Burning jet fuel in the WTC towers

[ULTIMA1]

Oh, yeah, that basement really had to be taken out! It was soooooo crucial to the building's structural integrity! :rolleyes:

The president of Controlled Demolitions Inc. stated that the best way to bring down the towers would be by explovies in the basement.


Split from What is the stupidest 9/11 conspiracy theory? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128655)

[ULTIMA1]

Oh, and that those poors souls hanging out of the windows were not burning, the fires weren't that hot (when infact they were probably blistering by the time they jumped; I'll be damned if anyone suggests that these people didn't give it their all in an attempt to survive).

Funny how you keep forgetting about the photo of the lady standing in the hole made by the plane and no fire around her.

Wonder what happened to all the burning jet fuel that was supposed to have been there ?

[Hokulele]

The president of Controlled Demolitions Inc. stated that the best way to bring down the towers would be by explovies in the basement.


Which is why the collapse happened from the top down. :rolleyes:

[Redtail]

The president of Controlled Demolitions Inc. stated that the best way to bring down the towers would be by explovies in the basement.

Causing a top down collapse?

[Hokulele]

Jinx! You owe me another coke.

[ULTIMA1]

Causing a top down collapse?

You mean the top that started to lean then stopped and collapsed staight down?

[Hokulele]

You mean the top that started to lean then stopped and collapsed staight down?


Yes. How would that be caused by explosives in the basement?

[Brainache]

The president of Controlled Demolitions Inc. stated that the best way to bring down the towers would be by explovies in the basement.
That might be true if the bloody things didn't start collapsing from somewhere near the top.
Funny how you keep forgetting about the photo of the lady standing in the hole made by the plane and no fire around her.

Wonder what happened to all the burning jet fuel that was supposed to have been there ?

Do you think it might have ended up somewhere further inside the building?

....Just a possibility that might be worth considering.

ETA: I REALLY need to learn to type faster.

[Redtail]

Jinx! You owe me another coke.
Awwwww!

[ULTIMA1]

And what are you getting at here? Are you a WTC no-planer now?

PS: Did you forget that you told us that you work from 3AM-3PM? Oops!


I guess you misread my post, i was asking a simple question.

There is a photo of a lady stading in the hole that the plane made. Wonder what happened to all the burning jet fuel that was supposed to have been there ?

Hours changed, oh and its a holiday week.

[Redtail]

You mean the top that started to lean then stopped and collapsed staight down?

Yep! (and what Hokulele said.)

[ULTIMA1]

Do you think it might have ended up somewhere further inside the building?..

So are you saying the official story was wrong about how much burning jet fuel was supposed to be in the building?

I mean i thought there was supposed to be burning jet fuel on the whole floor, according to the official story.

[Redtail]

I guess you misread my post, i was asking a simple question.

There is a photo of a lady stading in the hole that the plane made. Wonder what happened to all the burning jet fuel that was supposed to have been there ?

Hours changed, oh and its a holiday week.

It went further inside the building like dtugg said.

Now then, how did an explosion in the basement make the building collapse from the top down?

[Redtail]

So are you saying the official story was wrong about how much burning jet fuel was supposed to be in the building?

I mean i thought there was supposed to be burning jet fuel on the whole floor, according to the official story.

How long after the impact was that photo taken?

[ULTIMA1]

It went further inside the building like dtugg said.


And you have evidence of this or is it just an opinion?

[dtugg]

I guess you misread my post, i was asking a simple question.

There is a photo of a lady stading [sic] in the hole that the plane made. Wonder what happened to all the burning jet fuel that was supposed to have been there ?

Hours changed, oh and its [sic] a holiday week.

Perhaps it was all burned up already. NIST says it was burned up withing ten minutes.

Oh, and how convenient that your hours are changed by the exact time you get back from suspension. What are your new hours so we don't get confused? And Thanksgiving isn't until Thursday. Federal government employees don't get today off.

[ULTIMA1]

How long after the impact was that photo taken?

Well according tho the official story ther was a big inferno in the building untill the building collapsed, so it would not matter when the photo was taken.

But then again thats according to the official story.

[AJM8125]

Funny how you keep forgetting about the photo of the lady standing in the hole made by the plane and no fire around her.

Wonder what happened to all the burning jet fuel that was supposed to have been there ?

Funny how nobody remembers this:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_26832492d0e329c059.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14362)

Guess that person on fire is part of the conspiracy.

[Hokulele]

You mean the top that started to lean then stopped and collapsed staight down?

Yes. How would that be caused by explosives in the basement?


Ahem.

[Brainache]

It went further inside the building like dtugg said.
Ahem.

Now then, how did an explosion in the basement make the building collapse from the top down?

What Hokulele said.

[Redtail]

And you have evidence of this or is it just an opinion?

Besides the explosion in the basement that would explain why said explosion was heard/felt and yet the building collapsed from the top down?

[Redtail]

Well according tho the official story ther was a big inferno in the building untill the building collapsed, so it would not matter when the photo was taken.

But then again thats according to the official story.

Oooo sorry, that's not a good argument from your position. See, the WTC was a very big building. Thus a big inferno can occur with out the entire building being engulfed in said inferno. Now then where in the "official story" does it say that there was a big inferno in the hole where the woman was standing?

(Yes, I know that in this particular line of argument, I'm ignoring the fact that it still could have been very hot right there. In fact, the point that she is standing in a jagged hole hundreds of feet abov the ground that a freakin PLANE just flew through would suggest a desperate attempt to get away from a very bad situation inside, but considering Ultima's argument so far and the title of this thread...)

[ULTIMA1]

I'm saying that just because something doesn't look like it's hot doesn't mean it isn't hot. You somehow interpreted that as me dodging your question about the 'missing' jet fuel (and by association the missing jet fueled flames)?

Now then where in the "official story" does it say that there was a big inferno in the hole where the woman was standing?


So i am still waiting to hear what happened to the thousands of gallons of jet fuel that was supposed to have been burning on the floor where the plane crashed, according to the official story.

the point that she is standing in a jagged hole hundreds of feet abov the ground that a freakin PLANE just flew through would suggest a desperate attempt to get away from a very bad situation inside

So i guess she is standing the burning jet fuel, even though she does not seem to be in any state of burning up.

[dtugg]

So i am still waiting to hear what happened to the thousands of gallons of jet fuel that was supposed to have been burning on the floor where the plane crashed, according to the official story.



So i guess she is standing the burning jet fuel, even though she does not seem to be in any state of burning up.

It burned up and/or went elsewhere in the building, genius. There wasn't an infinite amount of jet fuel on the plane.

[Grizzly Bear]

So i am still waiting to hear what happened to the thousands of gallons of jet fuel that was supposed to have been burning on the floor where the plane crashed, according to the official story.

Jet fuel was the ignitor, not the primary source of fuel for the fire. Should you be reminded that this: LINK (http://bp1.blogger.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/SDTMGkt1P5I/AAAAAAAABh4/HlT2FZTlEKQ/s400/NorthTowerFireGJS-WTC27cropped.jpg) nwas happening long after the jet fuel burned off.



So i guess she is standing the burning jet fuel, even though she does not seem to be in any state of burning up.

NIST already answered your question:
The fire behavior following the aircraft impacts is described in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. In general, there was little sustained fire near the area where the aircraft hit the towers. Immediately upon impact of the aircraft, large fireballs from the atomized jet fuel consumed all the local oxygen. (This in itself would have made those locations rapidly unlivable.) The fireballs receded quickly and were followed by fires that grew inside the tower where there was a combination of combustible material, air and an ignition source. Little combustible material remained near the aircraft entry gashes since the aircraft "bulldozed" much of it toward the interior of the building. Also, some of the contents fell through the breaks in the floor to the stories below.

Therefore, the people observed in these openings must have survived the aircraft impact and moved—once the fireballs had dissipated—to the openings where the temperatures were cooler and the air was clearer than in the building interior.

[eromitlab]

I guess you misread my post, i was asking a simple question.

There is a photo of a lady stading in the hole that the plane made. Wonder what happened to all the burning jet fuel that was supposed to have been there ?

Hours changed, oh and its a holiday week.

Um, Ultima... that lady standing near the impact hole? There's another picture of her that was taken a short time later that you probably haven't seen. Probably because it doesn't jibe with the "fire wuznt so hot!" tale. You know... a picture of her jumping.

[ULTIMA1]

It burned up and/or went elsewhere in the building, genius. There wasn't an infinite amount of jet fuel on the plane.

Jet fuel was the ignitor, not the primary source of fuel for the fire.


So how can you believe the far fetched theory (from the official story) that fire caused the buildings to collapse?

Since we know the fires did not get hot enough or burn long enough.

[ULTIMA1]

You know... a picture of her jumping.

Gee, if only you could show a photo of her jumping.

[Grizzly Bear]

So how can you believe the far fetched theory (from the official story) that fire caused the buildings to collapse?

Probably because you're relying on a straw-man by which you base your contention on the implication that the jet fuel was the primary fuel source for the fire. It was an ignitor, which started the fire on several floors simultaneously. Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that the jet fuel was not the only combustible inside the towers.

I see you've completely flown over the several floors worth of inferno (http://bp1.blogger.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/SDTMGkt1P5I/AAAAAAAABh4/HlT2FZTlEKQ/s400/NorthTowerFireGJS-WTC27cropped.jpg) well after the jet fuel burned off

[ULTIMA1]

Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that the jet fuel was not the only combustible inside the towers.

Its just too bad we know the OFFICE FIRE did not burn hot enough or long enough to cauue the collapse.

I mean in 1975 the North tower had a OFFICE FIRE that burned for 3 hours without causing damage to the steel.

Now on 9/11 we are expected to believe a OFFICE FIRE burning less then an hour caused a building to collapse.

[TexasJack]

Gee, if only you could show a photo of her jumping.

If you are speaking of Edna Cintron, there are pictures of her jumping, also a picture of her body after she hit the ground. I'm not going to link them because they are graphic...pretty insensitive comment by you in my opinion.

[ULTIMA1]

If you are speaking of Edna Cintron, there are pictures of her jumping, also a picture of her body after she hit the ground. I'm not going to link them because they are graphic...pretty insensitive comment by you in my opinion.

Well if you are going to bring up evidence you should be able to post it.

I guess the photos do not show her on fire, i mean since we know there was no buring jet fuel or big inferno near her.

[funk de fino]

Gee, if only you could show a photo of her jumping.

That is a really disgusting post. You should be ashamed.

[ULTIMA1]

That is a really disgusting post. You should be ashamed.

Well if you are going to bring up evidence you should be able to post it.

[funk de fino]

Well if you are going to bring up evidence you should be able to post it.

It is still a disgusting post. How would you feel if Edna was your mother and you saw someone posting stuff like you are?

[Grizzly Bear]

Its just too bad we know the OFFICE FIRE did not burn hot enough or long enough to cauue the collapse.
Temperatures ranging from 600oC to 800oC are sufficiently high enough to weaken steel by as much as half, temperatures of around 1000oC are sufficiently high enough to reduce the strength of steel by 90%. And steel losing strength is a function of temperature, not time. I suggest you review the code specifications located on the AISC website (http://www.aisc.org/Template.cfm?Section=2005_Specification&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=27871)


I mean in 1975 the North tower had a OFFICE FIRE that burned for 3 hours without causing damage to the steel.
You might also want to take note that the fire was not accompanied by a 767 plowing into it at 500 miles per hour, you might also note that the fire proofing was not removed at all due to the lack of a plane impact. You might also want to note that the 1975 fire was not accompanied by unevenly redistributed buildings loads resulting from impact damage... You might also note that firefighters had much greater access to the burning part of the structure than did those on 911 who had to climb 80 stories just to reach the lowest burning floor, you might also note that the 1975 fire was ignited on one floor, not ten simultaneously...

You see where I'm going with this do you?

Now on 9/11 we are expected to believe a OFFICE FIRE burning less then an hour caused a building to collapse.
You're comparing two completely different circumstances whose magnitudes are worlds apart. Am I expected to take your argument seriously if you lack the fundamental understanding of the flaws of your arguments?

[ULTIMA1]

Temperatures ranging from 600oC to 800oC are sufficiently high enough to weaken steel by as much as half.

So fun and easy to prove you wrong with facts.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

You might also want to take note that the fire was not accompanied by a 767 plowing into it at 500 miles per hour,

Please stay on topic, we are talking about fire not planes. I mean we have several reports that state the planes did not cause much damage.

[Grizzly Bear]

So fun and easy to prove you wrong with facts.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.


From the same source, which was referencing the loading capacity of the floor connections:
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

Please stay on topic, we are talking about fire not planes. I mean we have several reports that state the planes did not cause much damage.
Unfortunately the plane impacts are perfectly relevant to the discussion. They contributed to the circumstances which led to the collapse. If you are unable to distinguish the differences in the circumstances between fire alone, and an impact + fire combination then you're analogy falls short. The content from the source you just referenced should have alone been sufficient to inform you of that.

[DGM]

Well if you are going to bring up evidence you should be able to post it.
She thought it was best to jump to her certain death then to stay put. I hope you never have to make that decision. What part of "hell" don't you think she was in?

[TexasJack]

Well if you are going to bring up evidence you should be able to post it.

I guess the photos do not show her on fire, i mean since we know there was no buring jet fuel or big inferno near her.

Sick, just sick.

[A W Smith]

Ultima thanks for the new sig material. About those basement bombs, You might want to explain how the stairwell survivors lived through the core allegedly being blown out below them with "bombs' bringing the tower above them down from the top down.

[eromitlab]

Gee, if only you could show a photo of her jumping.

Well, you know, if you insist on seeing the evidence (so you can go on to deny it)... look here (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/06/for-sheila-casey.html). (Warning, potentially disturbing image and a link offered on the page to images even more graphic.)

[ElMondoHummus]

So fun and easy to prove you wrong with facts.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.


Please stay on topic, we are talking about fire not planes. I mean we have several reports that state the planes did not cause much damage.

Why are you committing the same mistakes that other truthers do in citing early works that are superceded by later ones? If you would take the time to actually read the source you link instead of quotemining it, you'd notice that it was written in December 2001, before anyone had the benefit of the information that NIST based their analysis on. The article even comes out and says "For a more complete. updated analysis of the World Trade Center towers collapse" right at the top!

On top of that, you're also mistakenly equating wind load figures for the ability of a structure to support weight vertically, and the ability of a building to resist wind loads is not the same thing as it's ability to support itself when interior supports are weakened by impact and thermal distortion from fire. Furthermore, you're treating the building as a whole in your argument when the proper treatment is the analysis of the zone immediately below the fire and impact zones to support the weight above it.

These details have been discussed ad nauseum here already. You're repeating the mistakes of the past with your arguments.

[ULTIMA1]

you'd notice that it was written in December 2001, before anyone had the benefit of the information that NIST based their analysis on.

So your saying that the NIST reports from 2001 would also be wrong too, since they did not have all the information?

I mean we have seen how many times NIST reports have contridicted pevious reports.

We also know that the NIST report for building 7 is debunked since they failed to recover steel for testing.

[dtugg]

So your [sic] saying that the NIST reports from 2001 would also be wrong too, since they did not have all the information?

I mean we have seen how many times NIST reports have contridicted [sic]pevious [sic] reports.

We also know that the NIST report for building 7 is debunked since they failed to recover steel for testing.

What NIST reports were released in 2001? Seems odd to me seeing as how they weren't mandated to look into the collapses until 2002. If for some crazy reason they did release a report in 2001, you could say they were not fully correct.

Who cares if they contradicted previous reports in some ways? NIST had far more data and spent far more time and money looking into it. Logic says that they would have the best report.

Steel used in WTC7 was marked in such a way to identify it post fire and collapse. So even if some of it still did exist, there is no way for it to be used as physical evidence.

You fail yet again ULTIMA1. Is there anything that you don't fail at?

Oh, and are you going to continue plagiarizing now that you are back?

[Tbone]

Gee, if only you could show a photo of her jumping.

You're a horrible human being.

[ULTIMA1]

Logic says that they would have the best report.

Its just too bad that the 9/11 commission (who hired them to do reports) did not agree with or post many of thier findings.

Steel used in WTC7 was marked in such a way to identify it post fire and collapse. So even if some of it still did exist, there is no way for it to be used as physical evidence.

Funny how FEMA recovered steel for testing from building 7 but NIST did not.

[ULTIMA1]

You're a horrible human being.

Why, because i am looking for the truth and you just believe what you are told?

[parky76]

Um...if the fires were not hot...why did all those people jump? Did they think they could fly? Were they dumbies dropped by the Mossad?

:mad:

[parky76]

Why, because i am looking for the truth and you just believe what you are told?

if i had a nickel....

makes ya feel good to tell yourself that you actually care about the truth and we are just mindless governmant loyalists huh?

[UNLoVedRebel]

This thread should be sent to AAH for the inhumane things posted by ULTIMA1. For anyone really interested in the fireball and spread of fires here (http://sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7GWS-4DCMHBB-8&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=335b3a8dc32291be9f0b50e4819ec253)is a good article. Someone could read it, post a new thread and have a real discussion, full of science and free of Internet trolls.

[parky76]

people jumped from the towers. lots of people. they didnt do it for excersize.

[Grizzly Bear]

Its just too bad that the 9/11 commission (who hired them to do reports) did not agree with or post many of thier findings.
The commission report was in charge of providing engineering analysis? :confused:

[dtugg]

Its just too bad that the 9/11 commission (who hired them to do reports) did not agree with or post many of thier [sic] findings.


Funny how FEMA recovered steel for testing from building 7 but NIST did not.

Yet another EPIC FAILURE on your part.

NIST was assigned to look into the collapse in 2002 by the National Construction Safety Team Act which was signed into law in Oct. 2002. The 9/11 Commission wasn't set up until Nov. 2002. So how exactly did the 9/11 Commission hire NIST again? And how exactly could the 9/11 Commission disagree with or post their findings? The 9/11 Commission Report was released in 2004. The final NIST reports for the towers was released in 2005.

What did FEMA test? Did they find anything useful? No, of course not because they had no idea from where in the building any steel came from.

[AJM8125]

The commission report was in charge of providing engineering analysis? :confused:

Yes. The 9/11 Commission was an all-knowing entity and purposely left loose ends so internet detectives could have something to investigoogle in their spare time when they're not doing more important things like pulling wings from insects or playing G-man. I thought you knew that. :rolleyes:

Off topic, but diggin the new avatar. Way cool. Your design?

[ULTIMA1]

So how exactly did the 9/11 Commission hire NIST again?

Gee, you really do not know anything do you? Please see 9/11 commision, staff statement 13. You will find this quote.

"Much of this work was conducted in conjunction with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is studying the building performance issues. We are indebted to NIST for its cooperation."


What did FEMA test? Did they find anything useful? .

FEMA did test steel from building 7 and found the following.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

C.2 Sample 1 (From WTC 7)

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

[ULTIMA1]

Yes. The 9/11 Commission was an all-knowing entity

People on the 9/11 commission stated they did not have enough time or money to do a proper investigation.

[parky76]

I guess this means, the Jews did it.

[ULTIMA1]

I guess this means, the Jews did it.

So you really do not know who did it or what happened.

[dtugg]

Gee, you really do not know anything do you? Please see 9/11 commision,[sic] staff statement 13. You will find this quote.

"Much of this work was conducted in conjunction with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is studying the building performance issues. We are indebted to NIST for its cooperation."



Why do you always fail? That says nothing about the 9/11 Commission hiring NIST. Of course, I already proved this impossible since the NIST investigation started before the 9/11 Commission.



FEMA did test steel from building 7 and found the following.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

C.2 Sample 1 (From WTC 7)

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

So? I don't seem any evidence that that they had any idea where it came from meaning it would be useless in helping to create a model of the collapse. There is not even any way of knowing if that happened to the steel pre or post collapse.

[UNLoVedRebel]

So you really do not know who did it or what happened.

Yes we know who did it and what happened. On topic, if you're interested in what happened to the fuel post impact, read this (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7GWS-4DCMHBB-8&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=335b3a8dc32291be9f0b50e4819ec253) and tell us if your calculations and conclusions matched the authors.

[Grizzly Bear]

Gee, you really do not know anything do you? Please see 9/11 commision, staff statement 13. You will find this quote.

"Much of this work was conducted in conjunction with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is studying the building performance issues. We are indebted to NIST for its cooperation."
What material did NIST contribute to the commission report though? In so far as I've read the commission report is not an engineering publication, it was a report to sequence the series of events leading up to 911.

Short of basic engineering aspects to detail the towers, the commission report is in no way intended to convey detailed engineering analysis, unless you'd like to point out a specific example of what you're referring to if you think it would interest me...




Off topic, but diggin the new avatar. Way cool. Your design?
Not mine, but I needed a change of pace... the image in my sig is though :D (the civil war caption)

Send me a PM if you want...

[AJM8125]

People on the 9/11 commission stated they did not have enough time or money to do a proper investigation.

Gee I guess that's why it's been done on this forum for free.

[ULTIMA1]

That says nothing about the 9/11 Commission hiring NIST.

Can you read? The staff statemnt states that the 9/11 commission hired NIST to do reports.

"Much of this work was conducted in conjunction with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is studying the building performance issues. We are indebted to NIST for its cooperation."


[/quote]So? I don't seem any evidence that that they had any idea where it came from meaning it would be useless in helping to create a model of the collapse. There is not even any way of knowing if that happened to the steel pre or post collapse.[/QUOTE]

But the point is why could FEMA recover steel for testing but NIST could not?

NIST failed to recover steel for testing so their report is incomplete and not a proper investigation.

[dtugg]

Can you read? The staff statemnt [sic]states that the 9/11 commission hired NIST to do reports.

"Much of this work was conducted in conjunction with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is studying the building performance issues. We are indebted to NIST for its cooperation."

I can read just fine. Apparently, you can't. In conjunction and cooperation does not mean that they hired NIST. How could they if the NIST investigation came first? What is wrong with you?


But the point is why could FEMA recover steel for testing but NIST could not?

NIST failed to recover steel for testing so their report is incomplete and not a proper investigation.

Perhaps they decided that the steel that FEMA recovered was enough. Plus the steel couldn't tell them what happened in any specific part of the building. So there was really no need.

Nobody cares if you think the report was incomplete or not proper.

[ULTIMA1]

Nobody cares if you think the report was incomplete or not proper.

Well the fact is that NIST failed to do a proper investigation when the did not recover steel for testing.

I mean that was part of the investigation, to find out what happened.

[ElMondoHummus]

So your saying that the NIST reports from 2001 would also be wrong too, since they did not have all the information?

I mean we have seen how many times NIST reports have contridicted pevious reports.

We also know that the NIST report for building 7 is debunked since they failed to recover steel for testing.

You just don't get it. You're not even trying.

You cited a report made soon after the collapses, in December of 2001, to refute information developed with later information. My point is that Eagar and Musso did not have the benefit of the extended analysis that the NIST engineers provided. They're not wrong, rather their work is an early building block based on some assumptions, ones that were later overturned on further analysis.

Knowledge builds, Ultima. The early models of solid atoms eventually gave way to the nucleus/electron shell model, which later gave way to the complex orbitals we understand today. Eagar and Musso's work is not so much wrong as it is early. Just like knowledge about animal and crop breeding was before knowledge of genetics was developed. If you had actually read the work for comprehension instead of just using it as a quotemining source, you'd see this.


NIST failed to recover steel for testing so their report is incomplete and not a proper investigation.

NIST aquired all the steel they needed. They identified columns and supports that were near the impact and fire zones and analyzed those. The fact that they did not bother to extensively analyze the remainder means nothing, and you forget, they had to go through all the steel to identify those noteworthy pieces to begin with. So it's not like much of the rubble wasn't looked at; on the contrary, the reality is that the subset that NIST recovered was for extended study. There is nothing to find in what was left over that's of any consequence. The fact that the FDNY, NYPD Crime Scene Unit, and FBI reported nothing about explosives after going over the steel themselves is a testiment to this. Their report is indeed complete. If you don't understand why that's so, you don't understand what NIST's mandate was to begin with.

[Grizzly Bear]

EDIT: ElMondo beat me D:<

[ULTIMA1]

NIST aquired all the steel they needed. .

NIST failed to recover steel from building 7 for testing, according to thier own report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf
Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.

[Grizzly Bear]

NIST failed to recover steel from building 7 for testing, according to thier own report.

No, but NIST had a solid base to work with. They knew what type of steel was used, and they had structural design plans, and code practices of the time of construction. There is extensive documentation for the design values of structural steel from which literature values can be used to estimate their properties.

These values are imperative for determining the most efficient design during planning, the same literature can be used to model the same material providing accurate documentation of the structure is available


ETA. is there any idea floating about when we'll be back to the jet fuel issue? I don't think we need infinitesimal splits :|

[ElMondoHummus]

NIST failed to recover steel from building 7 for testing, according to thier own report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf
Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.

My fault. I thought you were referring to the main towers. I'll leave it to others (Mackey, Dave Rogers, etc.) to defend the WTC 7 report, as I have yet to read it. Anyway, do you agree then that the report on the Twin Towers is complete then?

[ULTIMA1]

Anyway, do you agree then that the report on the Twin Towers is complete then?


NO, there are still way too many questions that have not been answered.

Plus the fact that the original NIST model stated that neither fire or plane impact casued the collapse.

[parky76]

NO, there are still way too many questions that have not been answered.

Plus the fact that the original NIST model stated that neither fire or plane impact casued the collapse.

the original Loose Change said that a b-52 crashed into the empire state building. i guess that means 9-11 was NOT an inside job.

:D

[ULTIMA1]

ETA. is there any idea floating about when we'll be back to the jet fuel issue? I don't think we need infinitesimal splits :|

Well we know the jet fuel was not the cause of the collapse. What else did you need to know?

[ULTIMA1]

the original Loose Change said that a b-52 crashed into the empire state building.

Speaking of the Empire State Building, funny how the B-25 did not cause much damage to the building, just like the planes at the towers.

[Grizzly Bear]

Plus the fact that the original NIST model stated that neither fire or plane impact caused the collapse.
WOW, nominated... great strawman...

[Grizzly Bear]

Speaking of the Empire State Building, funny how the B-25 did not cause much damage to the building, just like the planes at the towers.

What the... ...
Empire State building is built nothing like the world trade centers, and the kinetic energy involved in the collisions in each are world's apart... this is akin to comparing apples and oranges and a rather pitiful repetition of the flaws CT's make trying to compare precedents... Nothing personal but I advise that you begin reading a few architecture books, not that I expect you to make the effort..

[ElMondoHummus]

NO, there are still way too many questions that have not been answered.


:nope: The only questions I've seen are from those who misinterpret or misrepresent the facts of 9/11. So far, you've been no different.


Plus the fact that the original NIST model stated that neither fire or plane impact casued the collapse.

:confused:

Even if that's the case, what does it matter? The original model of the universe put the earth at the center. As I said above, knowledge develops.

Speaking of the Empire State Building, funny how the B-25 did not cause much damage to the building, just like the planes at the towers.

Apples/oranges. Lower speed impact, plus a different building design based on masonry with limestone-encased steel. Completely different situation than 9/11.

[ULTIMA1]

WOW, nominated... great strawman...

Gee, proven wrong again by facts. It really is fun and easy to prove you guys wrong when you have facts and evidence.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004BaselineStructuralAnalysisPrint.pdf
The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.

[ElMondoHummus]

EDIT: ElMondo beat me D:<

:D

[ULTIMA1]

[QUOTE=ElMondoHummus;4230525
Apples/oranges. Lower speed impact, plus a different building design based on masonry with limestone-encased steel. [/QUOTE]

Well it is different planes but when you figure in the size and structure of the buildings it is very comparable.

At least its a lot better then someone trying to compare the towers with a bridge.

[dtugg]

Speaking of the Empire State Building, funny how the B-25 did not cause much damage to the building, just like the planes at the towers.

Yet another EPIC FAIL.

The B-25 going at slow speed had much, much less kinetic energy than a 767 going at high speed.

And not much damage to the WTC? Are you crazy? In the case of WTC2 it was only about 33 exterior and 10 interior columns severed. Yeah, I guess you are right not much damage.

[parky76]

Speaking of the Empire State Building, funny how the B-25 did not cause much damage to the building, just like the planes at the towers.

yes, funny how the construction of the empire state building and the twin towers were soooooooo very different. but why would you even mention that? it would only work against your argument.

:D

[Grizzly Bear]

Gee, proven wrong again by facts. It really is fun and easy to prove you guys wrong when you have facts and evidence.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004BaselineStructuralAnalysisPrint.pdf
The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.

Definitely, the plane impacts weren't enough for immediate collapse, and arguably fire alone wouldn't have done it either. Did you forget that both factors were present? :rolleyes:

The fire was the straw that broke the camel's back...

[parky76]

Well it is different planes but when you figure in the size and structure of the buildings it is very comparable.

At least its a lot better then someone trying to compare the towers with a bridge.

the structures of a wtc tower..and the empire state...are very comparable?

huh? what? did you actually say that?

[Grizzly Bear]

Well it is different planes but when you figure in the size and structure of the buildings it is very comparable.
You're comparing concrete construction to steel construction, that alone gives very different fire resistance. Concrete is itself a form of passive fire resistance and maintains its strength when exposed to high temperatures, steel will weaken significantly under similar conditions for example. This doesn't begin account for the difference in how the structural systems were fabricated, among other things...

[ULTIMA1]

And not much damage to the WTC? Are you crazy? In the case of WTC2 it was only about 33 exterior and 10 interior columns severed. Yeah, I guess you are right not much damage.

Well i am going by that facts and evidence i have.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.

http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm
Using CAD simulations Tony Fitzpatric of Arup America determined that it took a direct hit by the engines shaft at 200 mph to punch through one steel H column and box columns are stronger than H columns and the interior core columns were stronger than the exterior perimeter columns. The planes would have been shredded passing through the perimeter columns, possibly taking out a few, and the number of interior core columns destroyed would have been much less. When the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 the fire damaged several steel beams but the impact did not take out one steel column.

[dtugg]

Sorry. That was published in 2001. The NIST report has much more information and facts after investigating it for three years.

[ULTIMA1]

the structures of a wtc tower..and the empire state...are very comparable?

huh? what? did you actually say that?

You're comparing concrete construction to steel construction, that alone gives very different fire resistance. Concrete is itself a form of passive fire resistance and maintains its strength when exposed to high temperatures, steel will weaken significantly under similar conditions for example. This doesn't begin account for the difference in how the structural systems were fabricated, among other things...

http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm
When the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 the fire damaged several steel beams but the impact did not take out one steel column.

[dtugg]

http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm
When the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 the fire damaged several steel beams but the impact did not take out one steel column.

Why are you always failing?

As I said before, the B-25 going at slow speed had much, much less kinetic energy than a 767 going at high speed.

[ULTIMA1]

Sorry. That was published in 2001. The NIST report has much more information and facts after investigating it for three years.

Sorry i do not take facts from NIST reports since they have been debunked several times.

[Grizzly Bear]

Yet another EPIC FAIL.
And not much damage to the WTC? Are you crazy? In the case of WTC2 it was only about 33 exterior and 10 interior columns severed. Yeah, I guess you are right not much damage.
And several others either severely deflected, or moderately damaged. Then you have about 40,000 sq ft of fires spread across 6 floors simultaneously ignited

[dtugg]

Sorry i do not take facts from NIST reports since they have been debunked several times.

Name one thing in the NIST report that has been debunked. Specifically quote it from the report and explain how it was debunked. Can you do it?

[ULTIMA1]

And several others either severely deflected, or moderately damaged. Then you have about 40,000 sq ft of fires spread across 6 floors simultaneously ignited


http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html
The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.

http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm
Using CAD simulations Tony Fitzpatric of Arup America determined that it took a direct hit by the engines shaft at 200 mph to punch through one steel H column and box columns are stronger than H columns and the interior core columns were stronger than the exterior perimeter columns. The planes would have been shredded passing through the perimeter columns, possibly taking out a few, and the number of interior core columns destroyed would have been much less. When the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 the fire damaged several steel beams but the impact did not take out one steel column.

[ULTIMA1]

Name one thing in the NIST report that has been debunked. Specifically quote it from the report and explain how it was debunked. Can you do it?

NIST failed to recover any steel for testing from building 7, according to thier own report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf
Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Sorry i do not take facts from NIST reports since they have been debunked several times.

Facts that have been debunked? Stundie.

[ULTIMA1]

Facts that have been debunked? Stundie.

Well since NIST failed to recover steel from building 7 for testing, thier report is not complete.

They did not do a proper investigation.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Well since NIST failed to recover steel from building 7 for testing, thier report is not complete.

They did not do a proper investigation.

That comment had no bearing on my quotation. Did you just hit that "quote" button for the hell of it?

[dtugg]

NIST failed to recover any steel for testing from building 7, according to thier [sic] own report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf
Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.

You didn't debunk anything. The fact that you feel the report was not adequate is not a debunking, just a personal opinion.

[Grizzly Bear]

Well since NIST failed to recover steel from building 7 for testing, thier report is not complete.

They did not do a proper investigation.

Post #70 sailed clear over your head didn't it?


http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm
When the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 the fire damaged several steel beams but the impact did not take out one steel column.
Again, please enlighten me how the empire state building and the related collision makes a valid comparison to the WTC?
Lets see what you've ignored so far:

--------------------------

And what does the interior structural grid of the Empire State Building look like? Is it similar in any fashion to the structural layout of the trade centers?
empire state building typical floor plan (http://www.virgobc.com/img/empire/plans/plans.jpg)
Typical WTC floor (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Nistncstar1-1-fig2-4.png)


Empire State Builing:
Structural Grid (http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/art/photo/hinex/empire/interior.html)
Link 2 (http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/art/photo/hinex/empire/steel-crane.html)

"Steel columns and beams form a stable 3-D grid throughout the entire structure. But since such closely spaced column grids obstruct open spaces in buildings, there are virtually no open spans, or column-free spaces, on each floor of the Empire State Building."
source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/empire_state.html)

Steel and masonry construction

World Trade Center:
Construction image (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/construction-1.jpg)
Link 2 (http://data.greatbuildings.com/gbc/images/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.3.jpg)

Construction system -- Steel Tube-on-tube

The empire state building was built as a standard structure of the time, partitions inside prevented the uncontrolled spread of fire to other parts of the building, The world trade center's support system was in the core, and in the perimeter, the office space in between was free off structural columns, nothing to prevent fire from spreading

ESB was built with 200,000 cubic feet of Indiana limestone and granite, 10 million bricks (masonry) , and 730 tons of aluminum and stainless steel.


Shall I go on or will you continue to use the ESB without any background behind its construction? If you have a basis for ignoring the structural differences between the two and why they do not influence the validity of your comparison then please feel free to explain your justification

[dtugg]

Facts that have been debunked? Stundie.

Hahahaha. That's great. I must have missed it before. Congrats on making my signature, Ultima, and the November Stundie nominations!

[AJM8125]

Post #70 sailed clear over your head didn't it?



Again, please enlighten me how the empire state building and the related collision makes a valid comparison to the WTC?
Lets see what you've ignored so far:

--------------------------

And what does the interior structural grid of the Empire State Building look like? Is it similar in any fashion to the structural layout of the trade centers?
empire state building typical floor plan (http://www.virgobc.com/img/empire/plans/plans.jpg)
Typical WTC floor (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Nistncstar1-1-fig2-4.png)


Empire State Builing:
Structural Grid (http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/art/photo/hinex/empire/interior.html)
Link 2 (http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/art/photo/hinex/empire/steel-crane.html)

"Steel columns and beams form a stable 3-D grid throughout the entire structure. But since such closely spaced column grids obstruct open spaces in buildings, there are virtually no open spans, or column-free spaces, on each floor of the Empire State Building."
source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/empire_state.html)

Steel and masonry construction

World Trade Center:
Construction image (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/construction-1.jpg)
Link 2 (http://data.greatbuildings.com/gbc/images/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.3.jpg)

Construction system -- Steel Tube-on-tube

The empire state building was built as a standard structure of the time, partitions inside prevented the uncontrolled spread of fire to other parts of the building, The world trade center's support system was in the core, and in the perimeter, the office space in between was free off structural columns, nothing to prevent fire from spreading

ESB was built with 200,000 cubic feet of Indiana limestone and granite, 10 million bricks (masonry) , and 730 tons of aluminum and stainless steel.


Shall I go on or will you continue to use the ESB without any background behind its construction? If you have a basis for ignoring the structural differences between the two and why they do not influence the validity of your comparison then please feel free to explain your justification


And as others have stated, the crash dynamics were completely different as well. Whereas flights 11 and 175 were deliberately flown into the towers at high speed to inflict as much damage as possible, Lt. Colonel William Smith, Pilot of the ill-fated B-25 Mitchell bomber, is said to have put his plane into a climbing bank in a last ditch attempt to avoid hitting the building. I'm by no means an expert, but it seems logical to me that such a maneuver would likely scrub off air speed and reduce the kinetic energy released upon impact. If the forum's aviation experts disagree with this then I'll certainly retract this statement.

Still This B-25, being roughly a tenth of the weight of a Boeing 767and traveling at a much lower speed, still managed to breach the ESB, killed several people besides the flight crew, eject wreckage through the opposite side of the building, caused at least one elevator to plummet and started fires on several floors.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

It never fails to amuse me that troofers try to draw comparisons between the two events but dismiss the facts involved when it doesn't fit whatever dead horse they're beating at the moment.

[funk de fino]

Gee, proven wrong again by facts. It really is fun and easy to prove you guys wrong when you have facts and evidence.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004BaselineStructuralAnalysisPrint.pdf
The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.

NIST say its was a combination of fire and impact damage that caused the collapse.

You fail.

[firecoins]

Why, because i am looking for the truth and you just believe what you are told?
you have nothing to do with looking for the truth. you live in a fantasy world.

[Arus808]

AGain, WHY do you guys entertain this fraudulent , lying ignorant troll? his answers were found on page one, he posted two disgusting comments on page 1. After that, this thread should have stopped.

ultima1 is not here to discuss, he's here to stir the pot, and here we go, giving him his food.

STOP. PLEASE.

[ULTIMA1]

You didn't debunk anything. The fact that you feel the report was not adequate is not a debunking, just a personal opinion.

Anyone with common sense and basic intelligence would know that if a agency did not do a proper investigation then their report is debunked.

[ULTIMA1]

you have nothing to do with looking for the truth. you live in a fantasy world.

Thats funny, the only people living in a fantasy world are the people that still believe the official story after it has been proven to be missing so much information.

[ULTIMA1]

AGain, WHY do you guys entertain this fraudulent , lying ignorant troll? his answers were found on page one, he posted two disgusting comments on page 1.


Why are you so afraid of me posting facts and evidence?

[parky76]

Anyone with common sense and basic intelligence would know that if a agency did not do a proper investigation then their report is debunked.

"debunked" usually means that theories and ideas have been proven wrong. are suggesting that simply because some on the 9-11 Commission felt that they didnt have enough time and money, that the whole thing needs to be thrown out?

figures.

[parky76]

Why are you so afraid of me posting facts and evidence?

we would LOVE it...if for once you would actually post facts and evidence.

[ULTIMA1]

"debunked" usually means that theories and ideas have been proven wrong. are suggesting that simply because some on the 9-11 Commission felt that they didnt have enough time and money, that the whole thing needs to be thrown out?

Simple fact is NIST failed to do a proper investigation on building 7.

Simple fact is the 9/11 commission did not have enough time or money to do a proper investigation.

[parky76]

Simple fact is NIST failed to do a proper investigation on building 7.

Simple fact is the 9/11 commission did not have enough time or money to do a proper investigation.

I'd like to see a quote from a member of the 9-11 Commission saying "we did not have enough money or time to do a thorough investigation. therefore, the people of the world should consider our findings to be irrelevant and a new investigation is in order."

but you know what, Ultima1, I believe 100%, that you and your brethren would consider ANY investigation into 9-11, done by ANY group or organization, to be insuffecient and inproper, if it did not find that 9-11 was an inside job.

would you accept an independant investigation that found that 9-11 was commited by 19 islamic extremist terrorists...and not by the USA, Mossad, CIA, MI6, etc?

[twinstead]

You kind of have to insist NIST wasn't proper, ULTIMA1, don't you? It makes it just that much easy to ignore their findings and hand wave away their evidence. I guess if you decide to ignore the opposing argument to a debate you're guaranteed to never loose a debate, are you?

Thankfully we are aware of your little debate technique; it doesn't work in the real world.

[ULTIMA1]

You kind of have to insist NIST wasn't proper, ULTIMA1, don't you? It makes it just that much easy to ignore their findings and hand wave away their evidence.

Well i also ignore thier findings because a lot of other agencies and experts disagree with them.

[parky76]

name one Federal agency who disagrees with the FINAL.....NIST reports into the wtc collapses.

name one unbiased "expert"...who disagrees with the final NIST reports.

[ULTIMA1]

name one Federal agency who disagrees with the FINAL.....NIST reports into the wtc collapses.

You mean besides FEMA, 9/11 commission, and Homeland Security?

name one unbiased "expert"...who disagrees with the final NIST reports.

http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Just to start.

[Sunstealer]

FEMA did test steel from building 7 and found the following.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

C.2 Sample 1 (From WTC 7)

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.Yes that is very useful. However, I can bet that you do not understand a word of that paragraph nor how it relates to the condition of the steel examined. I bet you pick up on the "substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel" without understanding the context nor the scale in which this is meant. Of course a eutectic is going to have a lower liquidus . Anyone who has done any chemistry at the age of 11 will know that impurities in an element generally lower the melting point of the resulting material. This is not a revelation, it's very, very, very, well understood and is used in metals industry all of the time.

[ULTIMA1]

Yes that is very useful. However, I can bet that you do not understand a word of that paragraph nor how it relates to the condition of the steel examined. .


Yes i do know some of it, but that does not matter the point is that FEMA recovered steel form building 7 and did testing and NIST failed to.

[funk de fino]

Yes i do know some of it, but that does not matter the point is that FEMA recovered steel form building 7 and did testing and NIST failed to.

FEMA only took that steel part because it was unusual. They did not know where in the building it was from. This is the only steel they tested from WTC7.

All the steel from the WTC site was examined by demo teams, investigators and city officials at the offsite storage areas prior to being sent away or destroyed.

[funk de fino]

Heres a little test for the poster who obviously does not understand what eutectic means.

Tin has a melting point at approx 450 deg F
Lead has a melting point at approx 621 deg F

An "alloy" combination of both in an approx 60/40 percentage has a melting point of ?

A = Above 621 deg F
B = Below 450 deg F
C = Between 450 and 621 deg F
D = I have no idea, I only read and repeat junk from truther sites without undestanding what it really means.

[Sunstealer]

Yes i do know some of it, but that does not matter the point is that FEMA recovered steel form building 7 and did testing and NIST failed to.Then why post a paragraph that has no connection with the point you are trying to make?

[X]

Heres a little test for the poster who obviously does not understand what eutectic means.

Tin has a melting point at approx 450 deg F
Lead has a melting point at approx 621 deg F

An "alloy" combination of both in an approx 60/40 percentage has a melting point of ?

A = Above 621 deg F
B = Below 450 deg F
C = Between 450 and 621 deg F
D = I have no idea, I only read and repeat junk from truther sites without undestanding what it really means.


5 Minutes of Google provides this (http://www.curiousinventor.com/images/how_to_solder/phase_diagram.jpg) useful diagram.


If you don't understand it, then you will want to do some reseach on phase diagrams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram#Binary_phase_diagrams) and eutectic points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutectic).

[ULTIMA1]

All the steel from the WTC site was examined by demo teams, investigators and city officials at the offsite storage areas prior to being sent away or destroyed.

But the fact still remains that NIST failed to recover and test any steel from building 7.

[ULTIMA1]

Then why post a paragraph that has no connection with the point you are trying to make?

It shows that FEMA recovered and tested steel from building 7.

[Grizzly Bear]

But the fact still remains that NIST failed to recover and test any steel from building 7.

So you are contending that this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4230493&postcount=70) was not enough?

[Mr.Herbert]

Roger,

I was just getting caught up on this thread. We are all used to your ignorance from ATS, EBaums, here, and other forums, nothing has ever disgusted me more than the posts you made regarding the woman who died that was standing at the impact point and the "proof" you demanded of her jumping to her death. You know nothing of hell they went through. Yet you piss all over them.

Edited for rule 12 violation. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

[ULTIMA1]

So you are contending that this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4230493&postcount=70) was not enough?

Enought to make the investigation inproper since the main part of the investigation was to find out what happened to the building.

[ULTIMA1]

Roger,

I was just getting caught up on this thread. We are all used to your ignorance from ATS, EBaums, here, and other forums, nothing has ever disgusted me more than the posts you made regarding the woman who died that was standing at the impact point and the "proof" you demanded of her jumping to her death. You know nothing of hell they went through. Yet you piss all over them.
Edited for rule 12 violation. Attack the argument, not the arguer.


Reported, breach of rule 12.

[parky76]

lol.....:D

[UNLoVedRebel]

Reported, breach of rule 12.

Reported, breach of rule 11.

[Grizzly Bear]

Enought to make the investigation inproper since the main part of the investigation was to find out what happened to the building.

They have plans of the building, code practices of the period in which it was built, they know the three types of structural steel used in the building. And engineering documentation on the three types of steel allow us to estimate their properties, how the fire would have affected it. All of these offer all of the information needed to build an accurate simulation.

On your end, the evidence you claim are:

-- It looks like a demolition (Argument from spurious resemblence)
-- Explosions (or rather, a lack thereof... I believe you call this hush-a-boom style)
-- a complete lack of det cord and other remnants
-- A hotch potch of precedents that don't even consider fundamental construction differences

Your case is looking strong!

[ULTIMA1]

Your case is looking strong!


Oh, my case is very strong due to the following indisputable fact.

NO STEEL SKYSCAPER IN THE US HAS EVER COLLAPESED FROM FIRE NO MATTER HOW SEVERE BEFORE OR SINCE 9/11.

[Grizzly Bear]

NO STEEL SKYSCAPER IN THE US HAS EVER COLLAPSED FROM FIRE NO MATTER HOW SEVERE BEFORE OR SINCE 9/11.
Is that the only basis you have for your argument?

[ULTIMA1]

Is that the only basis you have for your argument?

No i have several reports from experts.

But can you debate the fact that no steel skyscrper in the US has ever collapsed form fire?

[parky76]

no ALL steel skyscraper has ever been hit by a fully fueled 757 at 500 mph either.

duhh!!!

[ULTIMA1]

no ALL steel skyscraper has ever been hit by a fully fueled 757 at 500 mph either.

Well for 1 they were 767s.

And second, most reports have stated the planes did not cause enough damage to have anything to do with the collapse.

I mean the original NIST computer model even stated the plane impacts and fire did not cause the collapse.

[ktesibios]

No i have several reports from experts.

But can you debate the fact that no steel skyscrper in the US has ever collapsed form fire?

Can you explain the relevance of this glittering generality to the specifics of the WTC7 design and the fires that took place there?

I contend that it has none. You may have noticed that the engineering studies into the building collapses at the WTC didn't use a generic model called "skyscraper" but instead painstakingly modeled the design and construction of and the damage to the individual buildings involved.

[ULTIMA1]

Can you explain the relevance of this glittering generality to the specifics of the WTC7 design and the fires that took place there?

What don't you understand about the fact that no steel building in the US has ever collapsed from fire?

[parky76]

Well for 1 they were 767s.

And second, most reports have stated the planes did not cause enough damage to have anything to do with the collapse.

I mean the original NIST computer model even stated the plane impacts and fire did not cause the collapse.

the original Loose Change said a B-52 hit the Empire State Building.

people make mistakes.

[parky76]

What don't you understand about the fact that no steel building in the US has ever collapsed from fire?

this may be the MOTHER of all 9-11 denier straw-men.

ofcourse no steel building has ever fully collapsed from fire!!!!

but how many of these all-steel buildings had a fire caused by a plane crash??????

jesus christ.

[ULTIMA1]

people make mistakes.

Oh so after using NIST as source all this time now your saying they are wrong?

[ULTIMA1]

but how many of these all-steel buildings had a fire caused by a plane crash??????

Well you keep forgetting that the jet fuel burned off quick so all you had left was a office fire.

I am still waiting for an answer.

[Grizzly Bear]

But can you debate the fact that no steel skyscraper in the US has ever collapsed form fire?
While it's certainly true that no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, your argument is an appeal to tradition. There is, contrary to what you seem to think... a first time for everything. And absolutely nothing in the case of the twin towers was a textbook case.

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 (http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/nist1d/6-6_wtc1-96floor-model.jpg)

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)

Since you want to play the first-time in history canard I defy you to find a single incident matching all of the above criteria. If you want to discuss something like this which is related to architecture and engineering you need to consider all of those before you can make a call that steel structures cannot collapse from fire. If it were impossible as you seem to suggest, then you either need to read the code practices for steel structures or you need to present a case to the code department explaining why fireproofing practices are not necessary in building steel structures.

[ULTIMA1]

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

How many times does it have to be explained and shown that the planes did not cause enough damage to have anything to do with the collapse.?

Even the NIST compter model has stated this.

[Grizzly Bear]

How many times does it have to be explained and shown that the planes did not cause enough damage to have anything to do with the collapse.?
I'm fully aware that the impact of the planes did not cause immediate collapse. But it's foolish to believe it had NO part in it. You ignore that the impact removed numerous exterior perimeter columns and damaged several others on one face of the the structure. It severed as many as 8 to 10 core columns, and damaged several others.

This caused the loads to shift to adjacent columns bringing them closer to their load capacity.

Columns which were damaged by the impacts had their load capacities reduced.

The impact removed parts of the passive fire protection in the process. The floor trusses were protected by spray-on, and the core was a combination of spray-on and gypsum board. Once the gypsum wall board was removed from the core columns it left still others completely unprotected from the ensuing fires and the heat.

And the fire reduced the structural member's strength even further

This is what happens to steel in an ordinary fire when it's unprotected: http://www.softwood.org/AITC_eVersion/images/G3b.jpg

[stateofgrace]

Oh, my case is very strong due to the following indisputable fact.

NO STEEL SKYSCAPER IN THE US HAS EVER COLLAPESED FROM FIRE NO MATTER HOW SEVERE BEFORE OR SINCE 9/11.

If this is so blatantly obvious, then why did the perps demolition three buildings on Sept 11th and hope nobody (other than twoofers) would notice the obvious ?

[parky76]

Oh, my case is very strong due to the following indisputable fact.

NO STEEL SKYSCAPER IN THE US HAS EVER COLLAPESED FROM FIRE NO MATTER HOW SEVERE BEFORE OR SINCE 9/11.

what does this have to do with 9-11??

the wtc towers were all-steel buildings, hit by large planes....AND had fires.

these are two variables that NO BUILDING in history has ever had.

[ULTIMA1]

You ignore that the impact removed numerous exterior perimeter columns and damaged several others on one face of the the structure. It severed as many as 8 to 10 core columns, and damaged several others.

Gee its so fun and easy to prove you wrong with facts.

http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm
Using CAD simulations Tony Fitzpatric of Arup America determined that it took a direct hit by the engines shaft at 200 mph to punch through one steel H column and box columns are stronger than H columns and the interior core columns were stronger than the exterior perimeter columns. The planes would have been shredded passing through the perimeter columns, possibly taking out a few, and the number of interior core columns destroyed would have been much less. When the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 the fire damaged several steel beams but the impact did not take out one steel column.

[ULTIMA1]

the wtc towers were all-steel buildings, hit by large planes....AND had fires.

these are two variables that NO BUILDING in history has ever had.

Let me repeat. NO steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire no matter how severe.

Wrong again, there have been buildings hit by planes.You just do not want to admit it.

[Arus808]

no human being could ever fly.... the wright bros proved that wrong
no human being could ever build a horseless carriage...oh wait, we have cars in the millions now.
no human could make fire....oh wait, proved that wrong

there is a first for everything. however, the engineers and architects at large, want to make sure that what happened on 9/11/2001 does not happen again.

[ULTIMA1]

there is a first for everything. however, the engineers and architects at large, want to make sure that what happened on 9/11/2001 does not happen again.

NO steel skyscraper has ever collapsed in the US from fire no matter how severe before or since 9/11.

[eromitlab]

Let me repeat. NO steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire no matter how severe.

Wrong again, there have been buildings hit by planes.You just do not want to admit it.

You just don't want to admit that those were not large passenger jets, heavy with fuel, travelling at 500mph or more. As for your repetition of no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire!!!!!11!1!!, I believe it's been beaten half to death about a thousand times on this forum. Try either doing a search or advancing past Loose Change version 2.
Good grief.

[eromitlab]

Oh, and ultima1, I went to the trouble of finding and linking a post of Edna Cintron jumping, since you were so insistent on seeing it no matter how crass and demented that demand made you look. I felt quite dirty linking it instead of telling you to investigoogle it for yourself. So... did you even look at it?

[ULTIMA1]

You just don't want to admit that those were not large passenger jets, heavy with fuel, travelling at 500mph or more. .

Do you really want me to post reports of airliners hitting buildings.

I mean its fun and easy to post facts and evidence, you should try it sometime.

[ULTIMA1]

did you even look at it?

Yes and the photos proved my point, no buring jet fuel and big inferno near her. Proving the official story incorrect again.

[eromitlab]

Yes and the photos proved my point, no buring jet fuel and big inferno near her. Proving the official story incorrect again.

There's that pathological need to believe in a gigantic 9/11 conspiracy again.

Congratulations, ultima1, you've earned a small honor. I've never placed anyone on ignore. Until you. I'd like to encourage others to do the same.
Good day.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Do you really want me to post reports of airliners hitting buildings.

I mean its fun and easy to post facts and evidence, you should try it sometime.

I proved you were wrong with facts and evidence but you ignored the facts and evidence.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7GWS-4DCMHBB-8&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=335b3a8dc32291be9f0b50e4819ec253

[UNLoVedRebel]

Yes and the photos proved my point, no buring jet fuel and big inferno near her. Proving the official story incorrect again.

Yes there was burning jet fuel and a big inferno near her. Thanks for proving you ignore all facts and evidence.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/sdocs/north_tower/05.jpg

[UNLoVedRebel]

Well you keep forgetting that the jet fuel burned off quick so all you had left was a office fire.

I am still waiting for an answer.

No, it didn't. I gave you facts and evidence but you refuse to look at the facts and evidence.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7GWS-4DCMHBB-8&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=335b3a8dc32291be9f0b50e4819ec253

[Ivan The Song Boy]

Well if you are going to bring up evidence you should be able to post it.

There is a huge pile of evidence that renders virtually everything you write, completely useless. You already know this. It's ALL been explained by actual people. Human beings. Not "your kind of people" but smart thoughtful people..

Are you really dim enough to be asking what happens to thousands of pounds of jet fuel when it's container suddenly stops moving, and it is sprayed at high rates of speed? It goes everywhere. If it can be ignited by an ignition source, it will be. The hole you speak of ended up burning. Didn't it. You were not IN that hole though, were you?

Are you a person who believes that because you did not see fire for a period of time that there wasn't fire 30 or 40 feet away from this poor woman?. Go buy some jet A. Blast it from a high pressure hose all over a bunch of office equipment , light it on fire and stand around for a while.. Please do this right away. Let us know what you feel when the fire gets withing 30 feet of you.. If you can, If you don't have to jump!!

The thing I find to be so distressing about all this is your complete lack of respect for what happened that day.. Your level of stupidity is unfair. There is simply no excuse for your behavior. I am now thinking that nearly ALL of these "Truth" people are simply dishonest.

How is it possible that you could be saying these things otherwise. I seriously doubt that a person who is smart enough to use a computer could actually believe any of this carp. I therefor am now convinced those who do are mean spirited and mentally Ill.

Really.

Ivan.....................

[Ivan The Song Boy]

Oh, I thought I would ad that if you were to make two lists. One representing what did happen to the fuel and another listing what didn't happen to the fuel, the second list would be much shorter than the first.

Some of it lit very quickly and was mist. Some of the fuel {center tanks?} Might have leaked down many floors. Jet fuel "travels" Some of it sat for a while in puddles. Some of it may have drowned human beings. Some of it left the scene in a hurry. Some of it was not consumed by fire. Maybe even AFTER the collapse, it is entirely possible that there was in tact fuel left in small places on the site.

Your questions are those of a 9 year old . This is all baiting. I'm quite sure of it now.

Ivan.......................

[ULTIMA1]

Yes there was burning jet fuel and a big inferno near her.

As you can clearly see by this photo, their is no burning jet fuel or big inferno near her.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/VTS_01_3001.jpg?t=1227958515

[ULTIMA1]

No, it didn't. I gave you facts and evidence but you refuse to look at the facts and evidence.


Every report i have seen including NIST states that the jet fuel burned off in a few minutes.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html
Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both Towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone. A thin veil of black smoke enveloped the Tower's top. In the wake of the South Tower's fall new areas of fire appeared in the North Tower.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Every report i have seen including NIST states that the jet fuel burned off in a few minutes.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html
Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both Towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone. A thin veil of black smoke enveloped the Tower's top. In the wake of the South Tower's fall new areas of fire appeared in the North Tower.

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.

[ULTIMA1]

Ultima no one here wants to talk about conventional office fire .

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.

[Homeland Insurgency]

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.

[ULTIMA1]

Yeah I know. I'm agreeing with you.
.

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

[Mr.Herbert]

Yes and the photos proved my point, no buring jet fuel and big inferno near her. Proving the official story incorrect again.

then why did she jump?

[ULTIMA1]

then why did she jump?

Oh i am sire it was somethign called heat.

Even though there was no big inferno near her she still was getting plenty of heat as was probably trapped by the debris from the plane.

[Mr.Herbert]

what causes heat Roger?

[parky76]

maybe she didnt jump. maybe it was just an NWO plastic dumby.

furthermore, I'd like to see actual evidence that the World Trade Center ever existed.

[Homeland Insurgency]

then why did she jump?

So heat or the inability to breath because of smoke from a conventional office fire equates heat hot enough to compromise steel and collapse a steel structured high-rise for the first time in history?

[dtugg]

So heat or the inability to breath because of smoke from a conventional office fire equates heat hot enough to compromise steel and collapse a steel structured high-rise for the first time in history?

The really hot fires were above her. IIRC, she was in a skylobby where there wasn't much to burn unlike the offices above.

[Homeland Insurgency]

The really hot fires were above her. IIRC, she was in a skylobby where there wasn't much to burn unlike the offices above.

I'm just saying that people jumping isn't necessarily or even probably because of heat. It's the smoke that gets you in a fire.

[ULTIMA1]

So heat or the inability to breath because of smoke from a conventional office fire equates heat hot enough to compromise steel and collapse a steel structured high-rise for the first time in history?


No it was just hot enough to effect people, which is a long way from being able to compromise steel.

No steel skyscaper in the US has collapsed from fire no matter how severe.

[parky76]

how many steel skyscrapers have been hit by 767s?

[ULTIMA1]

I'm just saying that people jumping isn't necessarily or even probably because of heat. It's the smoke that gets you in a fire.

Or both.

[ULTIMA1]

how many steel skyscrapers have been hit by 767s?

Whats that got to do with the fire?

Please be adult enough to stay on topic.

[Mr.Herbert]

No it was just hot enough to effect people, which is a long way from being able to compromise steel.



Mr. Facts, you have proof of this?

Thank you

[Homeland Insurgency]

Or both.

Yeah well I'm sure some people who jumped were in locations where the fire was burning and there was no where else to go. But like the towers weren't engulfed in flames I didn't see many bodies falling engulfed in flames either. They couldn't breath period. None of this lends anymore credibility to the assertion that there was heat strong enough to compromise steel.

[parky76]

most people jump from burning buildings before they catch on fire.

i really dont like the heartless tone this thread is taking.

:(

[ULTIMA1]

Mr. Facts, you have proof of this?

Thank you

Sure no problem, its fun and easy to post facts. You should try it sometime.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

[ULTIMA1]

i really dont like the heartless tone this thread is taking.(


Well you have been heartless all along by not wating to find the truth why would it make a difference now?

[Mr.Herbert]

I didn't see many bodies falling engulfed in flames either.


This post is pure filth. Nice job H.I.

[Mr.Herbert]

Sure no problem, its fun and easy to post facts. You should try it sometime.



Your paper was written in December of 2001. PRIOR to NIST's complete examination.

If YOU bothered to read you would have see this about the first paragraph of the article you linked:

Editor’s Note: For a more complete. updated analysis of the World Trade Center towers collapse, read “The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Towers Collapse (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html)” in the December 2007 issue.

[Mancman]

None of this lends anymore credibility to the assertion that there was heat strong enough to compromise steel.

How is this an assertion when we have clear visual evidence of the walls bowing inward? Does steel columns 14 inches wide being dragged 55 inches inward not qualify as 'compromised'?

[Homeland Insurgency]

This post is pure filth. Nice job H.I.


Oh tsk tsk look at all the compassionate debunkers who pointed to jumping bodies in the first place to try in vain to support some ridiculous argument suddenly getting a conscience.

I'm so so ashamed. lol

[ULTIMA1]

Your paper was written in December of 2001. PRIOR to NIST's complete examination.:


You mean the NIST improper investigation?

http://www.nistreview.org/NCSTAR1-REVIEW-DOUGLAS.pdf
The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its
findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.

NIST’s physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST’s conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.

[RedIbis]

You mean the NIST improper investigation?

http://www.nistreview.org/NCSTAR1-REVIEW-DOUGLAS.pdf
The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its
findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.

NIST’s physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST’s conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.

ULTIMA, haven't you learned that around here you're not allowed to criticize a report, nor post analysis criticizing such a report until you have produced your own version of the events, regardless of whether or not you have the resources or access to archived evidence?

I'm not that familiar with this methodology but around here it's referred to as "debunking".

[ULTIMA1]

I'm not that familiar with this methodology but around here it's referred to as "debunking".


Yes the NIST reports have been debunked for years now.

[parky76]

the NIST reports have been debunked? by whom?

[Grizzly Bear]

Gee its so fun and easy to prove you wrong with facts.
How does it render me wrong? I gave NIST's worst case scenario. I congratulate the writer of your source for considering the questions I asked you to take into consideration despite the publication coming from 2002


My point is that given the inadequate partial sprinkler system, the use of lightweight long-span steel bar joists, deficient fireproofing on the steel, and large open areas undivided by fire walls, any uncontrolled large area fire would have eventually produced the same total collapse. The importance of early fire control, to save lives by prevention of collapse in most ordinary constructed buildings is generally not appreciated even by engineers. Many years ago hard experience had taught the Fire Dept. that when the fire was beyond their control in the old brick and joist, first generation high-rise buildings the fire forces were withdrawn and the fire fought from the outside in anticipation of collapse and preparations begun to limit fire spread to exposures. The whole concept of the second generation fireproof buildings was that fires could be fought from the inside without the danger of collapse until all the occupants could be removed and the fire extinguished. Heavy reliance (was placed) on the integrity of the building, its design and its systems. (OHagan p 145, 149). Consideration of collapse in fire proof resistive buildings has not been of critical importance, until now.

Please explain why you are unable to answer to the same considerations. Are you deficient in addressing them? Can you address them? I'm playing by your first time in history game by using first time events which I'm not pre-dispositioned to believe are impossible. YOU appear to believe that because something hasn't happened before, that it can never happen. Your reliance on appeal to tradition and your incompetence in engineering principals is astounding.

Please feel free to address these when you have found a proper example matching all of the criteria:

While it's certainly true that no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, your argument is an appeal to tradition. There is, contrary to what you seem to think... a first time for everything. And absolutely nothing in the case of the twin towers was a textbook case.

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 (http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/nist1d/6-6_wtc1-96floor-model.jpg)

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)



As you can clearly see by this photo, their is no burning jet fuel or big inferno near her.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/VTS_01_3001.jpg?t=1227958515

Yes and it's understandable that that area was not on fire. To begin with the explosion atomized a large portion of the fuel payload and rendered the region briefly unlivable by using up the available supply of oxygen. Then you have the plane bulldozing all of the combustibles to the other side of the building. You're heavy insistence that a single photo represents the entire inferno is a cold assertion of the consequent and has no place within the context of this discussion.

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.
You tell me. How many conventional office fires have you seen been ignited on several floors simultaneously with active sprinkler system rendered incapacitated by an impact of a jet liner? Temperature and fuel wise, the fires may well have been ordinary, but there was nothing "ordinary" about the impact that accompanied them, the height of the fires, or the sheer scale of the fires. Why don't you begin to address the same considerations that Ultima's earlier source provided, it's clear that the author has a much better grasp on the situation and his case than you and Ultima.


Demolition according to debunkers...
Jet Fuel = 1 hour
Any assertion that the primary source of fuel in the entirety of the fires was jet fuel is a strawman. And steels strength is a function of temperature, not time.

Explosives = Months of set-up
WTC-7 = No explosives or jet fuel needed
Ah yes hush-a-booms will do the job right? ;)

So heat or the inability to breath because of smoke from a conventional office fire equates heat hot enough to compromise steel and collapse a steel structured high-rise for the first time in history?
You're making the same mistake as Ultima :)
If you don't see it behind a wall or a veil of smoke then there must be no fire. A classic assertion of the consequent.

ULTIMA, haven't you learned that around here you're not allowed to criticize a report, nor post analysis criticizing such a report until you have produced your own version of the events, regardless of whether or not you have the resources or access to archived evidence.
Of course they're allowed to criticize the report's failures where they believe NIST made them, however pushing alternative theories which have no merit of course is not the best way to substantiate an alternative theory.

[DGM]

No it was just hot enough to effect people, which is a long way from being able to compromise steel.

No steel skyscaper in the US has collapsed from fire no matter how severe.
How many UN-FOUGHT fires have there been (that's the important question)?

Guess what? Every time there was an UN-FOUGHT fire in a skyscraper it collapsed. As you fail to grasp, what happened was the norm not the exception.

Too bad the planes took out the water supply, the buildings would probably still be there like every other high rise fire.

[twinstead]

ULTIMA, haven't you learned that around here you're not allowed to criticize a report, nor post analysis criticizing such a report until you have produced your own version of the events, regardless of whether or not you have the resources or access to archived evidence?

I'm not that familiar with this methodology but around here it's referred to as "debunking".

Why on Earth WOULDN'T one be expected to come up with a better supported theory if one thinks the commonly accepted theory is as flawed as you folks suggest? According to ULTIMA1, the 'official story' is SO obviously flawed, flies in the face of physics SO much that it's a wonder any intelligent person believes it, even though nobody who matters--even those who think the NIST report was not perfect--thinks 911 was perpetrated by anybody else.

Given that position he better damn well give a viable alternative. You can complain all you want and play rhetorical games all you want but the fact remains the 'official story' IS the account that has the most evidence behind it.

[Ivan The Song Boy]

Oh, my case is very strong due to the following indisputable fact.

NO STEEL SKYSCAPER IN THE US HAS EVER COLLAPESED FROM FIRE NO MATTER HOW SEVERE BEFORE OR SINCE 9/11.

This only means what is stated though. Nothing else. Learn to spell. Please.

[Ivan The Song Boy]

You mean the top that started to lean then stopped and collapsed staight down?

This is sort of what happened. The idea that you do not understand why {I think you do, understand } is amazing. You should stay away from all machinery.

[jhunter1163]

Did Ultima really ask what the planes had to do with the fires?

If so, that could very well be the stupidest question in the history of ever.

[twinstead]

Did Ultima really ask what the planes had to do with the fires?

If so, that could very well be the stupidest question in the history of ever.

The stupidest question ever? That's a bold statement from somebody who has been reading the conspiracy section of this forum as long as you have. Hell this may barely be in the top 10 ;)

[technoextreme]

No it was just hot enough to effect people, which is a long way from being able to compromise steel.

No steel skyscaper in the US has collapsed from fire no matter how severe.
But bridges and tunnels have.

[Ivan The Song Boy]

Well the fact is that NIST failed to do a proper investigation when the did not recover steel for testing.

I mean that was part of the investigation, to find out what happened.

This assumes though, that certain aspects of what happened are not already known..

You would come upon a car wreck, and begin an investigation into whether or not a steering wheel was ever actually issued by the maker of the Car.. You would start an investigation into whether the occupant was Human. You would be CONVINCED that an F-16 distracted the alien driver and caused the crash, and you would look into these things with absolutely NO REASON to do so.

It is quite seriously the difference between smart, and plain old Dumb. {and/or mean}.. This incredible nonsense you are spewing comes down to this simple idea. Stupidity. Caused by fear. There are problems with this. BIG problems.

Ivan................

[Ivan The Song Boy]

Well we know the jet fuel was not the cause of the collapse. What else did you need to know?

Right. "The Jet Fuel" was NOT "THE" Cause.

Either was "THE" impact, or just "THE" Fire.
Jack Karoake
Think! THINK son. You can do it!

IF you are being serious,{which I doubt} you need to learn how to reason through problems.. I fancy myself an average, VERY average person. I walked out of 10th grade with a freaking guitar in my hand, an army jacket I bought for $5.00 at a second hand store, and a pocket full of unmentionable substances.

HOW CAN I HAVE A BETTER HANDLE ON THIS THAN YOU!!!???!!!

Something is WRONG. I believe this to be a very serious emotional problem that has now become mental illness. I don't see what else can explain it. I however, am open to the possibility of being entirely wrong about this, um, I guess.

[Ivan The Song Boy]

So heat or the inability to breath because of smoke from a conventional office fire equates heat hot enough to compromise steel and collapse a steel structured high-rise for the first time in history?

A "conventional" Office fire?

Tell me please. How many floors burned? What percentage of each of these floors on average burned? Do you think having a Boeing 767 INSIDE this building made ANY difference at all? Or do you think this is just an irrelevant fact? Or are you at Aces' house staring at a video monitor, convinced that it was all a magic trick?

Do you think that after the impact, the building's in question had the intended structural attributes? Was it "The Same" building after the impact as it relates to structural integrity? Or did these buildings very quickly become something they were never intended to be?

The only other question is, What in the name of all that is good, could be wrong with you?

Ivan.................

[Ivan The Song Boy]

Well for 1 they were 767s.

And second, most reports have stated the planes did not cause enough damage to have anything to do with the collapse.

I mean the original NIST computer model even stated the plane impacts and fire did not cause the collapse.

This is simply untrue. It is very clear that a 767 can not enter a building of this design without doing damage to the structure. The outer structure of these buildings were there for a reason. Define "Cause"

What do you mean by "most Reports".. This is just nonsense. My 11 year old boy actually knows more about this than you do.. Why? How?.. I STILL don't believe that you actually believe any of this.

[bje]

Don't feed the troll. Ultima1 was kicked off ATS for the same trolling.

[Homeland Insurgency]

A "conventional" Office fire?

Yes. Was there some kind of unconventional fuel inside the towers after all the jet fuel burned off like NIST claims besides office contents? Because as far as I know after the airplane impacts and after the jet fuel burned off the towers were still standing.

Tell me please. How many floors burned? What percentage of each of these floors on average burned?

You tell me please what percentage of the WTC burned and what percentage collapsed?

Do you think having a Boeing 767 INSIDE this building made ANY difference at all? Or do you think this is just an irrelevant fact?

Not irrelevant just not what the primary cause of the collapse was according to your official version. Jet fuel wasn't the cause either according to your official version. Building content fire according to your official version caused the collapses on 9/11.

Or are you at Aces' house staring at a video monitor, convinced that it was all a magic trick?

No. I thought you were the one who believed in Magic Jet Fuel. Haven't the other debunkers filled you in on the latest talking points yet ?

Do you think that after the impact, the building's in question had the intended structural attributes? Was it "The Same" building after the impact as it relates to structural integrity? Or did these buildings very quickly become something they were never intended to be?

Do you think that no one ever thought a jetliner might hit the WTC?

http://www.randomwalks.com/imgs/blog/wtcplane.jpg

The only other question is, What in the name of all that is good, could be wrong with you?

All that is good maybe?


Demolition according to debunkers...

Jet Fuel = 1 hour
Explosives = Months of set-up
WTC-7 = No explosives, jet fuel, or plane needed

[dtugg]

Do you think that no one ever thought a jetliner might hit the WTC?


Not purposely at 500mph while filled with jet fuel.

Do you know what the collapse mechanism was according to NIST?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Not purposely at 500mph while filled with jet fuel.

Do you know what the collapse mechanism was according to NIST?

Yes do you?

[dtugg]

Yes do you?

Yeah. Why don't you tell me.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Yeah. Why don't you tell me.

I already replied what your official version claims. Tell me how I'm wrong.

[dtugg]

I already replied what your official version claims. Tell me how I'm wrong.

Not really. You didn't give any specific reason as to how the collapses started according to NIST. Just that there were office fires that got hot weakening the steel. There is much more than that and I don't think that you know what it is. You can prove me wrong by telling me how NIST says the collapses initiated.

[Mancman]

I already replied what your official version claims. Tell me how I'm wrong.

Hey, on the previous page you said it was an assertion to claim the WTC fires were hot enough to compromise steel.

How is this an assertion when we have clear visual evidence of the walls bowing inward? Does steel columns 14 inches wide being dragged 55 inches inward not qualify as 'compromised'?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Not really. You didn't give any specific reason as to how the collapses started according to NIST. Just that there were office fires that got hot weakening the steel. There is much more than that and I don't think that you know what it is. You can prove me wrong by telling me how NIST says the collapses initiated.

Airplanes impacted the towers damaging both outer and core columns. How many? Anybodies guess. The towers still stood.

The impacts either sheered off or knocked off sprayed on fireproofing. How much? Who knows?

Jet fuel fires ignited the building contents. Plain old conventional building contents. The jet fuel burned off in 15 to 20 minutes. The towers still stood.

The building content fire heat weakened the floor trusses (how hot? anybodies guess) where the fire proofing was removed and the trusses pulled in on the outer columns causing collapse initiation.

Somehow none of these causes but the building content fire was needed for WTC-7 to collapse.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Hey, on the previous page you said it was an assertion to claim the WTC fires were hot enough to compromise steel.

It's NIST who makes the assertions about how hot the fire was. Why don't you show me where any of their tests reached the temperatures needed to cause the bowing needed to be input in their computer model to cause collapse initiation?

How is this an assertion when we have clear visual evidence of the walls bowing inward? Does steel columns 14 inches wide being dragged 55 inches inward not qualify as 'compromised'?

Show me where NIST recreated this bowing of 55 inches in any of their physical fire tests after hours of burning.

[dtugg]

Airplanes impacted the towers damaging both outer and core columns. How many? Anybodies guess. The towers still stood.

The impacts either sheered off or knocked off sprayed on fireproofing. How much? Who knows?

Jet fuel fires ignited the building contents. Plain old conventional building contents. The jet fuel burned off in 15 to 20 minutes. The towers still stood.

The building content fire heat weakened the floor trusses where the fire proofing was removed and the trusses pulled in on the outer columns causing collapse initiation.

Somehow none of these causes but the building content fire was needed for WTC-7 to collapse.

Cool, you know how to use google. Do you think that it is unbelievable that perimeter columns bowing inwards caused the collapse? Or do you think they could just bow inwards indefinitely without snapping?

As for WTC7, it was built differently than the towers and was burning for much longer. The fire department predicted it would collapse on its own. Do you think that you know more than them?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Cool, you know how to use google. Do you think that it is unbelievable that perimeter columns bowing inwards caused the collapse? Or do you think the the could just bow inwards indefinitely without snapping?

Show me where NIST recreated it in their tests big mouth.

Shhhhhhhhh

As for WTC7, it was built differently than the towers and was burning for much longer. The fire department predicted it would collapse on its own. Do you think that you know more than them?

You got nothing but excuses and faith. You make me laugh.

[chillzero]

Stop bickering and keep your responses to each other civil.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Edited for ignoring mod warning

[dtugg]

Show me where NIST recreated it in their tests big mouth.

Shhhhhhhhh

You didn't answer the question: Do you think that the perimeter columns could bow inwards indefinitely without snapping?

Anyway, they didn't exactly have the money to recreate the twin towers to test if this could have actually happened. Just like they didn't have the money to actually see if ten columns were severed in WTC1.

The didn't really need to recreate it anyway. There is ample evidence that the columns did in fact bow inwards significantly.
Edited for ignoring mod warning

You got nothing but excuses and faith. You make me laugh.

The twoof movement has nothing period. I definitely trust the FDNY much more than I trust anybody in the twoof movement.

[dtugg]

Edited for ignoring mod warning

[Homeland Insurgency]

You didn't answer the question: Do you think that the perimeter columns could bow inwards indefinitely without snapping?

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

Anyway, they didn't exactly have the money to recreate the twin towers to test if this could have actually happened. Just like they didn't have the money to actually see if ten columns were severed in WTC1.

Anyway? Faith and excuses nothing else.

The didn't really need to recreate it anyway. There is ample evidence that the columns did in fact bow inwards significantly.

There is video evidence of bowing. There is just nothing backing up the claims of what caused it. That's why NIST needed to tweak their computer model to the point where it looked nothing like the video evidence.

The twoof movement has nothing period. I definitely trust the FDNY much more than I trust anybody in the twoof movement.

What's the FDNY have to do with this topic? Is that some kind of appeal to something? Why did you ask me about NIST if you are relying on the FDNY?

[dtugg]

There is video evidence of bowing. There is just nothing backing up the claims of what caused it. That's why NIST needed to tweak their computer model to the point where it looked nothing like the video evidence.

Of course it was floor trusses sagging that caused the columns bowing. There is nothing else it could have been. In order for the columns to bow inwards, there would have to be a significant force pulling on them, and the only thing that was touching the perimeter columns were the floors. I've never even heard of anybody giving another explanation. In fact, I am pretty sure the twoof movement ignores the issue entirely. Maybe you could tell us, in your expert opinion, how else this could have happened.


What's the FDNY have to do with this topic? Is that some kind of appeal to something? Why did you ask me about NIST if you are relying on the FDNY?

You are the one that brought up WTC7 when we were talking about the towers. I was just pointing out, that no matter what lying shills you might think NIST to be, that the FDNY predicted the collapse.

[UNLoVedRebel]

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

There is video evidence of bowing. There is just nothing backing up the claims of what caused it. That's why NIST needed to tweak their computer model to the point where it looked nothing like the video evidence.

Please read the NIST report before discussing it.

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes. Was there some kind of unconventional fuel inside the towers after all the jet fuel burned off like NIST claims besides office contents? Because as far as I know after the airplane impacts and after the jet fuel burned off the towers were still standing.

Homeland?
How many conventional office fires have you seen been ignited on several floors simultaneously with active sprinkler systems rendered incapacitated by an impact of a jet liner?

and fire protection stripped away?

Homeland?
Why don't you begin to address the same considerations that Ultima's earlier source provided[?]

You know... these:


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 (http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/nist1d/6-6_wtc1-96floor-model.jpg)

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?

Perhaps since no fire has ever completely collapsed a skyscraper before you should send a proposal to remove the mandate in building codes which requires steel structures to be protected.

Because clearly you know something so obvious that engineers who write the building codes should have seen this oddity from light years away. That would imply that members of the ASCE, who contribute to writing the codes, must be complicit in some kind of cover up. Surely lets hope that architects and engineers of AE911truth bring this matter up for review so that these perpetrators can be brought to justice.


You tell me please what percentage of the WTC burned and what percentage collapsed?

40,000 square feet per floor potential maximums, and these fires were on as many as 10 floors by the time they collapsed

Please feel free to tell me how "small" this is:
LINK 1 (http://www.debunking911.com/WTCfire.jpg) Link 2 (http://www.debunking911.com/b1.jpg)

Remember that each tower was approximately 200 feet wide on each side. Would you call any fire of that size small?



Do you think that no one ever thought a jetliner might hit the WTC?

http://www.randomwalks.com/imgs/blog/wtcplane.jpg


Did engineers at the time have any means to model their design criteria to include the effects of having several floors ignited all at once? Did they have the ability to model the effects of the loss of passive fire protection? Did they model the effect that the loss of sprinkler systems would have on the fires? Where any of these considered in addition to the criteria that was developed for the plane?


Demolition according to debunkers...
Why go there? The towers display no characteristics of controlled demolition. Period. Every claim ever made is either an argument based on spurious similarity, appealing to tradition, an extension of quote mining, red herrings. Nothing but empty claims with nothing but logical fallacies to back them up. Truthfully none of the criteria you seem to list are necessary to demonstrate the fragility of the controlled demolition claim.

And not one truther has ever presented one ounce of physical evidence, which would have been exceedingly abundant across the entire site; no det cord, no explosives fragments.... nothing. The argument is dead

[UNLoVedRebel]

You mean the NIST improper investigation?

http://www.nistreview.org/NCSTAR1-REVIEW-DOUGLAS.pdf
The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its
findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.

NIST’s physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST’s conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.


Copying and pasting from a truther website that has been debunked several times is not fact or evidence. Thanks for proving you're not interesting in what really happened that day.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Every report i have seen including NIST states that the jet fuel burned off in a few minutes.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html
Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both Towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone. A thin veil of black smoke enveloped the Tower's top. In the wake of the South Tower's fall new areas of fire appeared in the North Tower.

That is not the NIST report, that is a truther website. Thanks for proving you have no facts or evidence.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Of course it was floor trusses sagging that caused the columns bowing. There is nothing else it could have been. In order for the columns to bow inwards, there would have to be a significant force pulling on them, and the only thing that was touching the perimeter columns were the floors.

You're working backwards just like NIST and their removed fireproofing theory.

In fact, I've never even heard of anybody giving another explanation.

I have. In fact an ex-NIST insider criticized the investigation NIST performed and had is own theory. I'm sure others have theirs.

I am pretty sure the twoof movement ignores the issue entirely. Maybe you could tell us, in your expert opinion, how else this could have happened.

I'm pretty sure I'm giving you my opinion and your opinion is borrowed and based on faith.

You are the one that brought up WTC7 when we were talking about the towers. I was just pointing out, that no matter what lying shills you might think NIST to be, that the FDNY predicted the collapse.

You are the one who brought up NIST then shifted to the FDNY. Why did NIST take so long with their investigations if all they had to do is ask the FDNY?Or you? I was asked about conventional office fire in regards to the the collapses. I was told about plane crashes and Jet Fuel.

What plane with what Jet Fuel hit WTC7?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Homeland?


and fire protection stripped away?

Homeland?


You know... these:



How many skyscrapers are built using long-spanning lightweight floor systems?

Perhaps since no fire has ever completely collapsed a skyscraper before you should send a proposal to remove the mandate in building codes which requires steel structures to be protected.

Because clearly you know something so obvious that engineers who write the building codes should have seen this oddity from light years away. That would imply that members of the ASCE, who contribute to writing the codes, must be complicit in some kind of cover up. Surely lets hope that architects and engineers of AE911truth bring this matter up for review so that these perpetrators can be brought to justice.




40,000 square feet per floor potential maximums, and these fires were on as many as 10 floors by the time they collapsed

Please feel free to tell me how "small" this is:
LINK 1 (http://www.debunking911.com/WTCfire.jpg) Link 2 (http://www.debunking911.com/b1.jpg)

Remember that each tower was approximately 200 feet wide on each side. Would you call any fire of that size small?




Did engineers at the time have any means to model their design criteria to include the effects of having several floors ignited all at once? Did they have the ability to model the effects of the loss of passive fire protection? Did they model the effect that the loss of sprinkler systems would have on the fires? Where any of these considered in addition to the criteria that was developed for the plane?



Why go there? The towers display no characteristics of controlled demolition. Period. Every claim ever made is either an argument based on spurious similarity, appealing to tradition, an extension of quote mining, red herrings. Nothing but empty claims with nothing but logical fallacies to back them up. Truthfully none of the criteria you seem to list are necessary to demonstrate the fragility of the controlled demolition claim.

And not one truther has ever presented one ounce of physical evidence, which would have been exceedingly abundant across the entire site; no det cord, no explosives fragments.... nothing. The argument is dead

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.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Please read the NIST report before discussing it.

Don't even know your own fairytale huh?

[dtugg]

You're working backwards just like NIST and their removed fireproofing theory.

Yeah, its called logic.


I have. In fact an ex-NIST insider criticized the investigation NIST performed and had is own theory. I'm sure others have theirs.

Really? Who is this ex-NIST insider and what is his theory?


I'm pretty sure I'm giving you my opinion and your opinion is borrowed and based on faith.

You aren't giving anything. My opinion is based on evidence and the work of actual experts. Your opinion if you actually have one is based on nothing except for your desire for 9/11 to be an inside job.


You are the one who brought up NIST then shifted to the FDNY. Why did NIST take so long with their investigations if all they had to do is ask the FDNY?Or you? I was asked about conventional office fire in regards to the the collapses. I was told about plane crashes and Jet Fuel.

What plane with what Jet Fuel hit WTC7?

The FDNY didn't know what the exact mechanics of the collapse was nor was it possible for them, but they did know that it was coming down on its own. Finding out exactly why is what NIST was tasked with. Even if they never would have released their report, I would have been fine with the explanation that it came down on its own since fire fighters that were actually there predicted it and the fact that there is zero evidence of for any other theory. Apparently, Silverstein's insurance company was too since they gave him like a billion dollars for it. But I guess they just liked coughing up a bunch of money for no reason.

[AJM8125]

There have been other buildings hit by planes and stood.

Really? Name the buildings and type of aircraft that hit them, please.

[Mancman]

It's NIST who makes the assertions about how hot the fire was. Why don't you show me where any of their tests reached the temperatures needed to cause the bowing needed to be input in their computer model to cause collapse initiation?

Show me where NIST recreated this bowing of 55 inches in any of their physical fire tests after hours of burning.

You never answered the question. Is a wall of columns that is bowing inward compromised?

The fire simulations had temps in the vicinity of 1000 C. This is nothing unusual. Look at the Parker Building fire, 1908, which melted copper. On this page you can view the simulated condition of a truss at 700 C: http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

NIST never did a physical test with columns. Irrelevant dodge.

The bowing happened on the faces with the worst fires, which also happened to be long span truss face.

If you honestly want to speculate that something other than fire caused this bowing then the floor is yours. I direct you to the stellar work of Newtons Bit who calculates that a temp of 600 C was sufficient to cause the bowing: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267

[Homeland Insurgency]

That is not the NIST report, that is a truther website. Thanks for proving you have no facts or evidence.

“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)

Do you need a copy UNLoVedRebel? lol

[DGM]

I can't believe people are feeding this troll fest. What part of NO FIRE FIGHTING don't the "truthers" get? The buildings failed because they (FDNY) couldn't put out the fires.

Like I said before, Every UN-FOUGHT tall building fire has resulted in collapse.

[A W Smith]

“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)

Do you need a copy UNLoVedRebel? lol

are you familiar with the term Fire accelerant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_accelerant)?
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

[Homeland Insurgency]

You never answered the question. Is a wall of columns that is bowing inward compromised?

The fire simulations had temps in the vicinity of 1000 C. This is nothing unusual. Look at the Parker Building fire, 1908, which melted copper. On this page you can view the simulated condition of a truss at 700 C: http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

NIST never did a physical test with columns. Irrelevant dodge.

The bowing happened on the faces with the worst fires, which also happened to be long span truss face.

If you honestly want to speculate that something other than fire caused this bowing then the floor is yours. I direct you to the stellar work of Newtons Bit who calculates that a temp of 600 C was sufficient to cause the bowing: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267

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

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

[WildCat]

It's NIST who makes the assertions about how hot the fire was. Why don't you show me where any of their tests reached the temperatures needed to cause the bowing needed to be input in their computer model to cause collapse initiation?
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?

Show me where NIST recreated this bowing of 55 inches in any of their physical fire tests after hours of burning.
Show where they even attempted this, bearing in mind that the tests were meant only to gauge baseline performance.

And you do know there is photographic evidence in the NIST reports showing this sagging, don't you?

[DGM]

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?


Show where they even attempted this, bearing in mind that the tests were meant only to gauge baseline performance.

And you do know there is photographic evidence in the NIST reports showing this sagging, don't you?

Your joking right? This is a "truther" your dealing with.

[Homeland Insurgency]

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.

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?

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.

[dtugg]

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


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, what you just quoted showed that the ASTM E119 test can be used for columns but it also says that the particular one in question was used to test floor systems.

[DGM]

I rest my case!

[Homeland Insurgency]

are you familiar with the term Fire accelerant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_accelerant)?

You are familiar with arson aren't you? Accelerants are not something that was discovered on 9/11.

Steel constructed high-rises completely collapsing because of fire. That's what was discovered on 9/11. Supposedly.

[AJM8125]

You are familiar with arson aren't you? Accelerants are not something that was discovered on 9/11.

Steel constructed high-rises completely collapsing because of fire. That's what was discovered on 9/11. Supposedly.

Stundie.

[A W Smith]

You are familiar with arson aren't you? Accelerants are not something that was discovered on 9/11.

Steel constructed high-rises completely collapsing because of fire. That's what was discovered on 9/11. Supposedly.

Are you that stupid? Jet fuel is not an accelerant?

[parky76]

You are familiar with arson aren't you? Accelerants are not something that was discovered on 9/11.

Steel constructed high-rises completely collapsing because of fire. That's what was discovered on 9/11. Supposedly.

this is a lie. a blatant lie and you know it.

[dtugg]

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

[Homeland Insurgency]

Are you that stupid? Jet fuel is not an accelerant?

Who the hell claimed that? Has no one ever used kerosene to start a fire before 9/11?

[Homeland Insurgency]

this is a lie. a blatant lie and you know it.

Lie? You got another steel constructed high-rise suffering complete global collapse because of fire somewhere?

[A W Smith]

You are familiar with arson aren't you? Accelerants are not something that was discovered on 9/11.


Who the hell claimed that? Has no one ever used kerosene to start a fire before 9/11?
Edited for rule 10 violation. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

[A W Smith]

Lie? You got another steel constructed high-rise suffering complete global collapse because of fire somewhere?


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

[Homeland Insurgency]

Ill answer that. A Moron claimed that. evidence above in this very post.

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.