pomeroo
24th May 2007, 09:46 AM
The new paper by Steven Jones has the loons at 911blogger all giddy with...something! A thread devoted to it has generated almost 1200 Diggs. One fantasist with a fondness for irony posts there as "honestjoe" and regularly produces torrents of cut-and-paste wisdom, an example of which appears below. Notice his insistence that he has the "facts." I have suggested that he bring his facts to the JREF, but, for some reason, he has chosen not to. On the assumption that he may be shy, I have taken it upon myself to present the concentrated wisdom of the Twoof Movement, courtesy of "honestjoe." Get ready for a trip down Memory Lane.
As an incentive for wading through this recycled rubbish, I will pay twenty bucks (all right--"huge" is a somewhat subjective term) to the person who finds the most errors. When a winner has been determined, I ask that person to send me a PM.
Posted by honestjoe
@RonaldWieck
Why couldnt you guys at JREF figure out that the absurd pancake collapse theory was nothing more than a bunch BS. It was pointed out to JREF for years but you guys the "NIST apologists" or the "NISTIANS" (Dr Greening's words) cant except the truth. It became so obvious that the pancake theory was an absud joke that EVEN NIST had to admitt it was trash throw it out "before" YOU could except that simple fact at JREF.
Worse is that The Popular Mechanics debunking hit piece (that YOU at JREF refered to) was debunked by NIST scientists 4 months before they even did the interview with one of the scientist from NIST who knowingly and purposefully gave Popular Mechanics false incorrect and misleading information (otherwise known as disinformation) to be disseminated among the American people (sheeple) and the rest of the world. Wich was the already thrown out pancake collapse theory.
What is most shocking about all this is the fact that Popular Mechanics has never sued NIST or the individual scientist whom knowingly and purposefully gave them the false incorrect and misleading information wich caused Popular Mechanics to print misinformation.
Because Popular Mechanics will not and has not done anything about the deceitful actions of NIST I feel they themselves are now just as guilty.
Yet you think we (the public) are to belive that JREF has figured out what happend to WTC 7 when YOU could not figure out that the pancake theory was not even remotely possible no matter how many times it was shown to YOU until NIST had no choice to admitt it themselves. So YOU at JREF should let your "GOD" NIST know what happened to WTC building 7 since the ASCE WTC investigation, the FEMA Report, the Weidlinger study, the 9/11 commisssion report and NIST have not been able to explain the collapse of WTC #7 for 6 LONG YEARS but YOU at JREF who could "NOT" see the absurdity of the pancake theory can. OK!
BRING IT ON! Stop running away and DEBATE the facts! Back up the s**t you talk. Your insults only show that YOU cant debate the facts. This is obviously because your argument is weak and cant stand up to the FACTS that I (UNLIKE YOU) have presented for all to see. I will gladly go over it with you and answer any questions you have. Here is just a small portion of the FACTS I have brought up before.
The structural analysis carried out by the firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings.
This report had done an analysis of an impact and fires resulting from the collision of a 707 with MORE kinetic energy (because of the faster speed) than on 9/11, despite the slightly smaller size and it was calculated with a maximum load that was more weight than on 9/11 and carrying more fuel than on 9/11. Also This study unlike NIST’s had done a thermodynamic analysis and this study was done with the effect on NON isulated steel in a building with NO sprinkler system and No fire proofing material filling gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through and it was calculated with office furniture that was highly flamable!
On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour!
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
--City in the Sky, p 131 (They felt confident that it could withstand not just one but multiple jet impacts!)
“our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
--City in the Sky
Before you say that the WTC buildings came down because both were hit at optimal locations.
Thats bulls**t there would have been more weight and stress if they hit at the bottom of the WTC buildings but even then the buildings would not collapse.
The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers’ calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and th tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.(AND THAT WAS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BUILDING!)
--City in the Sky, p 133
NIST states a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.
The critical load ratio was well over 10.0, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.
Before you say the jets on 9/11 were nearly fully fueled.
NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires=590,000 MJ of energy.
fuel capacity for a Boeing 767-200 is 23,980 gallons WICH IT DID NOT HAVE!
But the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707-340 with 23,000 gallons of fuel! = 129,980,000 MJ of energy!
Before you say the jets on 9/11 hit at top speed.
Not one report says they hit at top speed wich would have been 530 mph! NIST gave 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft impacting the tower. Which by the way is not enough for the required 6,000 MJ needed to remove the insulation and that is from NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, Appendix C, and MIT who also came up with the 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft said it was consumed in damaging the aircraft and building, with no energy remaining to remove the insulation!
The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 with MORE kinetic energy because of the faster speed alone. I wont even go into weight. Using the same math for speed and not adding the aditional weight that was originaly caculated for a fully loaded 707.
The kinetic energy provided by the 707 traveling at 600 miles per hour and impacting the tower is 3,800 MJ of energy! AND THAT IS WITHOUT THE EXTRA WEIGHT!
Before you say that the WTC were left with the result being significant structural damage.
The WTC buildings could withstand not just one but multiple jet impacts!
“The residual velocity and mass of the engine after penetration of the exterior wall was sufficient to fail a core column in a direct impact condition. Interaction with additional interior building contents prior to impact or a misaligned impact against the core column could change this result.” (NISTp382 para10)
The most dense and massive component of the aircraft, the engine, could cause, at most, only one column to fail---and only if it were aligned perfectly and struck the column directly. In WTC 2, one of the engines (and a landing gear) exited the building without significant obstruction. (NISTp390 para5)
So, if the engines could fail, at most, one column in WTC 2 and two columns in WTC1, what could have failed all of the other columns?
But now with the new information on the size of the core columns wich is much larger than what was calculated by NIST we see that even if an engine were aligned perfectly and struck the column directly it would not have failed!
Even NIST admits that the structural damage was not enough to cause instability “The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” NIST, p. xxxviii
Before you say it was because of the loss of likely already patchy fireproofing
New insulation is NOT “patchy”! There was extra fireproofing that was put on and the total 2.5” in of fireproofing was NOT “patchy”!
..."thermal protection was upgraded...in WTC 1, floors 92-100, and 102...and WTC 2, floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92, 96 and 97.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p20, para1)
“The entire impact zone for Tower 1 (92-99) was upgraded with 1-1/2” spray-on fireproofing.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p25, para1)
“The overall average thickness determined from the 256 individual measurements was found to be 2.5 in. with a standard deviation of 0.6 in. Thus, the average SFRM thickness on the upgraded upper floors appears to be greater than that estimated from photographs taken on the upgraded lower floor.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p25, para3)
Dr Greening says: "NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory"
Now with the "NEW" information on the size of the core columns (from the leaked blueprints) wich is much larger than what was calculated by NIST and MIT they will need to recalculate THIS:
NIST gave 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft impacting the tower. Which by the way is not enough for the required 6,000 MJ needed to remove the insulation and that is from NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, Appendix C, and MIT who also came up with the 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft said it was consumed in damaging the aircraft and building, with no energy remaining to remove the insulation!
That means that it would take more kinetic energy than was provided by the aircraft alone just to remove the insulation and thats not even counting the fact that 2,500 MJ of the kinetic energy would be consumed in damaging the aircraft and building, with no energy remaining to remove the insulation! So you would need 4 jets to hit the building in the same spot just to give the needed amount of kinetic energy to damage the building and be able to remove the insulation.
Before you say the WTC buildings came down because of large multi-floor fires
Research indicates that even if a steel-framed building were subjected to an impossible superfire, hundreds of degrees hotter and far more extensive then any fire ever observed in a real building, it would still not collapse. Appendix A of The World Trade Center Building Performance Study contains the following:
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments). http://www.wtc7.net/femareport.html (http://www.wtc7.net/femareport.html)
In building fires outside of such laboratory experiments, steel beams and columns never exceed 500º C. In extensive fire tests of steel frame carparks conducted by Corus Construction in several countries, measured temperatures of the steel columns and beams, including in uninsulated structures, never exceeded 360ºC.
Recent examples of high-rise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38-floor building; http://www.wtc7.net/cache/sgh_meridian.htm (http://www.wtc7.net/cache/sgh_meridian.htm)
The 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3-1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members". http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html (http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html)
In 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned MUCH longer than on 9/11 (over 3 hours) and MUCH hotter! The fire started on the 11th floor, spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th! The fire burned on 11 floors!
The reason The 1975 fire burned LONGER and HOTTER is because at the time WTC had no sprinkler system so there was no water to slow it down or put it out and there was no fire stopper material in the gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through! And at that time the office furniture was highly flamable!
After the 1975 WTC fire was put out there was ZERO structural damage to the building, no trusses or anything else steel wise needed to be replaced and this was with a fire that burned LONGER and HOTTER as was seen by fire fighters when most all the windows on the 11th floor BLEW OUT which means the fire attained at least 1377 F. (747 C)
On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour!
“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location.” (NIST, 2005; p. 179)
The fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation:
“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181
“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180
Dr. Greening said: "NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed! This is not surprising because NIST was using kerosene or hydrocarbon/cellulosic-based fuels. NIST WANTED high temperatures to support the idea that the structural steel was weakened by heating effects."
The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, according to NIST the samples available were adequate for the investigation. The tests show that the steel was exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is exactly what you get from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires=590,000 MJ of energy
Office furnishings in the impact zone would have provided 490,000 MJ of energy
Using masses and specific heats for materials heated, a maximum temp in the impact zone can be calculated.
The result is less than 600 degrees F Assuming fuel bruned with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left the impact zone, no heat escaped by conduction, steel and concrete had unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat
Thus, the maximum temperatures that could have been attained by the steel were much too low to soften it! As pointed out by Eagar and Musso who said:
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500C to 650C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425C and loses about half of its strength at 650C [Cote, 1992]. 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... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650C fire." Eagar and Musso, 2001;
NIST exaggerated the temperatures (1300 F), applied these temperatures for 2 hours (i.e. over twice the duration of fires known to have existed in the failure zones), striped all the fireproofing, and then doubled the height of the inward pull zone, and applied triple the weight of what the floors were known to actually be supporting to produce even a hint of bowing from fire. Which was 3 inches!
“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143
“The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143
Before you say it was because the 5/8” ASTM A325 bolt (the weakest link) at the end of thr trusses had sheared.
First NIST said;
That the 5/8"in bolt at each end of the trusses were so weak that they were the first thing that failed (from the heat of the fire) causing the entire and still intact floor to fall then initiating the (pancake theory) total collapse of the buildings because they claimed the floors (trusses) were needed to hold the building together (omitting the cross-trusses) so when they were removed the entire building came down as the floors pancaked on each other.
But NIST threw out the pancake theory because it was proven that they were omitting the cross-trusses and therefore the building would still be there because the 5/8"in bolt that held the floor trusses were designed solely for that... to hold up the floors..... not to handle any of the structural issues of the exterior columns or the interior core columns.... there were other structural members built into the framework to handle those stresses..... there were additional beams joining the exterior to the core where needed.
Also the first 14 stories, and the 41st, 42nd, 75th and 76th floors, used solid steel beams in place of trusses. Also, the top stories had special steel reinforcing diagonals called outrigger trusses!
You could remove the floor trusses and not see any major effect on the structural calculation. The building would still be there.
note: floor trusses are vastly different from the Hat Trusses.
So NIST needed a way to pull the building down without explosives. That is why they came up with this even more absurd theory than the last one.
You will see that NIST's new theory fails in 4 ways just because of the bolts alone!
Now NIST's new theory says;
That the 5/8"in bolt at each end of the trusses are so strong that the supposedly sagging floors are pulling the perimeter columns in causing them to buckle and simultaniously and symmetrically fail then initiating the total collapse of the buildings.
But NIST says;
The shear strength of the bolts controlled the truss seat horizontal tension capacity. (NCSTAR 1-6 p79 para1)
Well that makes sense that the amout of pull cannot be greater than the breaking point of the bolt.
How is the weakest link, the (1) 5/8” ASTM A325 bolt suppose to be strong enough to:
#1 manage to resist bending and warping from this same high heat that caused the floors to warp and sag enough to pull the columns in?
#2 Not give before the much stronger and thicker perimeter columns made out of 1,000,000 PSI super-strong steel does?
Well guess what NIST admitts the bolts are not strong enough to pull the perimeter columns in causing them to buckle and simultaniously and symmetrically fail then initiating the total collapse of the buildings.
NIST’s table 4-4 (NCSTAR 1-6 p75) shows that the interior seat capacity against horizontal tensile force is only 9 kips. (So does figure 4-16 NCSTAR 1-6 p78)
Column buckling was found to occur when an inward lateral load (pull-in) of approximately 12 kips was applied to three adjacent floor levels. (NCSTAR 1-6 p xlix para1)
Column instability (buckling) was reached with a transverse load of 12.6 kips per column. (NCSTAR 1-6 p115 para2)
Thus, we are 3 kips to 3.6 kips away from a working mode of failure.
As an incentive for wading through this recycled rubbish, I will pay twenty bucks (all right--"huge" is a somewhat subjective term) to the person who finds the most errors. When a winner has been determined, I ask that person to send me a PM.
Posted by honestjoe
@RonaldWieck
Why couldnt you guys at JREF figure out that the absurd pancake collapse theory was nothing more than a bunch BS. It was pointed out to JREF for years but you guys the "NIST apologists" or the "NISTIANS" (Dr Greening's words) cant except the truth. It became so obvious that the pancake theory was an absud joke that EVEN NIST had to admitt it was trash throw it out "before" YOU could except that simple fact at JREF.
Worse is that The Popular Mechanics debunking hit piece (that YOU at JREF refered to) was debunked by NIST scientists 4 months before they even did the interview with one of the scientist from NIST who knowingly and purposefully gave Popular Mechanics false incorrect and misleading information (otherwise known as disinformation) to be disseminated among the American people (sheeple) and the rest of the world. Wich was the already thrown out pancake collapse theory.
What is most shocking about all this is the fact that Popular Mechanics has never sued NIST or the individual scientist whom knowingly and purposefully gave them the false incorrect and misleading information wich caused Popular Mechanics to print misinformation.
Because Popular Mechanics will not and has not done anything about the deceitful actions of NIST I feel they themselves are now just as guilty.
Yet you think we (the public) are to belive that JREF has figured out what happend to WTC 7 when YOU could not figure out that the pancake theory was not even remotely possible no matter how many times it was shown to YOU until NIST had no choice to admitt it themselves. So YOU at JREF should let your "GOD" NIST know what happened to WTC building 7 since the ASCE WTC investigation, the FEMA Report, the Weidlinger study, the 9/11 commisssion report and NIST have not been able to explain the collapse of WTC #7 for 6 LONG YEARS but YOU at JREF who could "NOT" see the absurdity of the pancake theory can. OK!
BRING IT ON! Stop running away and DEBATE the facts! Back up the s**t you talk. Your insults only show that YOU cant debate the facts. This is obviously because your argument is weak and cant stand up to the FACTS that I (UNLIKE YOU) have presented for all to see. I will gladly go over it with you and answer any questions you have. Here is just a small portion of the FACTS I have brought up before.
The structural analysis carried out by the firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings.
This report had done an analysis of an impact and fires resulting from the collision of a 707 with MORE kinetic energy (because of the faster speed) than on 9/11, despite the slightly smaller size and it was calculated with a maximum load that was more weight than on 9/11 and carrying more fuel than on 9/11. Also This study unlike NIST’s had done a thermodynamic analysis and this study was done with the effect on NON isulated steel in a building with NO sprinkler system and No fire proofing material filling gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through and it was calculated with office furniture that was highly flamable!
On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour!
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
--City in the Sky, p 131 (They felt confident that it could withstand not just one but multiple jet impacts!)
“our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
--City in the Sky
Before you say that the WTC buildings came down because both were hit at optimal locations.
Thats bulls**t there would have been more weight and stress if they hit at the bottom of the WTC buildings but even then the buildings would not collapse.
The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers’ calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and th tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.(AND THAT WAS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BUILDING!)
--City in the Sky, p 133
NIST states a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.
The critical load ratio was well over 10.0, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.
Before you say the jets on 9/11 were nearly fully fueled.
NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires=590,000 MJ of energy.
fuel capacity for a Boeing 767-200 is 23,980 gallons WICH IT DID NOT HAVE!
But the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707-340 with 23,000 gallons of fuel! = 129,980,000 MJ of energy!
Before you say the jets on 9/11 hit at top speed.
Not one report says they hit at top speed wich would have been 530 mph! NIST gave 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft impacting the tower. Which by the way is not enough for the required 6,000 MJ needed to remove the insulation and that is from NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, Appendix C, and MIT who also came up with the 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft said it was consumed in damaging the aircraft and building, with no energy remaining to remove the insulation!
The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 with MORE kinetic energy because of the faster speed alone. I wont even go into weight. Using the same math for speed and not adding the aditional weight that was originaly caculated for a fully loaded 707.
The kinetic energy provided by the 707 traveling at 600 miles per hour and impacting the tower is 3,800 MJ of energy! AND THAT IS WITHOUT THE EXTRA WEIGHT!
Before you say that the WTC were left with the result being significant structural damage.
The WTC buildings could withstand not just one but multiple jet impacts!
“The residual velocity and mass of the engine after penetration of the exterior wall was sufficient to fail a core column in a direct impact condition. Interaction with additional interior building contents prior to impact or a misaligned impact against the core column could change this result.” (NISTp382 para10)
The most dense and massive component of the aircraft, the engine, could cause, at most, only one column to fail---and only if it were aligned perfectly and struck the column directly. In WTC 2, one of the engines (and a landing gear) exited the building without significant obstruction. (NISTp390 para5)
So, if the engines could fail, at most, one column in WTC 2 and two columns in WTC1, what could have failed all of the other columns?
But now with the new information on the size of the core columns wich is much larger than what was calculated by NIST we see that even if an engine were aligned perfectly and struck the column directly it would not have failed!
Even NIST admits that the structural damage was not enough to cause instability “The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” NIST, p. xxxviii
Before you say it was because of the loss of likely already patchy fireproofing
New insulation is NOT “patchy”! There was extra fireproofing that was put on and the total 2.5” in of fireproofing was NOT “patchy”!
..."thermal protection was upgraded...in WTC 1, floors 92-100, and 102...and WTC 2, floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92, 96 and 97.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p20, para1)
“The entire impact zone for Tower 1 (92-99) was upgraded with 1-1/2” spray-on fireproofing.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p25, para1)
“The overall average thickness determined from the 256 individual measurements was found to be 2.5 in. with a standard deviation of 0.6 in. Thus, the average SFRM thickness on the upgraded upper floors appears to be greater than that estimated from photographs taken on the upgraded lower floor.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p25, para3)
Dr Greening says: "NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory"
Now with the "NEW" information on the size of the core columns (from the leaked blueprints) wich is much larger than what was calculated by NIST and MIT they will need to recalculate THIS:
NIST gave 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft impacting the tower. Which by the way is not enough for the required 6,000 MJ needed to remove the insulation and that is from NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, Appendix C, and MIT who also came up with the 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft said it was consumed in damaging the aircraft and building, with no energy remaining to remove the insulation!
That means that it would take more kinetic energy than was provided by the aircraft alone just to remove the insulation and thats not even counting the fact that 2,500 MJ of the kinetic energy would be consumed in damaging the aircraft and building, with no energy remaining to remove the insulation! So you would need 4 jets to hit the building in the same spot just to give the needed amount of kinetic energy to damage the building and be able to remove the insulation.
Before you say the WTC buildings came down because of large multi-floor fires
Research indicates that even if a steel-framed building were subjected to an impossible superfire, hundreds of degrees hotter and far more extensive then any fire ever observed in a real building, it would still not collapse. Appendix A of The World Trade Center Building Performance Study contains the following:
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments). http://www.wtc7.net/femareport.html (http://www.wtc7.net/femareport.html)
In building fires outside of such laboratory experiments, steel beams and columns never exceed 500º C. In extensive fire tests of steel frame carparks conducted by Corus Construction in several countries, measured temperatures of the steel columns and beams, including in uninsulated structures, never exceeded 360ºC.
Recent examples of high-rise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38-floor building; http://www.wtc7.net/cache/sgh_meridian.htm (http://www.wtc7.net/cache/sgh_meridian.htm)
The 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3-1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members". http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html (http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html)
In 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned MUCH longer than on 9/11 (over 3 hours) and MUCH hotter! The fire started on the 11th floor, spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th! The fire burned on 11 floors!
The reason The 1975 fire burned LONGER and HOTTER is because at the time WTC had no sprinkler system so there was no water to slow it down or put it out and there was no fire stopper material in the gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through! And at that time the office furniture was highly flamable!
After the 1975 WTC fire was put out there was ZERO structural damage to the building, no trusses or anything else steel wise needed to be replaced and this was with a fire that burned LONGER and HOTTER as was seen by fire fighters when most all the windows on the 11th floor BLEW OUT which means the fire attained at least 1377 F. (747 C)
On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour!
“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location.” (NIST, 2005; p. 179)
The fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation:
“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181
“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180
Dr. Greening said: "NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed! This is not surprising because NIST was using kerosene or hydrocarbon/cellulosic-based fuels. NIST WANTED high temperatures to support the idea that the structural steel was weakened by heating effects."
The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, according to NIST the samples available were adequate for the investigation. The tests show that the steel was exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is exactly what you get from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires=590,000 MJ of energy
Office furnishings in the impact zone would have provided 490,000 MJ of energy
Using masses and specific heats for materials heated, a maximum temp in the impact zone can be calculated.
The result is less than 600 degrees F Assuming fuel bruned with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left the impact zone, no heat escaped by conduction, steel and concrete had unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat
Thus, the maximum temperatures that could have been attained by the steel were much too low to soften it! As pointed out by Eagar and Musso who said:
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500C to 650C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425C and loses about half of its strength at 650C [Cote, 1992]. 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... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650C fire." Eagar and Musso, 2001;
NIST exaggerated the temperatures (1300 F), applied these temperatures for 2 hours (i.e. over twice the duration of fires known to have existed in the failure zones), striped all the fireproofing, and then doubled the height of the inward pull zone, and applied triple the weight of what the floors were known to actually be supporting to produce even a hint of bowing from fire. Which was 3 inches!
“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143
“The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143
Before you say it was because the 5/8” ASTM A325 bolt (the weakest link) at the end of thr trusses had sheared.
First NIST said;
That the 5/8"in bolt at each end of the trusses were so weak that they were the first thing that failed (from the heat of the fire) causing the entire and still intact floor to fall then initiating the (pancake theory) total collapse of the buildings because they claimed the floors (trusses) were needed to hold the building together (omitting the cross-trusses) so when they were removed the entire building came down as the floors pancaked on each other.
But NIST threw out the pancake theory because it was proven that they were omitting the cross-trusses and therefore the building would still be there because the 5/8"in bolt that held the floor trusses were designed solely for that... to hold up the floors..... not to handle any of the structural issues of the exterior columns or the interior core columns.... there were other structural members built into the framework to handle those stresses..... there were additional beams joining the exterior to the core where needed.
Also the first 14 stories, and the 41st, 42nd, 75th and 76th floors, used solid steel beams in place of trusses. Also, the top stories had special steel reinforcing diagonals called outrigger trusses!
You could remove the floor trusses and not see any major effect on the structural calculation. The building would still be there.
note: floor trusses are vastly different from the Hat Trusses.
So NIST needed a way to pull the building down without explosives. That is why they came up with this even more absurd theory than the last one.
You will see that NIST's new theory fails in 4 ways just because of the bolts alone!
Now NIST's new theory says;
That the 5/8"in bolt at each end of the trusses are so strong that the supposedly sagging floors are pulling the perimeter columns in causing them to buckle and simultaniously and symmetrically fail then initiating the total collapse of the buildings.
But NIST says;
The shear strength of the bolts controlled the truss seat horizontal tension capacity. (NCSTAR 1-6 p79 para1)
Well that makes sense that the amout of pull cannot be greater than the breaking point of the bolt.
How is the weakest link, the (1) 5/8” ASTM A325 bolt suppose to be strong enough to:
#1 manage to resist bending and warping from this same high heat that caused the floors to warp and sag enough to pull the columns in?
#2 Not give before the much stronger and thicker perimeter columns made out of 1,000,000 PSI super-strong steel does?
Well guess what NIST admitts the bolts are not strong enough to pull the perimeter columns in causing them to buckle and simultaniously and symmetrically fail then initiating the total collapse of the buildings.
NIST’s table 4-4 (NCSTAR 1-6 p75) shows that the interior seat capacity against horizontal tensile force is only 9 kips. (So does figure 4-16 NCSTAR 1-6 p78)
Column buckling was found to occur when an inward lateral load (pull-in) of approximately 12 kips was applied to three adjacent floor levels. (NCSTAR 1-6 p xlix para1)
Column instability (buckling) was reached with a transverse load of 12.6 kips per column. (NCSTAR 1-6 p115 para2)
Thus, we are 3 kips to 3.6 kips away from a working mode of failure.