fairy tale already. I don't have one to support.

So you don't think that the WTC collapses were a controlled demolition?

[Homeland Insurgency]

He is not claiming that the jet fuel was the primary fuel source, he's giving you the context in gigantic bolded letters. The fuel acted exactly as was stated; an accelerant, not a primary fuel source.

I do hope you know what an accelerant is HI... it's exactly what got 6 floors of both towers burning the moment the planes pile-drived themselves into the towers

I didn't bring up accelerant. Accelerant was brought up to me for lack of anything else when I quoted the NIST take on Jet Fuel and it's non-relevance to the collapse.

[Homeland Insurgency]

So you don't think that the WTC collapses were a controlled demolition?

I don't know. There hasn't been a valid investigation.

[dtugg]

I don't know. There hasn't been a valid investigation.

According to you. Your opinion means nothing.

Anyway controlled demolition is impossible since there were no extremely loud bangs going off before the collapse. So no controlled demo unless there were magic silent explosives. NIST wins, even if it wasn't a valid investigation as the alternative is impossible.

[Grizzly Bear]

I already answered all of this the first time. Stop asking me questions and support your fairy tale already. I don't have one to support.

You're the one claiming that the fires shouldn't have brought down the towers. At this stage it's irrelevant whether you have a theory to support or not. If you're going to say that other buildings have survived fires or bombs, then I expect a reasonable comparison, not a half-baked comparison between two differently constructed buildings or damages.

[Thunder]

I don't know. There hasn't been a valid investigation.

sure there has. you just dont accept its findings. but there was a valid investigaton.

its one thing to say "i disagree with the findings of this investigation'.

its another thing to say "not only do i disagree with the findings of this investigation, but i find that the entire investigation, itself, is a crock".

now that takes....walnuts.

[Mr.Herbert]

According to you. Your opinion means nothing.

Anyway controlled demolition is impossible since there were no extremely loud bangs going off before the collapse. So no controlled demo unless there were magic silent explosives. NIST wins, even if it wasn't a valid investigation as the alternative is impossible.http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread414110/pg5#pid5391636


Well, dtugg... seems Spreston may have got it all figured out over at A.T.S.

We also do not know if the US Military has invented a sound blanketing technology.

Move over Gage's Hush -A- Bombs... we have Prestons Blanket Bombs!!!

[WildCat]

The tests weren't meant to simulate the conditions inside the towers. The tests were to gauge baseline performance of the floor assemblies. Do you understand what this means?
So what does NIST do to support their theory of removed fireproofing and temperatures needed to cause the sag inputted into their computer model? You know the computer model they relied on after all their physical fire testing failed to backup their theory they were clearly working backwards to try and prove. That and their shotgun test.
That's a lot of words when a simple "no, I don't know what this means" would have sufficed.

Show where they even attempted this, bearing in mind that the tests were meant only to gauge baseline performance.
I did show it. But now that you asked and I showed it now it doesn't mean anything. So why did you ask? When are one of you going to show me something? Anything?
Once again illustrating you don't understand what a baseline performance test is or what it is intended to show.

And you do know there is photographic evidence in the NIST reports showing this sagging, don't you?
Yeah we all saw what happened on the outside. Prove how it started on the inside then send it to NIST.
So you admit that the floors were sagging, excellent.

Now show how sagging floors could have been the result of thermite, bombs, mini-nukes, space beams, holograms or whatever 9/11 idiocy you subscribe to.

[UNLoVedRebel]

The only thing I've parroted is NIST. Maybe Ryan was parroting it too. If you read NIST you would know that.

That's not the point when the NIST fire tests couldn't even get 3 inches.

Figure 5-31 of NIST NCSTAR1-6B clearly shows a deflection of over 3 inches. You can stop trolling now.

[WildCat]

So you don't have another steel constructed high-rise suffering global collapse for the first time in history other then 9/11?

To bad for you and your faith.
How does something happen for the first time in history more than once?
:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

[UNLoVedRebel]

I don't know. There hasn't been a valid investigation.

Take the challenge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy1zigsFVLM

[UNLoVedRebel]

And the extra credit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tCBB8fthFg

[Mancman]

All four WTC floor system fire tests used the standard procedure known as ASTM E119 for rating the fire resistance of a building structural unit such as a floor system, column or beam under prescribed conditions. The tests were conducted as part of a NIST contract at the two separate UL fire test laboratories to take advantage of the different capabilities available at these facilities.

The first two tests, conducted in early August 2004 at the UL facility in Toronto, Canada, looked at the fire performance of 11-meter (35-foot) floor systems coated with a near-uniform 19-millimeter-thick (0.75-inch) layer of fireproofing material. This is representative of the span size and as-applied average fireproofing thickness of the floor systems in the WTC towers.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_fire_resistance_data.htm

This simply means the ASTM E119 test can be used on columns. NIST, however, only tested trusses. Try reading the actual report. Fail.

Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of
steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time. Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fireaffected
floors of the towers.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf[quote]

They only tested a small amount of steel. All but four of these were perimeter columns. None was from the trusses. Double fail.

You haven't read any of the report and have no idea what you are talking about, why do you even bother with this charade? You are beyond transparent.

And for the 3rd time, is a wall that is bowing inward compromised?

[Homeland Insurgency]

You're the one claiming that the fires shouldn't have brought down the towers. At this stage it's irrelevant whether you have a theory to support or not. If you're going to say that other buildings have survived fires or bombs, then I expect a reasonable comparison, not a half-baked comparison between two differently constructed buildings or damages.

A half-baked comparison between two differently constructed buildings or damages? I compared an explosion and fire to an explosion and fire in the very same building. What are you talking about? I was told about unfought fires and broken sprinkler systems. Well the reason they put sprinklers in the WTC in the first place was because of the three alarm 1975 fire that occurred when there was no sprinkler system.

[A W Smith]

And the extra credit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tCBB8fthFg


Near the end of that clip a witness off camera yells

Oh my god! The whole building collapsed! The whole building collapsed!


Notice he didn't say
Oh my God! They blew it up!

Guess he couldn't hear the explosions because of SPrestons Curtain of silence military CD explosion cloaking device.

[A W Smith]

A half-baked comparison between two differently constructed buildings or damages? I compared and explosion and fire to an explosion and fire in the very same building. What are you talking about? I was told about unfought fires and broken sprinkler systems. Well the reason they put sprinklers in the WTC in the first place was because of the three alarm 1975 fire that occurred when there was no sprinkler system.\\
how much jet fuel burned in the 1975 fire?

[Homeland Insurgency]

This simply means the ASTM E119 test can be used on columns. NIST, however, only tested trusses. Try reading the actual report. Fail.

What fail? Stop with your shell game. Was it the truss or column that sagged? How much sag did NIST get in their physical test? How much sag did they input into their computer model? NIST fails so you do too.

They only tested a small amount of steel. All but four of these were perimeter columns. None was from the trusses. Double fail.

So now they did test columns? Man you're all over the place. They only tested a small amount? Yeah why is that? How much did they have? Where was the rest of it? NIST FAILS AGAIN AND LOOK SO DO YOU.

You haven't read any of the report and have no idea what you are talking about, why do you even bother with this charade? You are beyond transparent.

Bull you have nothing again as usual.

And for the 3rd time, is a wall that is bowing inward compromised?

And for the umpteenth time. So what? What's causing it? Where's the proof not the faith?

[Homeland Insurgency]

\\
how much jet fuel burned in the 1975 fire?

The same amount as in WTC-7 on 9/11.

[dtugg]

And for the umpteenth time. So what? What's causing it? Where's the proof not the faith?

The floors sagging. It is the only possible way. I dare you to come up with another explanation. If you can't, NIST's wins by default.

[Grizzly Bear]

A half-baked comparison between two differently constructed buildings or damages? I compared and explosion and fire to an explosion and fire in the very same building.

And in order to do so you had to choose two separate incidents that took place years apart. You're not making the connection... neither the bomb blast nor the 1975 fire took place concurrently. You simply cannot isolate the two, because without the other, the buildings might have actually stood, as they did in the two incidents you allude to.

The 1975 fire was NOT ignited across several floors with a 10,000 gallon payload of fuel. It started in one place, and gradually spread across a single floor over the course of three hours. Firefighters were able to prevent further spread to other parts of the building because they had easy access to it. And the fire most obviously did not accompany any pre-existing structural damage or reach the scale observed later on 911.

The 1993 bombing created a 150 foot, 5 story deep hole in the basement, and deflected the floor slab in farther up basement levels, and it caused significant damage to non load-bearing partitions. There are two things that the bombing in '93 failed to do:

It failed to compromise the primary load bearing structural members
and
It did not lead to a multi-story uncontrolled inferno

This is why the two are not representative of what happened

[Mancman]

What fail? Stop with your shell game. Was it the truss or column that sagged? How much sag did NIST get in their physical test? How much sag did they input into their computer model? NIST fails so you do too.

The trusses sagged and pulled in the columns. You really had to ask that?

Sagging of 100+ inches was seen in WTC 2. NIST got about 8 inches of sagging in the furnace prior to stopping the test due to imminent collapse of the test structure. (I know you'll skim over the last part of that sentence). In the computer models they got 42 inches, but none of the furnace tests were used as an input for this.


So now they did test columns? Man you're all over the place. They only tested a small amount? Yeah why is that? How much did they have? Where was the rest of it? NIST FAILS AGAIN AND LOOK SO DO YOU.

When you don't read the report you end up looking foolish time and time again. They did microstructure tests on columns. They did not do ASTM furnace tests on columns, as you suggested. They had 236 pieces of steel. 4 of these were core columns. Why are you asking me this? You should know this.


And for the umpteenth time. So what? What's causing it? Where's the proof not the faith?

For the 3rd time you are too afraid to admit you were talking rubbish when claiming it is an assertion to state that the fires were hot enough to compromise steel. YES OR NO - does a bowing wall qualify as compromised?

It is quite obviously sagging trusses that are causing it. What's your alternative? Where's the evidence for it? You have none! There are photos of the trusses sagging and the walls bowing, simulations showing this would occur, calculations by engineers on this forum confirming it to be possible, yet you still cling to thin air to defend your religion.

[UNLoVedRebel]

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

Well if you think that's what caused it........

[A W Smith]

The same amount as in WTC-7 on 9/11.


Was the 1975 fire fought by firefighters?

Was the tower hit by another 110 story building that day in 1975?

[WildCat]

So you admit that the floors were sagging, excellent.

Now show how sagging floors could have been the result of thermite, bombs, mini-nukes, space beams, holograms or whatever 9/11 idiocy you subscribe to.
I notice you ignored this post. Is this an admission that you are unable to think of any other mechanism to counter the NIST explanation?

Was it the truss or column that sagged?
How on earth can a column sag?

[Homeland Insurgency]

The trusses sagged and pulled in the columns. You really had to ask that?

Yeah I did have to ask but not for me. Thank you.

Sagging of 100+ inches was seen in WTC 2. NIST got about 8 inches of sagging in the furnace prior to stopping the test due to imminent collapse of the test structure. (I know you'll skim over the last part of that sentence). In the computer models they got 42 inches, but none of the furnace tests were used as an input for this.

UL fire tests not only didn’t collapse the floors only sagged about 3 inches, despite double the known floor load and two hours of fire exposure. The towers collapsed in an hour. Maybe they should have used the furnace tests if they wanted the truth.

When you don't read the report you end up looking foolish time and time again. They did microstructure tests on columns. They did not do ASTM furnace tests on columns, as you suggested. They had 236 pieces of steel. 4 of these were core columns. Why are you asking me this? You should know this.

Go back and look at what I initially was replying to. You're looking like the fool. You can't even read this thread before you open your mouth never mind NIST.

For the 3rd time you are too afraid to admit you were talking rubbish when claiming it is an assertion to state that the fires were hot enough to compromise steel. YES OR NO - does a bowing wall qualify as compromised?

Yes it does for the umpthousandth time. Now you need to prove what caused it and send it to NIST.

It is quite obviously sagging trusses that are causing it. What's your alternative? Where's the evidence for it? You have none! There are photos of the trusses sagging and the walls bowing, simulations showing this would occur, calculations by engineers on this forum confirming it to be possible, yet you still cling to thin air to defend your religion.

That's what I'm asking you. Where's your evidence to your fairy tale. You have none. You have faith and nothing else. I'm not the one with the belief.

[dtugg]

So, in other words, you cannot come up with an alternate explanation for the columns bowing. Don't feel too bad, no other twoofer can either.

[UNLoVedRebel]

UL fire tests not only didn’t collapse the floors only sagged about 3 inches, despite double the known floor load and two hours of fire exposure. The towers collapsed in an hour. Maybe they should have used the furnace tests if they wanted the truth.
.

I'm not going to repeat myself, refer to post 284.

For further clarification...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3783559&postcount=870

[WildCat]

:words:
Still running away from direct questions like a scared little schoolgirl HI?

[twinstead]

Exactly what kind of controlled demolition would cause the columns to bow?

[JohnG]

Ladies and Gentlemen: The comedy stylings of Woodward and Bernstein!

Ultima no one here wants to talk about conventional office fire or support the official version they claim to be the truth. "Conventional" in no way, no how, fits with what it is they claim happened that day.

They will simply keep ignoring their own version of events when convenient to try and imply Jet Fuel is some kind of magical building demolition technique discovered on 9/11.

Demolition according to debunkers...
Jet Fuel = 1 hour
Explosives = Months of set-up
WTC-7 = No explosives or jet fuel needed

And round and round we go.


Too bad the facts and evidence overrides your theory.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_keyfindings.htm
The jet fuel, which ignited the fires, was mostly consumed within the first few minutes after impact. The fires that burned for almost the entire time that the buildings remained standing were due mainly to burning building contents and, to a lesser extent, aircraft contents, not jet fuel.


Yeah I know. I'm agreeing with you.

lol

It's easy to get punchy around here. Believe me I know.


Well at least someone here has some common sense and basic intelligence.


Seriously though, HI, doesn't it trouble you that this is your comrade in the battle against the man?

1. He doesn't realize you are actually agreeing with him. Makes you wonder how 'punchy' he's been in other posts, doesn't it? You at least have the good grace and maturity to admit to your own 'punchy' posts.

2. When you point out his mistake, he neither (truly) acknowledges it nor apologizes for it.

If he can't own up to a relatively silly, innocuous mistake such as this, is it reasonable to assume he'd be capable of recognizing, and then acknowledging that he's mistaken about something as serious as who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks?

Oh, and ULTIMA1, I think you meant to write "Well at least someone else here has some common sense and basic intelligence."

[Ivan The Song Boy]

Man that post is a mess.

There have been other buildings hit by planes and stood. The WTC itself had a severe explosion and fire on a lower floor in the 70's. We need not look any further then right there as far as design. It was much lower with many more floors above it weighing down. No collapse.

In the 90's it was hit with a bomb in the basement. The basement which means every floor was weighing down on it. No collapse.

I didn't say anything about controlled demolition. Pretend to debunk controlled demolition all you want it's never going to prove your fairytale true even if you could which you haven't yet.

Really? There HAS been other aircraft impacted buildings that remained standing? OK, please define what this means. What is an impact?

Have you ever walked up to a 767? Man, it's a BIG piece of equipment. Really big. It's not light either, even half booked and with only enough fuel for a transcontinental flight, it comes in well over 200,000 pounds..

When, and where in the world did one of these impact a steel structure at even 300 MPH, never mind 500mph..


And, um,, why are you pointing to other fires and the explosion in the lower levels? The fire in question really has nothing to do with this at all. How big was this old fire? How many floors were involved, how many pounds of Jet=A were spilled inside the building on that day, long ago. This is getting really stupid now. {Now? }

"My boat sank last night and I'm sure I know why!" - "Oh my goodness, So sorry. Why DID your Boat sink"- It sank because the government um,, does stuff.." - "Oh I see, what makes you say this? " Well, there was a boat that almost sank last year." - " I see, but what does this have to do with your boat? Or the Government? ---" YOU JUST CAN'T SEE THE TRUTH, YOU'RE WILLING TO BELIEVE ANYTHING!" -- "Well, um No, I just wonder what made you think this was a %^&*(? " CAN'T YOU SEE? THEY DID IT!"

OK then.. Carry on with the regularly scheduled program.

I'm feeling a little sick:faint:

[Mancman]

UL fire tests not only didn’t collapse the floors only sagged about 3 inches, despite double the known floor load and two hours of fire exposure. The towers collapsed in an hour. Maybe they should have used the furnace tests if they wanted the truth.

Exactly as predicted, you ignored the part where I said they stopped the tests when collapse of the test structure was imminent.


Go back and look at what I initially was replying to. You're looking like the fool. You can't even read this thread before you open your mouth never mind NIST.

You are simply disagreeing for the sake of it, you have no idea what you are saying.



Yes it does for the umpthousandth time. Now you need to prove what caused it and send it to NIST.

That's what I'm asking you. Where's your evidence to your fairy tale. You have none. You have faith and nothing else. I'm not the one with the belief.

Oh god that is an astonishingly pathetic dodge.

So once I've squeezed out a 'yes, the wall was compromised' you are desperately trying to twist it into a 'but no, that doesn't mean the fires were hot'. I told you what evidence there is. Photographic, computer simulation, engineering calculations.

You want to skirt around pretending there is some other cause for the bowing, that you are afraid to mention and have no evidence for.

Come on, the evidence for the sagging trusses pulling the walls in is readily availible to you. Disprove that evidence or present evidence of an alternative or STFU. Start with the Newtons Bit thread - what you are your issues with it?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Ladies and Gentlemen: The comedy stylings of Woodward and Bernstein!

I don't get it. Where's your style?

Seriously though, HI, doesn't it trouble you that this is your comrade in the battle against the man?

Seriously though, JG, Ultima seriously has the attention of all of you seriously.

1. He doesn't realize you are actually agreeing with him. Makes you wonder how 'punchy' he's been in other posts, doesn't it? You at least have the good grace and maturity to admit to your own 'punchy' posts.

Well like I said that's an easy mistake to make around here in the way you all gang up with irrelevant nonsense, name calling, postings of laughing dogs, and then when you get owned call in the moderators. You all troll your own threads. I thought you guys agreed not to do that anymore? What happened? lol

2. When you point out his mistake, he neither (truly) acknowledges it nor apologizes for it.

He did acknowledge it. In fact his acknowledgement was pointed out by you in the post I'm replying to right now.

If he can't own up to a relatively silly, innocuous mistake such as this, is it reasonable to assume he'd be capable of recognizing, and then acknowledging that he's mistaken about something as serious as who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks?

Wow you're a little obsessed with this huh? Tell it to your therapist. Are you sure this isn't more about something Ultima did to you?

Oh, and ULTIMA1, I think you meant to write "Well at least someone else here has some common sense and basic intelligence."

Huh?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Exactly as predicted, you ignored the part where I said they stopped the tests when collapse of the test structure was imminent.

Really? After how long and with how much load. That had to stop sometime no?

You are simply disagreeing for the sake of it, you have no idea what you are saying.

No I'm pointing out that you haven't even followed what you are replying to. And you read NIST? Yeah right.

Oh god that is an astonishingly pathetic dodge.

Wow what self realization. Good for you. It's not common in debunkers.

So once I've squeezed out a 'yes, the wall was compromised' you are desperately trying to twist it into a 'but no, that doesn't mean the fires were hot'. I told you what evidence there is. Photographic, computer simulation, engineering calculations.

Where did I say no? Remember what I told you about NIST working backwards? I think it might be contagious. I'm just wondering how they infected you if you never even read it.


You want to skirt around pretending there is some other cause for the bowing, that you are afraid to mention and have no evidence for.

You would need a real investigation of the entire event before you start throwing out causes.

Come on, the evidence for the sagging trusses pulling the walls in is readily availible to you. Disprove that evidence or present evidence of an alternative or STFU. Start with the Newtons Bit thread - what you are your issues with it?

Come on, don't you know that NIST already had what you call evidence before they did their testing? Why did they bother if it's evidence?

[JohnG]

I don't get it. Where's your style?



Seriously though, JG, Ultima seriously has the attention of all of you seriously.



Well like I said that's an easy mistake to make around here in the way you all gang up with irrelevant nonsense, name calling, postings of laughing dogs, and then when you get owned call in the moderators. You all troll your own threads. I thought you guys agreed not to do that anymore? What happened? lol



He did acknowledge it. In fact his acknowledgement was pointed out by you in the post I'm replying to right now.



Wow you're a little obsessed with this huh? Tell it to your therapist. Are you sure this isn't more about something Ultima did to you?



Huh?

Six out of six wrong. Impressive. It's clear I overestimated you. It's a mistake I promise I'll never make again. Have a nice day.:)

[dtugg]

So, still no alternate explanation for the columns bowing? I understand how this is a huge problem for you twoofers.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Really? There HAS been other aircraft impacted buildings that remained standing? OK, please define what this means. What is an impact?

Yes! Really! If you don't know what an impact is then maybe I can't help you.

Have you ever walked up to a 767? Man, it's a BIG piece of equipment. Really big. It's not light either, even half booked and with only enough fuel for a transcontinental flight, it comes in well over 200,000 pounds..

Wow. It's big huh?

When, and where in the world did one of these impact a steel structure at even 300 MPH, never mind 500mph.

When did one hit WTC-7? Careful now you're debunking your own dogma.

And, um,, why are you pointing to other fires and the explosion in the lower levels? The fire in question really has nothing to do with this at all. How big was this old fire? How many floors were involved, how many pounds of Jet=A were spilled inside the building on that day, long ago. This is getting really stupid now. {Now? }

Classic. "The fire in question really has nothing to do with this at all." What's the name of this thread again? lol

"My boat sank last night and I'm sure I know why!" - "Oh my goodness, So sorry. Why DID your Boat sink"- It sank because the government um,, does stuff.." - "Oh I see, what makes you say this? " Well, there was a boat that almost sank last year." - " I see, but what does this have to do with your boat? Or the Government? ---" YOU JUST CAN'T SEE THE TRUTH, YOU'RE WILLING TO BELIEVE ANYTHING!" -- "Well, um No, I just wonder what made you think this was a %^&*(? " CAN'T YOU SEE? THEY DID IT!"

I'm sorry about your boat but the boat in question really has nothing to do with this at all.

OK then.. Carry on with the regularly scheduled program.

Okay I will.

I'm feeling a little sick:faint:

Don't worry you can get a new boat. Just let mommy handle the glue.

[Homeland Insurgency]

So, in other words, you cannot come up with an alternate explanation for the columns bowing. Don't feel too bad, no other twoofer can either.

How many millions are you granting?

[chillzero]

If you cannot participate in this thread in an adult, civil manner, without bickering, it will be closed.

[dtugg]

How many millions are you granting?

What does this mean? I just want to know if you have another explanation for the columns bowing. Something tells me you don't. Prove me wrong.

[Homeland Insurgency]

What does this mean? I just want to know if you have another explanation for the columns bowing. Something tells me you don't. Prove me wrong.

No I don't I already said as much. There would need to be an adequate investigation.

[dtugg]

No I don't I already said as much. There would need to be an adequate investigation.

I don't care that you don't think that it wasn't a valid investigation. If only you, or one of the illustrious experts of the twoof movement could show that NIST's explanation is wrong, I might agree. You don't even need millions of dollars, you just need math and physics. But for some odd reason, nobody has been able to invalidate their model even though the report is out there for the world to see.

You, nor anybody else, even has a brain fart to explain what else could have caused the columns to bow. I don't suppose this is because NIST is right. No, that is impossible, they are lying government shills.

[Homeland Insurgency]

I don't care that you don't think that it wasn't a valid investigation.

Then stop asking me.

[dtugg]

Then stop asking me.

I just want to make it clear to everybody that's reading that you have nothing.

[Homeland Insurgency]

I just want to make it clear to everybody that's reading that you have nothing.

That's good because I want everyone to read this thread too.

[dtugg]

That's good because I want everyone to read this thread too.

Why? So everybody can see that you have nothing to counter NIST other than "it wasn't a valid investigation?"

[WildCat]

Why? So everybody can see that you have nothing to counter NIST other than "it wasn't a valid investigation?"
Pretty much. HI nor anyone else in the "truth" movement has come up with any mechanism to produce the bowed columns or the sagging floors. The NIST explanation isn't just the best one we have, it's the only one we have!

This is why that dying movement is such a pathetic joke, and why most members who are sane or have 2 brain cells to rub together have quietly walked away from it and would prefer that moment in their lives never happened. And all we have left are the insane, the stupid, and the profiteers who make money off of them.

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes! Really! [other buildings have been hit by planes]
Then I hope you can present examples which are comparable to the events of the world trade center, and case studies of all examples, or information of the damage done and their construction. I've been challenging you to do this for two pages now. I would like to know what precedents you're using to base your position.


When did one hit WTC-7? Careful now you're debunking your own dogma.
Thus far you've been unable to answer to the considerations presented to you in post#269 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4236592&postcount=269). You'll have to take baby steps before you run off to a WTC 7 derail. Are you prepared to answer to them or not? So far you've either dodged them, or have failed to meet any of the criteria.

Quite a roundabout way, when a simple "I don't know" would have sufficed.


Classic. "The fire in question really has nothing to do with this at all." What's the name of this thread again? lol
Rather when asked to provide a comparable, you presented two events as if they were comparable to what impacted the building. You attempted to isolate the two collapse mechanisms again. If you're going to make a terrible comparison, you could try harder to make it less obvious... ;)

That's good because I want everyone to read this thread too.
I'd also like to point out post # 295 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4236754&postcount=295) specifically to demonstrate the considerations you failed to make when asked to provide a comparable. I implore any reader to observe this.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Then I hope you can present examples which are comparable to the events of the world trade center, and case studies of all examples, or information of the damage done and their construction. I've been challenging you to do this for two pages now. I would like to know what precedents you're using to base your position.



Thus far you've been unable to answer to the considerations presented to you in post#269 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4236592&postcount=269). You'll have to take baby steps before you run off to a WTC 7 derail. Are you prepared to answer to them or not? So far you've either dodged them, or have failed to meet any of the criteria.

Quite a roundabout way, when a simple "I don't know" would have sufficed.



Rather when asked to provide a comparable, you presented two events as if they were comparable to what impacted the building. You attempted to isolate the two collapse mechanisms again. If you're going to make a terrible comparison, you could try harder to make it less obvious... ;)


I'd also like to point out post # 295 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4236754&postcount=295) specifically to demonstrate the considerations you failed to make when asked to provide a comparable. I implore any reader to observe this.

post # 274 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4236610&postcount=274)

[Grizzly Bear]

post # 274 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4236610&postcount=274)
A simple "I do not know" would have sufficed if you could not answer the question properly. Dodge noted.

And what is this "fairytale" you speak of?

[chillzero]

Previous mod warnings ignored, thread closed.