Why I despise the Truthers

[ZENSMACK89]

This is better.

This is not.
Just pointing out I answered not that you would like them.

[ZENSMACK89]

Okay let's:

Size, concrete core, no plane, fire was fought, heavy beam supported concrete and steel floors that stopped the collaspe.

Doesn't matter because it doesn't explain how different parts of a building would collapse from pockets of fire on a few floors at the same time after less then an hour.



Only relatively. Steel is a very poor conductor of heat compared to most metals, almost as bad vs aluminium as concrete is to it. Steel makes a lousy heat sink or conductor, hence why heat conductors and sinks are make from Aluminium or copper, not steel, and why we can use steel for pots and pans that sit on top of a fire or element, but still have a cool handle.

We need not talk about what kind of other metals conduct heat better when we are comparing two building that used steel. We need only to access which building conducted the heat better. The general concensus seems to be that the towers would have conducted the heat better thus making the global collapse of the WTC in less then an hour very strange compared to the Windsor which burned longer and didn't suffer global collapse.

Had no plane or structural damage. Not a truss and tube in tube structure. Far smaller foot print area. The fire was fought.

No two fires are going to be exactly the same and your only excuse for all of them seems to be that they weren't hit by a plane. Then I give you one that was hit by a plane and you hand wave that one also. Yes there is a pattern. No steel structure has ever suffered global collapse from fire, plane, or anything for that matter except explosives. Now if you want to believe that three buildings on 9-11 suffered global collapse for TWO different reason when it's never happened before and will never happen again then go ahead. Just don't tell me it's been proven as to why in any official version to date.

It hasn't.

[johnny karate]

Outcry? How about some proof?

How about you find some proof that a investigative body found or that a foreign media outlet has that proves the official versions correct? If you know of this proof I suggest you forward it to the FBI so that they may update their most page to include 9-11 in UBL's profile.

Period

Oh look... it's the old "Prove a Negative" canard being used as the last refuge of a cornered Truther. What a surprise. Our delusioned little friend actually expects me to prove that there has been no outcry from any foreign media outlet or investigative body regarding the supposed 9/11 conspiracy. Apparently, his knowledge of scientific method is on par with his knowledge of the criminal justice system. You're just embarassing yourself now, ZEN.

I'll say it again: There has been no outcry, and if you can prove otherwise, why don't you do it? Why don't you make me eat my words? Because you can't, and you know it.

As to the question as to why there has been no outcry, I'll help you out there. There has been no outcry, because aside from a handful of loons and over-imaginative teenagers NO ONE BELIEVES THIS NONSENSE.

This information you Truthers claim to have is not a secret. Lots of other people have looked at it and examined it. Journalists. Investigators. Scientists. People smarter than you. And they all came to the same conclusion: It's bunk.

That's why there has been no outcry. And no matter how many questions Truthers dodge, no matter how many Truthers come here and paste and link the same old tired crap, that will not change.

[TerryUK]

Only relatively. Steel is a very poor conductor of heat compared to most metals, almost as bad vs aluminium as concrete is to it.


You're completely wrong about thermal conduction of steel vs.concrete being similar to steel vs. aluminium.

steel conducts heat approx 60 times better than concrete
whereas, aluminum conducts only 4 times better than steel.
So your wrong by a factor of about x15




so fine let's cut to the chase shall we. All known examples of a Tube in Tube entirely steel structural skyscrapper to have suffered massive trauma followed by mulit-floor, unfought fires, has collapsed...


" All known examples" meaning those on 9/11 , right?

I think you're trying to make it seem like there were other such collapses.

[PhantomWolf]

Doesn't matter because it doesn't explain how different parts of a building would collapse from pockets of fire on a few floors at the same time after less then an hour.

NIST has a good explaination for why it occured, they even have pictures.

We need not talk about what kind of other metals conduct heat better when we are comparing two building that used steel. We need only to access which building conducted the heat better. The general concensus seems to be that the towers would have conducted the heat better thus making the global collapse of the WTC in less then an hour very strange compared to the Windsor which burned longer and didn't suffer global collapse.

And steel is a terrible conductor of heat. You suggestion seems to be that the WTC building should have conducted the heat away from the fire because steel is a better conductor of heat than concrete. This is an invaild argument. Just because it is better that concrete doesn't mean that it can conduct the heat away faster that the fire can input the heat. Steel is a poor conductor of heat and so it takes a long time to transfer it it away from a fire, longer than it takes for the area in the flame to get red hot. You can bet a bar of steel and heat up one end to red hot while holding the other end in your bare hands, a trick that I wouldn't attempt with Alumimiun. The question shouldn't be, was it a better conductor of heat than the Winsor Building, it is was it a good enough conductor to get rid of the excess heat, the answer is no.

No two fires are going to be exactly the same and your only excuse for all of them seems to be that they weren't hit by a plane. Then I give you one that was hit by a plane and you hand wave that one also. Yes there is a pattern.

It is true that no two fires are going to be the same, but it is also true that no two buildings are built exactly the same. The Twin Towers were probably the closest to that. The question therefore is, if no two fires are the same and no two buildings are built the same, why do you expect that they should have the same results? Your whole argument is that the same thing didn't happened to the other buildings as it did to the WTC, but here you are conceeding that they were not the same as the WTC. Therefore why should the end result be the same? You then try and introduce a building hit by a plane as it that is a cure for your inability to present cases that resemble the WTC, but in doing so you have a different plane, going a different speed, hitting a building that is a totally different structure right down to its building materials. Why should such a building react in the same way as the WTC?

No steel structure has ever suffered global collapse from fire, plane, or anything for that matter except explosives.

You mean no steel structure other than those that have collasped due to fire, like the Kadar Toy factory and others.

Now if you want to believe that three buildings on 9-11 suffered global collapse for TWO different reason when it's never happened before and will never happen again then go ahead. Just don't tell me it's been proven as to why in any official version to date.

No, the evidence points towards a natural collaspe, NIST's report shows that evidence and video and photos of the building back up their conculsions. There is ZERO evidence for a CD. As to the reasons, other than with WTC where it seems at least one vital column gave out underneath an overloaded and poorly restructured part of the building, the main causes of all three are similar. Serious trauma to the building's structure followed by concontrolled multi-story fires. So far you haven't shown any buildings that have suffered both the trauma and the uncontrolled multi-story fires that have not actually collasped, you simply claim that since Building A had a fire and didn't collapse then Building B shouldn't have, totally ignoring any differences in situation A and B. Who is it that is really the one waving their hands heres?

[PhantomWolf]

You're completely wrong about thermal conduction of steel vs.concrete being similar to steel vs. aluminium.

steel conducts heat approx 60 times better than concrete
whereas, aluminum conducts only 4 times better than steel.
So your wrong by a factor of about x15

Yes, it's called an exageration to make a point, I have on this board quoted the actual values themselves.

" All known examples" meaning those on 9/11 , right?

I think you're trying to make it seem like there were other such collapses.

No, I'm trying to point out that claiming that the result was "The first time in history" is stupid because the action was also "the first time in history." Why the huge surprise that a unique action causes in a unique result? And until you finally acknowledge that you can't use other cases as an example to try and judge what happened in this case because they aren't similar, I'm going to keep pointing it out.

[Belz...]

Theory? They would have failed miserably and they know it. That's why they refused to even try. Like I said... chicken.

That is your speculation.

That was asked of me and what you cut out was the beginning of my answer. I replied it took them 5 years to pay out and they were threatened by a politician with fines.

And that still doesn't mean anything.

Do you just cut things out of context or do you also read out of context?

Miscommunication, in this case. Why would I make a habit out of quoting out of context. You're doing a fine job at demolishing context, yourself.

Is Johnny karate your hero? How cute.

See what I mean ? You try to transform the conversation into something different because you don't like what's being said, and you say _I_ quote out of context ?

Glad I could give a little meaning and purpose to your pathetic life.

Really, Zen. How old are you ?

You don't really need another person for this conversation you're doing fine on your own.

Proceed. And let me know how it turns out.

And AGAIN you dodge and refuse to state your own opinions.

I think you're here just for the attention.

[tsig]

Because some fires can burn for hours or days.


And fire weakens steel.

[Belz...]

The investigation comes first. Then comes the separate testimony under oath. They slip up. Then we get some rope. Then we find a tree.

So you need an investigation but you already know the outcome ?

My, what a fine investigator you'll make.

So you finally did graduate? congratulations

Insults. The truther's first and last line of defense.

Unless I tell you something personally don't jump to conclusions about what I believe. A major flaw in your thought processes and belief system.

But you DO jump to conclusions, Zen. You think that Bush's lack of willingness to testify under oath means something, while it really doesn't.

What is perjury?

Not much to someone who just murdered 3000 people.

Exactly why he tried to first prevent an investigation in the first place and then hindered what little of an investigation that was attempted. So nothing incriminating would be found. Chicken.

Again, that's YOUR speculation.

Here's a clue. cluck cluck

SERIOUSLY, how old are you ?

Now if we could just get some of this crap under oath and ask about 9-11 the possibilities are endless. I think Dubya's dumb enough to unwittingly become the White House's new deep throat.

"Under oath" is not a magic spell that compels the truth out of someone, Zen.

What's obvious to me is there has been no real investigation into 9-11 that would uncover the evidence that would warrant the lawsuits you speak of.

And you see that as proof that something evil's afoot ?

(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”

Yes, you see, in the real world, evidence is important. Speculation seldom does.

[Belz...]

Maybe they don't want to lose their job for something that's just going to be dismissed because of lack of evidence because ... here we go yet once again... lack of a complete investigation that would uncover such evidence to warrant such a lawsuit. Maybe...

Maybe you should stop speculating and actually digging up some evidence to warrant this vaunted investigation of yours.

Sounds like NIST to me.

:id:

As I've pointed out before you believe 19 hijackers did it. Was all of Al Queda in on the details? Why didn't we see Al Queda's evidence dripping from the trees enough to stop it from happening?

Because they were operating in SECRET, Zen. Something that's no longer required once the attack is completed.

Michael Moore went on record this week to tell Infowars.com and WeAreChange.org reporters that three years after the release of his film Fahrenheit 9/11 he now has many more questions about 9/11 and does not believe the public have been told "half the truth" about what really happened.

Yeah, but Moore's an idiot.

So you are high.

Zen, your reply to Myriad's fine post indicates one of two things:

1) You didn't read his post
2) You are an idiot.

Please choose carefully.

No. You brought it up. Or did you make it up?

Make up what ? He asked you a question.

If you really have any cold, hard facts and logic why don't you pack them up and mail them to NIST.

You might have missed this: because we don't need to prove something that's already been shown.

So everyone's coming out for their daily dose huh? Good. If it wasn't for me I think this thread would have died on page two. Glad to keep you all occupied.

You're welcome.

Now I already stated I hoping corsair accepts the nomination to head up the new investigation.

I see you have no intention of answering questions, participating in a civil, adult discussion, or stating your opinions and beliefs or presenting your evidence.

Troll.

[Belz...]

Doesn't matter because it doesn't explain how different parts of a building would collapse from pockets of fire on a few floors at the same time after less then an hour.

Did you miss the 767 that crashed into the building ??

We need not talk about what kind of other metals conduct heat better when we are comparing two building that used steel. We need only to access which building conducted the heat better. The general concensus seems to be that the towers would have conducted the heat better thus making the global collapse of the WTC in less then an hour very strange compared to the Windsor which burned longer and didn't suffer global collapse.

So... because metal conducts heat... it doesn't heat up ?

No two fires are going to be exactly the same and your only excuse for all of them seems to be that they weren't hit by a plane.

That's a very good difference, don't you think ?

No steel structure has ever suffered global collapse from fire, plane, or anything for that matter except explosives.

That is a complete and utter lie.

Now if you want to believe that three buildings on 9-11 suffered global collapse for TWO different reason when it's never happened before and will never happen again then go ahead.

Argument from incredulity, which pretty much summarises everything you've said so far.

[ZENSMACK89]

Oh look... it's the old "Prove a Negative" canard being used as the last refuge of a cornered Truther. What a surprise. Our delusioned little friend actually expects me to prove that there has been no outcry from any foreign media outlet or investigative body regarding the supposed 9/11 conspiracy. Apparently, his knowledge of scientific method is on par with his knowledge of the criminal justice system. You're just embarassing yourself now, ZEN.

I'll say it again: There has been no outcry, and if you can prove otherwise, why don't you do it? Why don't you make me eat my words? Because you can't, and you know it.

As to the question as to why there has been no outcry, I'll help you out there. There has been no outcry, because aside from a handful of loons and over-imaginative teenagers NO ONE BELIEVES THIS NONSENSE.

This information you Truthers claim to have is not a secret. Lots of other people have looked at it and examined it. Journalists. Investigators. Scientists. People smarter than you. And they all came to the same conclusion: It's bunk.

That's why there has been no outcry. And no matter how many questions Truthers dodge, no matter how many Truthers come here and paste and link the same old tired crap, that will not change.
Oh look... The Government and the Administration have been assertin UBL behind 9-11 although there is no hard evidence to support this claim. Credibility lost. What else are they asserting with no hard evidence?

There's been no outcry? Where's the outcry from the otherside? Don't dish it out if you can't eat it.

[DavidJames]

Oh look... The Government and the Administration have been assertin UBL behind 9-11 although there is no hard evidence to support this claim.Do you mean other then his admission of his involvement?

[ZENSMACK89]

NIST has a good explaination for why it occured, they even have pictures.

NIST has a theory of collapse initiation not even supported by their own testing.

And steel is a terrible conductor of heat. You suggestion seems to be that the WTC building should have conducted the heat away from the fire because steel is a better conductor of heat than concrete. This is an invaild argument. Just because it is better that concrete doesn't mean that it can conduct the heat away faster that the fire can input the heat. Steel is a poor conductor of heat and so it takes a long time to transfer it it away from a fire, longer than it takes for the area in the flame to get red hot. You can bet a bar of steel and heat up one end to red hot while holding the other end in your bare hands, a trick that I wouldn't attempt with Alumimiun. The question shouldn't be, was it a better conductor of heat than the Winsor Building, it is was it a good enough conductor to get rid of the excess heat, the answer is no.

We’re only talking about two building fires here. Which should have conducted the heat better Windsor or WTC?

It is true that no two fires are going to be the same, but it is also true that no two buildings are built exactly the same. The Twin Towers were probably the closest to that. The question therefore is, if no two fires are the same and no two buildings are built the same, why do you expect that they should have the same results? Your whole argument is that the same thing didn't happened to the other buildings as it did to the WTC, but here you are conceeding that they were not the same as the WTC. Therefore why should the end result be the same? You then try and introduce a building hit by a plane as it that is a cure for your inability to present cases that resemble the WTC, but in doing so you have a different plane, going a different speed, hitting a building that is a totally different structure right down to its building materials. Why should such a building react in the same way as the WTC?

You mean no steel structure other than those that have collasped due to fire, like the Kadar Toy factory and others.

Kadar Toy factory and others.

Yeah the Kadar toy factory is a better example the building that was actually hit by a plane. Ok?

4 story Kadar toy factory(hardly a high-rise) in a third world country that was still damaged from a previous and did not suffer global symmetrical collapse at the same time.

Is this the best you have or are you going to bring up some bridges next?


No, the evidence points towards a natural collaspe, NIST's report shows that evidence and video and photos of the building back up their conculsions. There is ZERO evidence for a CD. As to the reasons, other than with WTC where it seems at least one vital column gave out underneath an overloaded and poorly restructured part of the building, the main causes of all three are similar. Serious trauma to the building's structure followed by concontrolled multi-story fires. So far you haven't shown any buildings that have suffered both the trauma and the uncontrolled multi-story fires that have not actually collasped, you simply claim that since Building A had a fire and didn't collapse then Building B shouldn't have, totally ignoring any differences in situation A and B. Who is it that is really the one waving their hands heres?

Dismissing CD doesn’t prove the NIST theory correct.

[ZENSMACK89]

And fire weakens steel.
That's right. But besides the NIST theory on the WTC how fast has it ever done it before and has it ever caused global collapse at the same time?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

That's right. But besides the NIST theory on the WTC how fast has it ever done it before and has it ever caused global collapse at the same time?

It doesn't matter how fast it was done before. The main thing is fire weakens steel, it's only a matter of how much time the steel has been in a fire and the weight on it to cause it to collapse.

Collapse of structures has been and will forever be a part of our lives. Things aren't meant to "last forever". People destroy structures everyday, whether in a war or just removing the old and constructing the new.

[Regnad Kcin]

Sounds like you have a narrative for a complicated inside job conspiracy. Let's have it.Any "inside job" would require, at a minimum: Two instigators at a sufficiently high level with the desire and ability to conceive and develop a master plan One thoroughly trustworthy underling who would be instructed by the instigator/overseers to research and draw up the master plan. This to include, but not be limited to:Human resource recruitment for all contingencies, including pre-event operations, event enactment, and post-event follow-up. This to include managers responsible for each aspect of the plan, including security, procurement, demolition, finance, etc. Personnel (unknown number) technically qualified and able to install all manner of hardware and systems for each aspect of the plan. Materials procurement for multiple methods and sites. This to include explosives, wiring, detonators and all manner of related items Transportation of workmen and materials (including housing and temporary storage) Installation of materials and equipment at each site Method(s) for masking and/or eliminating any and all physical evidence in case of discovery Remote-control systems for four passenger jet aircraft Real-time "voice morphing" equipment* and personnel for use during faked hijacking (not to mention advance script-writing for several not-yet-known passengers) (not to mention advance research on who each of those passengers might call in an emergency, along with their phone numbers) Source of sufficient funds to pay for all materials as well as all manpower (including ongoing hush-money)
Security "Official" cover story creation, with all aspects of back story, including 19 "terrorist" biographies and their recent histories, etc. all put in place within the relevant departments of the CIA and FBI Secure communications from point of inception through culmination of the event(s) and into the post-event cleanup Personnel placed at a high level within each team responsible for post-event analysis, including medical recovery and analysis, structural analysis, air traffic, etc. Numerous contingency plans for each aspect of the plan at each site Ongoing (to present day and beyond) cover-up Post-event cleanup, including the destruction of all evidence of conspiracyAnd on and on.

Such a thing would be, as I've said, one of the most complex undertakings of its kind in the history of man. Compare it to: A small number of a group of enemies of the state with a demonstrated desire and willingness to engage in terrorist activity Access to the open borders of a free society An ability to recruit and train 19 or 20 soldiers and place them in the U.S. Sufficient funds to support the 19 or 20 with rent, food, tuition, transportation, and miscellaneous small expenses during their limited time in the U.S. Basic flight training for only a handful of the men Limited need for communications once the plan is first initiated Use of the element of surprise during the operation in order to take control Simple, easy-to-conceal, though dangerous hand weapons to be used against unarmed opponents in close-quarters Use of intimidation and fakery during the operation as well as the suggestion that cooperation will result in a safe outcome Extreme ease of crashing each airplane into some portion of a heavily-populated area (be it a specific building or simply a city center), thereby achieving a result of a terrorized populace No need for subsequent secrecyYour “inside job,” by definition, would require the involvement of hundreds, if not thousands of people. None of who would be able to slip up or have a crisis of conscience for the rest of their lives. Never mind their master work, complex in and of itself, would have to reach its goals in broad daylight, in front of countless millions of people, live and around the world.

Any questions?Jerome Hauers advice to the White House on 9-11. Jerome Hauers ex co-worker Steven Hatfill the one time Anthrax mailer prime suspect.That's a cryptic response that in no way proves the anthrax scare was an inside job, much less links it to your alleged inside job 9/11 perps. Please start a new thread and we'll discuss the issue there.Makes no sense to you? How ironic.Spare me. The sentence is awkwardly composed, preventing me from ascertaining your meaning. Try again, if you like.



*There is no evidence proving that "voice morphing" tech, with the ability to make someone sound like someone else, exists.

[Myriad]

We’re only talking about two building fires here. Which should have conducted the heat better Windsor or WTC?

The rate of heat transfer by conduction, all other things being equal, depends inversely on the distance the heat is transfered.

The WTC towers were much larger than the Windsor, and the fires in them were much larger. Therefore heat had much farther to travel to be conducted away from the fire areas. So the Windsor should have "conducted the heat better."

But conduction of heat from the fire zone via the steel framing is actually a trivial factor in fire dynamics, in any case. Assume a very hefty beam .1 square meter in cross section, and a portion of that beam one cubicle away from the boundary of the fire area (about 3m), heated by a fire to 800 degrees C above ambient. The rate of heat conduction to a point along the beam 3 meters away is:

Heat transfer rate (W) = delta T (degrees K) * conductivity (W/m-K) * area (m^2) / distance (m)

= 800 * 0.1 * 46 / 3
= 1250 Watts

How many Watts of heat does your blow dryer put out?

This is insiginficant in an uncontrolled fire, even allowing for all the beams intersecting the fire zone (most of which are much thinner than .1 square meter).

If the beam is thinner, or gets less hot, or doesn't heat evenly all the way through, or has farther to run to reach a cooler zone, or when the cooler zone itself starts heating up, the rate of heat transfer out of the fire zone decreases.

So, the assertion that "steel buildings don't collapse in fire because the steel conducts the heat" is not supported by the laws of physics.

Is this the best you have or are you going to bring up some bridges next?


Do steel bridges collapse as a result of fire?

How about steel oil platforms?

When a piece of steel is heated by fire, do its properties change differently if it's part of a bridge or part of an oil platform than if it's part of a building? (How does it know?)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[ZENSMACK89]

Any "inside job" would require, at a minimum

Any "inside job" would require, at a minimum

Cherry picking and attempting to discredit different conspiracy theories doesn't prove or make the official conspiracy theory anymore credible nor does it negate the need for a real investigation into 9-11. This includes facts on "voice morphing" or anything else you seem to think proves the official version truthful somehow.

[Belz...]

Oh look... The Government and the Administration have been assertin UBL behind 9-11 although there is no hard evidence to support this claim. Credibility lost. What else are they asserting with no hard evidence?

You mean, aside from his confession ?

NIST has a theory of collapse initiation not even supported by their own testing.

I think you've missed a bit.

Which should have conducted the heat better Windsor or WTC?

I'd wager the one with structural damage will have several problems going its way.

Dismissing CD doesn’t prove the NIST theory correct.

No, but proving the NIST theory correct does. AND it also dismisses CD.

But besides the NIST theory on the WTC how fast has it ever done it before and has it ever caused global collapse at the same time?

Irrelevant.

"Your honour. NO ONE has EVER been shot through the left nostril in the history of forensic pathology. Therefore the accusation's claim that the victim was shot through thr left nostril is patently RIDICULOUS! I rest my case."

[Belz...]

Cherry picking and attempting to discredit different conspiracy theories doesn't prove or make the official conspiracy theory anymore credible nor does it negate the need for a real investigation into 9-11. This includes facts on "voice morphing" or anything else you seem to think proves the official version truthful somehow.

Roses are red.

That's about as good a rebuttal as you just gave.

[ZENSMACK89]

The rate of heat transfer by conduction, all other things being equal, depends inversely on the distance the heat is transfered.

The WTC towers were much larger than the Windsor, and the fires in them were much larger. Therefore heat had much farther to travel to be conducted away from the fire areas. So the Windsor should have "conducted the heat better."

But conduction of heat from the fire zone via the steel framing is actually a trivial factor in fire dynamics, in any case. Assume a very hefty beam .1 square meter in cross section, and a portion of that beam one cubicle away from the boundary of the fire area (about 3m), heated by a fire to 800 degrees C above ambient. The rate of heat conduction to a point along the beam 3 meters away is:

Heat transfer rate (W) = delta T (degrees K) * conductivity (W/m-K) * area (m^2) / distance (m)

= 800 * 0.1 * 46 / 3
= 1250 Watts

How many Watts of heat does your blow dryer put out?

This is insiginficant in an uncontrolled fire, even allowing for all the beams intersecting the fire zone (most of which are much thinner than .1 square meter).

If the beam is thinner, or gets less hot, or doesn't heat evenly all the way through, or has farther to run to reach a cooler zone, or when the cooler zone itself starts heating up, the rate of heat transfer out of the fire zone decreases.

So, the assertion that "steel buildings don't collapse in fire because the steel conducts the heat" is not supported by the laws of physics.




Do steel bridges collapse as a result of fire?

How about steel oil platforms?

When a piece of steel is heated by fire, do its properties change differently if it's part of a bridge or part of an oil platform than if it's part of a building? (How does it know?)

Respectfully,
Myriad
None of this proves anything of the NIST theory on collapse initiation nor does it explain why the Windsor withstood the fire better and longer then the WTC.

[ZENSMACK89]

It doesn't matter how fast it was done before. The main thing is fire weakens steel, it's only a matter of how much time the steel has been in a fire and the weight on it to cause it to collapse.

Collapse of structures has been and will forever be a part of our lives. Things aren't meant to "last forever". People destroy structures everyday, whether in a war or just removing the old and constructing the new.
How much of the WTC was on fire and for how long? What happen or better yet didn't happen in the NIST fire tests after two hours?

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf

Figure 3-11 (p 49) PDF page 131
Figure 3-15 (p 52) PDF page 134
Figure 9-6 (p 297) PDF page 297

[Belz...]

None of this proves anything of the NIST theory on collapse initiation nor does it explain why the Windsor withstood the fire better and longer then the WTC.

Yeah, Myriad. Use small words.

[nicepants]

No steel structure has ever suffered global collapse from fire, plane, or anything for that matter except explosives.

I'm not aware of any explosives on this bridge...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269118,00.html

[johnny karate]

Oh look... The Government and the Administration have been assertin UBL behind 9-11 although there is no hard evidence to support this claim. Credibility lost. What else are they asserting with no hard evidence?Assuming that what you are saying is true, that there is no hard evidence to implicate Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, how does this in any way prove any of your ridiculous theories? (Here's a clue: It doesn't.)

And with whom is credibility supposedly lost? A bunch of delusional paranoids from some conspiracy theory forum? Big loss. Because there certainly has been no loss of credibility from any media outlet or investigative body on the planet, all of whom unanimously reject your movement's crackpot ideas. (Remember when this was the original issue? You know, the one you keep side-stepping?)

There's been no outcry?That's correct.

Where's the outcry from the otherside?I have no idea what you are talking about. Who is "the otherside" and over what should there be an outcry, but supposedly isn't?

Don't dish it out if you can't eat it.Not only is your sad little playground taunt a non-sequitur, but it belies your lack of intelligence and maturity.

[slyjoe]

...
No steel structure has ever suffered global collapse from fire, plane, or anything for that matter except explosives. ...

Not only is this incorrect, but by this logic CD could not have brought down the WTC towers. After all, two 110 story buildings have never been brought down by CD before.

[NYCEMT86]

None of this proves anything of the NIST theory on collapse initiation nor does it explain why the Windsor withstood the fire better and longer then the WTC.

Simple. The Windsor had a reinforced concrete core, WTC had a steel core. Though the Windsor have steel core on the upper floors...guess what happened, they collapsed.


1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed

1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually
collapsed

1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed
Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor

2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed

2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed

3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed
Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor

3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor

4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down


http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

[beachnut]

You're completely wrong about thermal conduction of steel vs.concrete being similar to steel vs. aluminium.

steel conducts heat approx 60 times better than concrete
whereas, aluminum conducts only 4 times better than steel.
So your wrong by a factor of about x15

" All known examples" meaning those on 9/11 , right?

I think you're trying to make it seem like there were other such collapses.
Okay, please take your computer apart and put in a steel heat sink. At least the steel will not melt when your CPU burns up.

Where is that building in Madrid today, and why were the steel only sections falling apart shortly after they were fully involved in fire? Early in the Madrid fire the steel parts of the building fell explosively to the ground. Poor research results in poor conclusions.

Show me the building. How is your CPU with that steel heat sink?

[Myriad]

None of this proves anything of the NIST theory on collapse initiation nor does it explain why the Windsor withstood the fire better and longer then the WTC.


No, it only refutes your assertion that the Windsor withstood the fire because its steel conducted the heat, and that the WTC should have done so also.

The explanation of why the Windsor withstood the fire better and longer than the WTC is all of the following:

1. The building was smaller.

2. The fire was smaller.

3. The building had more concrete structural elements.

4. The building had not been structurally damaged prior to the fire.

5. The fireproofing on the steel was intact.

6. The fire was fought, primarily with "containment" efforts (suppression by water streams from outside) whose effect is to cool the outer framework.

7. The larger windows failed at a lower temperature, ventilating the fire. (Though ventilation increases the combustion rate and the visible flame, it also reduces the interior heat accumulation in a fire.)

I'll also point out that though much of the Windsor did indeed remain standing, it was deemed too dangerous for anyone to enter afterward, due to the risk of further collapse. In other words, inspectors feared that the additional weight of a few people could have collapsed it. Suppose it had been one storey taller, what might that additional weight have done?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Regnad Kcin]

Cherry picking and attempting to discredit different conspiracy theories doesn't prove or make the official conspiracy theory anymore credible nor does it negate the need for a real investigation into 9-11.Er, ooookay.

Where have I "cherry pick[ed]?" Furthermore, it is not up to anyone to discredit any conspiracy theory (especially those which, as I demonstrated in post #1517 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2886507&postcount=1517), discredit themselves); it is up to challengers of the generally accepted consensus to present their evidence to the contrary. This is something that you or any truther cannot do, or you would've already.

This includes facts on "voice morphing" or anything else you seem to think proves the official version truthful somehow.Any time you'd like to present your evidence for an "inside job" -- not speculation, not questions, not fallacies of personal incredulity -- you're plenty welcome. Perhaps some day, when you at last come to grips with the reality that you can't, you might realize the reason is that the way it happened is the way it happened.

[ZENSMACK89]

I'm not aware of any explosives on this bridge...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269118,00.html
Global collapse? What did it land on?

[ZENSMACK89]

Simple. The Windsor had a reinforced concrete core, WTC had a steel core. Though the Windsor have steel core on the upper floors...guess what happened, they collapsed.




http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm
Partial collapse after four hours.

[Redtail]

Partial collapse after four hours.

What crashed into the Windsor again?

[ZENSMACK89]

No, it only refutes your assertion that the Windsor withstood the fire because its steel conducted the heat, and that the WTC should have done so also.


No. I claimed the opposite. The WTC had more steel thus should have conducted the heat better. It collapsed in less then an hour. The Windsor framed primarily in steel reinforced concrete shouldn't of conducted heat as well as the WTC but somehow only suffered partial collapse after four hours.

[ZENSMACK89]

What crashed into the Windsor again?
The Hindenburg?

[Arus808]

now you are simply trollling.

[Redtail]

The Hindenburg?

Dodge noted.

[uk_dave]

No. I claimed the opposite. The WTC had more steel thus should have conducted the heat better. It collapsed in less then an hour. The Windsor framed primarily in steel reinforced concrete shouldn't of conducted heat as well as the WTC but somehow only suffered partial collapse after four hours.

Complete collapse of the only part of the structure which was steel frame.

COMPLETE COLLAPSE of the steel framed structure.

Now, you must, by now, know that the Windsor Tower had a substantial amount of reinforced concrete forming it's structure. You MUST know this.

And yet you post here as if you actually believe what you are writing.

You must be able to understand that the Windsor Tower is a very bad example to cite if you want to try to prove the invincibility of steel in fire. You have to know this by now. It's been gone over time and time again on this forum and elsewhere. You can't be that ignorant.

But if you're not stupid then there is only one other option: you must be prepared to lie in order to prop up your beliefs.

Which is it?

Are you truly ignorant of the construction of the Windsor Tower, though you chose to cite it in support of your claims?

Or, are you trying to deceive?

[ZENSMACK89]

No, it only refutes your assertion that the Windsor withstood the fire because its steel conducted the heat, and that the WTC should have done so also.

The explanation of why the Windsor withstood the fire better and longer than the WTC is all of the following:

1. The building was smaller.

2. The fire was smaller.

3. The building had more concrete structural elements.

4. The building had not been structurally damaged prior to the fire.

5. The fireproofing on the steel was intact.

6. The fire was fought, primarily with "containment" efforts (suppression by water streams from outside) whose effect is to cool the outer framework.

7. The larger windows failed at a lower temperature, ventilating the fire. (Though ventilation increases the combustion rate and the visible flame, it also reduces the interior heat accumulation in a fire.)

I'll also point out that though much of the Windsor did indeed remain standing, it was deemed too dangerous for anyone to enter afterward, due to the risk of further collapse. In other words, inspectors feared that the additional weight of a few people could have collapsed it. Suppose it had been one storey taller, what might that additional weight have done?

Respectfully,
Myriad
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

The Windsor Building fire engulfed the upper third of the building, but also spread downward as low as the fourth floor. A report by two fire safety experts in Japan highlighted three causes for the very wide extent of the fire:

The lack of a sprinkler system
Incorrect installation of spandrels
The lack of fire prevention regulations in Spain

But still performed better then the WTC

[beachnut]

No. I claimed the opposite. The WTC had more steel thus should have conducted the heat better. It collapsed in less then an hour. The Windsor framed primarily in steel reinforced concrete shouldn't of conducted heat as well as the WTC but somehow only suffered partial collapse after four hours.
Do you understand your post is not making any sense about anything? I think this post mentality summarizes your failure to understand 9/11.

[Architect]

[sigh]

Zen

As you might have gathered, I'm an architect who actually works in this field. You should assume that I have a grasp of the pertinent structural, civil, and fire engineering issues.

I am familiar with the detail of the NIST report and have had the (enforced) opportunity over the last few months to go over the findings at leisure. I have also looked at all the so called innaccuraces, mistakes, and misrepresentations thus far made known to me by supporters of the Truth Movement.

To date I have seen nothing which would lead me to doubt the central findings of the NIST report.

Should you wish to debate these in an appropriate technical manner, then I am at your disposal. However we will be looking at the key points in considerable detail, not broad-brush assertions, and will be making reference to issues such as fire testing and performance, the Eurocode, progressive structural failure, and the like.

Now, are you interested?

[ZENSMACK89]

Complete collapse of the only part of the structure which was steel frame.

COMPLETE COLLAPSE of the steel framed structure.

Now, you must, by now, know that the Windsor Tower had a substantial amount of reinforced concrete forming it's structure. You MUST know this.

And yet you post here as if you actually believe what you are writing.

You must be able to understand that the Windsor Tower is a very bad example to cite if you want to try to prove the invincibility of steel in fire. You have to know this by now. It's been gone over time and time again on this forum and elsewhere. You can't be that ignorant.

But if you're not stupid then there is only one other option: you must be prepared to lie in order to prop up your beliefs.

Which is it?

Are you truly ignorant of the construction of the Windsor Tower, though you chose to cite it in support of your claims?

Or, are you trying to deceive?
I gave multiple examples of steel structured high-rise fires and even one that involved a plane crash. The Windsor seems to be the one everyone here wants to respond to. We can go back to comparing the WTC to the Kador toy factory or some bridge somewhere which also didn't have a plane crash into it if that makes you feel any better.

[beachnut]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

The Windsor Building fire engulfed the upper third of the building, but also spread downward as low as the fourth floor. A report by two fire safety experts in Japan highlighted three causes for the very wide extent of the fire:

The lack of a sprinkler system
Incorrect installation of spandrels
The lack of fire prevention regulations in Spain

But still performed better then the WTC
The Windsor Building was destroyed by fire, it is gone. The WTC was destroyed by fire, it is gone. The fire in Spain was fought! WTC fire was not fought in 1/2 or 7. Now show me the 60,000 pounds of jet fuel and impact damage equal to 2200 pounds of TNT at the Windsor building so we can compare apples to apples. Fire destroys the strength of steel; this is why the Windsor building is gone. Stop using stupid examples to defend fantasy ideas of 9/11 truth, you have not doing a good job.

The world knows the Windsor building was destroyed with just fire, the WTC was destroyed by fire after impact and 20,000 gallons of fuel started the big fires. Where have you been for all those years?

[leftysergeant]

There has. to date, been no massive fire in a high-rise building constructed at all like the towers or WTC 7, so your point is meaningless.

Steel-span roofs collapse regularly in fires. The WTC buildings that collapse more closely resembled a stack of steel-span roofs than they did any of the buildings around them. Yet the combination of fires and incredibly heavy debris falling on their roofs did not bring those more conventional buildings down. THe construction of the towers was not really as strong as one might expect.

[ZENSMACK89]

[sigh]


yawn


As you might ahve gathered, I'm an architect who actually works in this field. You should assume that I have a grasp of the pertinent structural, civil, and fire engineering issues.[

I'm Napoleon. I own a mansion and a yacht.


technical manner, then I am at your disposal. However we will be looking at the key points in considerable detail, not broad-brush assertions, and will be making reference to issues such as fire testing and performance, the Eurocode, progressive structural failure, and the like.

Now, are you interested?

If you want to debate some architechs get in touch with these guys. www.ae911truth.org

If you have a question for me then ask it. I'm not going anywhere.

[WildCat]

If you want to debate some architechs get in touch with these guys. www.ae911truth.org (http://www.ae911truth.org)
Those guys ban anyone who disagrees with them, and in fact Richard Gage is a liar. He is a coward also, and as such refuses to debate anyone. But he'll be glad to sell you some merch!

[ZENSMACK89]

Dodge noted.
I gave an example of a building hit by a plane. Who's dodging?

[ZENSMACK89]

Those guys ban anyone who disagrees with them, and in fact Richard Gage is a liar. He is a coward also, and as such refuses to debate anyone. But he'll be glad to sell you some merch!
Really? When you were on there trying to start up a debate did you refer to him as a coward and a liar or did you get banned for your scary facts?

[ZENSMACK89]

There has. to date, been no massive fire in a high-rise building constructed at all like the towers or WTC 7, so your point is meaningless.

Steel-span roofs collapse regularly in fires. The WTC buildings that collapse more closely resembled a stack of steel-span roofs than they did any of the buildings around them. Yet the combination of fires and incredibly heavy debris falling on their roofs did not bring those more conventional buildings down. THe construction of the towers was not really as strong as one might expect.
Really? Am I the only one going down the road of comparing the Windsor to the WTC?

[uk_dave]

Well goody for you. But I'm not assuming anything including that you are an architect with all kinds of liesure on your hands to read NIST and debate 9-11.


You truly are ignorant.

The NIST report was not written for the benefit of 'truthers'.

It wasn't even intended to be a fun read for the mildly curious.

It was written to answer fundamental questions which have a bearing on how steel framed structures are built today.

An Architect reads the NIST report because his profession requires it, not for leisure.

[Arus808]

no he banned us prior to even posting. That is the "people" you associate your self with. Open to debate to them means =- only people who agree with us.

[uk_dave]

Really? Am I the only one going down the road of comparing the Windsor to the WTC?

And it's a bad comparison if you want to pretend that steel structures are unaffected by fire.

You claim that the windsor tower didn't collapse, but the steel framed part of it did. The only part which was relatively undamaged was the reinforced concrete. But you believe, or would have others erroneously believe, that the Windsor tower was a steel framed structure which withstood a fire. It didn't!

That you pretend to be unaware of the reinforced concrete construction leads one to believe that you're uninformed and need to get better informed before forming an opinion on these matters, or that you're willfully obtuse.

[Myriad]

No. I claimed the opposite. The WTC had more steel thus should have conducted the heat better. It collapsed in less then an hour. The Windsor framed primarily in steel reinforced concrete shouldn't of conducted heat as well as the WTC but somehow only suffered partial collapse after four hours.


And I showed how anyone can easily calculate the fact that heat transfer through structural steel is an irrelevant factor in any building fire. So why do you continue to refer to "better" conduction of heat as if it were significant in predicting the differences in outcome of different fires?

The Windsor Building fire engulfed the upper third of the building, but also spread downward as low as the fourth floor. A report by two fire safety experts in Japan highlighted three causes for the very wide extent of the fire:

The lack of a sprinkler system
Incorrect installation of spandrels
The lack of fire prevention regulations in Spain

But still performed better then the WTC


Yes, for the following reasons:

1. The building was smaller.

2. The fire was smaller.

3. The building had more concrete structural elements.

4. The building had not been structurally damaged prior to the fire.

5. The fireproofing on the steel was intact.

6. The fire was fought, primarily with "containment" efforts (suppression by water streams from outside) whose effect is to cool the outer framework.

7. The larger windows failed at a lower temperature, ventilating the fire. (Though ventilation increases the combustion rate and the visible flame, it also reduces the interior heat accumulation in a fire.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Architect]

I'm Napoleon. I own a mansion and a yacht.

Well goody for you. But I'm not assuming anything including that you are an architect with all kinds of liesure on your hands to read NIST and debate 9-11.

There are at least 3 people on this site with my full RIBA/ARB registration details, and several others who have knowledge of my work. Whether you believe me or not is of no great interest to me, other than ensuring that you are aware that you should not expect bluffing and hand-waving to work in any detailed technical discussion.


I'm know there are things in the NIST report that are correct. But in the end they only offer a theory of collapse initiation not a fact and nothing on the collapse itself.

Well why don't you tell us what bits you believe are wrong, and we'll have a proper technical analysis of your concerns?


If you want to debate some architechs get in touch with these guys. www.ae911truth.org (http://www.ae911truth.org)

We challenged them. And they refused. Something to hide from honest debate, I shouldn't think.

[Yaters]

There are at least 3 people on this site with my full RIBA/ARB registration details, and several others who have knowledge of my work. Whether you believe me or not is of no great interest to me, other than ensuring that you are aware that you should not expect bluffing and hand-waving to work in any detailed technical discussion.




Well why don't you tell us what bits you believe are wrong, and we'll have a proper technical analysis of your concerns?




We challenged them. And they refused. Something to hide from honest debate, I shouldn't think.

Zen-

Can I ask why you won't discuss anything with Architect? He gave you his credentials so you know he has an idea of what he's talking about. Why the defensive attitude? He hasn't been abusive toward you and has offered to discuss.

Also, keep in mind, I'm curious, and I'm not trying to taunt you or anything, I just find it odd that you come at Architect, answer sarcastically, and refuse to discuss things with him.

[Redtail]

I gave an example of a building hit by a plane. Who's dodging?

Why you are dear boy. We are talking about the Windsor building.

[ZENSMACK89]

Zen-

Can I ask why you won't discuss anything with Architect? He gave you his credentials so you know he has an idea of what he's talking about. Why the defensive attitude? He hasn't been abusive toward you and has offered to discuss.

Also, keep in mind, I'm curious, and I'm not trying to taunt you or anything, I just find it odd that you come at Architect, answer sarcastically, and refuse to discuss things with him.
Yaters,

Since I've started I've put no one on ignore nor have I reported anyone for anything. I try to reply to everyone who addresses me. Go back and look at this thread it's not always easy.

If he has a question for me he can ask me. Like I said I'm not going anywhere. But if it's a debate he's looking for why me? Why not go debate his fellow architects? There's certainly enough of them if that's what he's looking for.

[Arus808]

Yaters,


If he has a question for me he can ask me. Like I said I'm not going anywhere. But if it's a debate he's looking for why me? Why not go debate his fellow architects? There's certainly enough of them if that's what he's looking for.

he has asked you, you ignored.
you are making statements as if they are fact and you are not backing them up with your proof. he's an architect, asking you to provide that proof.

you are ignoring him.

he doesn't have to debate with his fellow architects, because his fellow architects agree with the findings in the NIST report.

surely youre not suggesting that he debate the "architects" found on Richard Gage's fraud site?

Signing your name to a site, doesnt mean that they agree with the ONLY statement found on that site. If I was an architect, I would put it into MY OWN words of what i believe, not just sign blinding to something stated on a website, without even a glance at what its claiming (which is what it looks like from the ae911 truth site).

[ZENSMACK89]

There are at least 3 people on this site with my full RIBA/ARB registration details, and several others who have knowledge of my work. Whether you believe me or not is of no great interest to me, other than ensuring that you are aware that you should not expect bluffing and hand-waving to work in any detailed technical discussion.

What you claim to be on an anonomus forum is of no interest to me.


Well why don't you tell us what bits you believe are wrong, and we'll have a proper technical analysis of your concerns?


I believe it was post #617 that I didn't get one response to. Why don't you start there?

We challenged them. And they refused. Something to hide from honest debate, I shouldn't think

You mean I wasn't your first choice?

[ZENSMACK89]

What you claim to be on an anonomus forum is of no interest to me.





I believe it was post #617 that I didn't get one response to. Why don't you start there?



You mean I wasn't your first choice?
anonymous

[nicepants]

Global collapse? What did it land on?

The area subjected to fire failed because the steel melted.

It landed on the roadway beneath it.

[nicepants]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

The Windsor Building fire engulfed the upper third of the building, but also spread downward as low as the fourth floor. A report by two fire safety experts in Japan highlighted three causes for the very wide extent of the fire:

The lack of a sprinkler system
Incorrect installation of spandrels
The lack of fire prevention regulations in Spain

But still performed better then the WTC
WTC 1 & 2 were hit by planes, WTC7 was hit by the collapse of WTC1 & 2...that could be why they didn't perform as well as the Windsor Building.

[Architect]

This is quite amusing. You're doing everything which you can to avoid getting involved in a technical discussion. Let's have a wee look at the latest:

What you claim to be on an anonomus forum is of no interest to me.

I'm quite happy to be judged on the technical content of my posts. Are you?



I believe it was post #617 that I didn't get one response to. Why don't you start there?

That's not so much a cogent argument as a bit of a meander. Which particular technical point would you like to discuss.



You mean I wasn't your first choice?

Gage was given the opportunity to debate with a peer, and refused. What does that tell us?

[ZENSMACK89]

You truly are ignorant.

Well since we’ve already established you have trouble deciphering what’s true I’ll let that pass.

The NIST report was not written for the benefit of 'truthers'.

Well that's an understatement

It wasn't even intended to be a fun read for the mildly curious.

Well you got me there except maybe that cool shotgun test. I bet that was fun.

QUOTE=uk_dave;2887500]It was written to answer fundamental questions which have a bearing on how steel framed structures are built today.[/QUOTE]

So what happened?

QUOTE=uk_dave;2887500]An Architect reads the NIST report because his profession requires it, not for leisure..[/QUOTE]

I thought he claimed to read it in his leisure?

[ZENSMACK89]

This is quite amusing. You're doing everything which you can to avoid getting involved in a technical discussion. Let's have a wee look at the lates:


A wee look of the what?


I'm quite happy to be judged on the technical content of my posts. Are you?


And?


That's not so much a cogent argument as a bit of a meander. Which particular technical point would you like to discuss.

All of them. You did ask me.


Gage was given the opportunity to debate with a peer, and refused. What does that tell us?

You mean it wasn't you?

[Architect]

I thought he claimed to read it in his leisure?


I fear that nearly all the regulars here will know why I had the enforced opportunity to read it at my leisure, but not you.

Tell you what, instead of flinging poorly aimed rocks why don't you tell me exactly where you think NIST made technical errors?

[Architect]

You mean it wasn't you?

Really, is that the best you can do?

Come on, make a real, bona fide technical point! You can do it!!!

[ZENSMACK89]

Really, is that the best you can do?

Come on, make a real, bona fide technical point! You can do it!!!
Come on! Address post #617

Someone with all of your degrees and capabilities and leisure time should have no problem with it. You did want to do this no? When you're done with your homework assignment I'll have something else for you but first things first.

chop chop

get to it

point by point

[Architect]

I think you should perhaps re-read post 617 and consider which point on your leisurely wander you wish to focus upon. Looking up "cogent" in the dictionary may help.

But let's look at this a different way. Let me pose you a question.

Do you, or do you not, accept that structural steelwork is susceptible to failure under normal fire loadings?

[ZENSMACK89]

I think you should perhaps re-read post 617 and consider which point on your leisurely wander you wish to focus upon. Looking up "cogent" in the dictionary may help.

But let's look at this a different way. Let me pose you a question.

Do you, or do you not, accept that structural steelwork is susceptible to failure under normal fire loadings?
Here we go.

Whatever

Yes I accept that steel can be compromised by fire.

[ZENSMACK89]

I think you should perhaps re-read post 617 and consider which point on your leisurely wander you wish to focus upon. Looking up "cogent" in the dictionary may help.

But let's look at this a different way. Let me pose you a question.

Do you, or do you not, accept that structural steelwork is susceptible to failure under normal fire loadings?
I got to go. I'll try to catch up with you later.

[Architect]

And do you dispute that the fire within the towers was of sufficient intensity to cause such failure in this particular instance?

[johnny karate]

Even if one were to lend credence to any of the "points" made in post #617, credit could not be given to ZEN for making them. All he did was cut and paste that text from another source (the source in question being Steven Jones' widely ridiculed paper).

Coupled with his refusal to engage in a technical discussion now, this just goes to demonstrate ZEN's skills for intelligent debate don't extend any further than his ability to right-click his mouse.

[ZENSMACK89]

And do you dispute that the fire within the towers was of sufficient intensity to cause such failure in this particular instance?

I dispute that it's been proven.

[ZENSMACK89]

Even if one were to lend credence to any of the "points" made in post #617, credit could not be given to ZEN for making them. All he did was cut and paste that text from another source (the source in question being Steven Jones' widely ridiculed paper).

Coupled with his refusal to engage in a technical discussion now, this just goes to demonstrate ZEN's skills for intelligent debate don't extend any further than his ability to right-click his mouse.
I linked the source.

[ZENSMACK89]

The area subjected to fire failed because the steel melted.

It landed on the roadway beneath it.

Yes and that roadway was also elevated. Did it collapse?

[johnny karate]

I linked the source.

Whether or not you linked the source is irrelevant. Architect has requested a debate with you, wherein you would express your thoughts and opinions. All you did was direct him to a block of text you cut and pasted from someone else's work.

You have proven yourself incapable of independent thought, most glaringly in relation to the technical aspects of this discussion. And yet you still muster the hubris to question documents that you have never read and would most likely be unable to understand.

So the question remains: What is your basis for questioning data that has been proven to be beyond your comprehension?

[PhantomWolf]

I see that Zen is still trying to argue that 4 = 5

[ZENSMACK89]

Whether or not you linked the source is irrelevant. Architect has requested a debate with you, wherein you would express your thoughts and opinions. All you did was direct him to a block of text you cut and pasted from someone else's work.

You have proven yourself incapable of independent thought, most glaringly in relation to the technical aspects of this discussion. And yet you still muster the hubris to question documents that you have never read and would most likely be unable to understand.

So the question remains: What is your basis for questioning data that has been proven to be beyond your comprehension?
He asked what about the NIST report I had a problem with. Those are quotes from NIST.

Can you read?

[johnny karate]

What you posted were the thoughts and questions of Steven Jones. They were not your own. Do you have any of your own thoughts on this issue? If so, please express them within the context of the debate that Architect requested. If not, then be man enough to admit it and concede.

[ZENSMACK89]

What you posted were the thoughts and questions of Steven Jones. They were not your own. Do you have any of your own thoughts on this issue? If so, please express them within the context of the debate that Architect requested. If not, then be man enough to admit it and concede.
So it's settled. You can't read.

[Regnad Kcin]

...If you have a question for me then ask it. I'm not going anywhere.What are your qualifications for debating any of the technical aspects of this subject?

[ZENSMACK89]

What are your qualifications for debating any of the technical aspects of this subject?
Someone asked me.

[pomeroo]

Yes and that roadway was also elevated. Did it collapse?


I mentioned this before and you shrugged it off, but, seriously, you bring absolutely nothing to the table.

[ZENSMACK89]

I mentioned this before and you shrugged it off, but, seriously, you bring absolutely nothing to the table.
So why do you bother?

[ZENSMACK89]

I mentioned this before and you shrugged it off, but, seriously, you bring absolutely nothing to the table.
I'm not the one with the only thing to offer is a lame attempt to compare the collapse of one portion of an overpass with the global collapse of the WTC.

Talk about having nothing.

[Regnad Kcin]

Someone asked me.None, then?

[ZENSMACK89]

None, then?
I'll post my resume with everyone else's including yours. Where do I go?

[beachnut]

So why do you bother?
Another fact filled post confirms why.

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm not the one presenting opinions counter to the hundreds of experts in the relevant fields with regard to their findings on the subject of the events of 9/11.

I trust that my doctor knows what he's talking about when he offers a diagnosis. If you disagree with him, best you're not a short order cook.

[ZENSMACK89]

I'm not the one presenting opinions counter to the hundreds of experts in the relevant fields with regard to their findings on the subject of the events of 9/11.

I trust that my doctor knows what he's talking about when he offers a diagnosis. If you disagree with him, best you're not a short order cook.
So then you can match up to the two degrees in Physics Steven Jones has?

I mean you did bring it up. Where's your qualifications?

I didn't ask to debate anyone. Someone who claims to be an architect asked me. Why is that?

Is it because I bring nothing to the table?

Why bother then?

[ZENSMACK89]

Another fact filled post confirms why.
Still waiting for anything that even resembles a fact from you.

[uk_dave]

Yes I accept that steel can be compromised by fire.

Please confirm that you understand that the Steel Framed part of the Windsor Tower structure failed catastrophically during the fire and that the reinforced concrete part of the structure did not suffer a similar failure?

I would like to know that you understand this.

If these facts have now sunk in (or been reluctantly accepted by you) I trust you see how the Windsor Tower fire is a very BAD example for a 'truther' to use to illustrate how invincible steel structures are to fire, but it is a nice example of how fire can destroy a steel framed structure.

Get it now?

[beachnut]

Still waiting for anything that even resembles a fact from you.
Still no facts and still why. Your lack of comprehension will keep you in the darkness of 9/11 lies, disguised as "9/11 truth".

[leftysergeant]

So then you can match up to the two degrees in Physics Steven Jones has?


You are arguing ad authoritam here, citing Jones as your authority. Jones is known to be intellectually slovenly. Other physicists not known to be slovenly researchers contradict him.

Your authority has some kind of schmutz on his nose and we are too busiy laughing to take you seriously when you schlep him out to support your position to take you seriously.

[Belz...]

The Hindenburg?

Now, Zen, it has become painfully clear that you are NOT interested either in a civil debate nor a mature one. You're just here to pull people's chains, and you don't believe a single word of the conspiracy drivel you've been dumping on us, here.

I hope you become more responsible when you grow up, but I doubt it.

[Belz...]

What you claim to be on an anonomus forum is of no interest to me.

Typical truther silliness. Be a "skeptic" about everything you don't believe in. Accept everything else without question.

And do you dispute that the fire within the towers was of sufficient intensity to cause such failure in this particular instance?
I dispute that it's been proven.

Why ?

Talk about having nothing.

:id:

[Dave_46]

I'll post my resume with everyone else's including yours. Where do I go?


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70895

Dave

[ZENSMACK89]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70895

Dave
#310

Where's yours?

[ZENSMACK89]

Please confirm that you understand that the Steel Framed part of the Windsor Tower structure failed catastrophically during the fire and that the reinforced concrete part of the structure did not suffer a similar failure?

I would like to know that you understand this.

If these facts have now sunk in (or been reluctantly accepted by you) I trust you see how the Windsor Tower fire is a very BAD example for a 'truther' to use to illustrate how invincible steel structures are to fire, but it is a nice example of how fire can destroy a steel framed structure.

Get it now?
Please confirm that even the steel part of the Windsor Tower lasted much longer the WTC. An entire 1/3 of the Windsor tower was engulfed in flames for hours and additional fires reached as low as the 4th floor.

Get it yet? Any of it?

[Belz...]

What I get is that the steel components of the tower COLLAPSED, which serves to show that steel + fire = bad.

[NYCEMT86]

Please confirm that even the steel part of the Windsor Tower lasted much longer the WTC. An entire 1/3 of the Windsor tower was engulfed in flames for hours and additional fires reached as low as the 4th floor.

Get it yet? Any of it?

Windsor Fire Time frame

23:00
Fire started at the 21st Floor

23:05 ~ 23:20
After receiving a fire signal, the security guards went to the 21st floor and attempting to fight the fire before giving up

23:21
Fire brigade was called

23:25
Fire brigade arrived

23:30
Fire brigade started to fight the fire (news report)

00:00
All floors above the 21st floor were in fire (news report)

00:30
Fire brigade retreated and adopted a defensive position, preventing fire spread to adjacent buildings

02:00
Fire spread below the 17th floor

02:15
Chunks of facade started falling off (news report)

03:30
Fire spread below 16th floor, crossing over the upper technical floor

04:00
Floors at upper level collapsed (news report)

05:30
Fire spread below the 12th floor (news report)

08:30
Fire spread below the 4th floor

13:30
Fire was under controlled

17:00
Fire brigade declared the put out of the fire (news report)



Collapse Time frame

1:29
East face of the 21st floor collapsed

1:37
South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed

1:50
Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:02
Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:11
Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:13
Floors above about 25th floor collapsed
Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor

2:17
Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:47
Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed

2:51
Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed

3:35
South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed
Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor

3:48
Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor

4:17
Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down

[nicepants]

Yes and that roadway was also elevated. Did it collapse?

No:

1 - It was a different roadway
2 - It was not subject to fire as the bridge was.

Point being, the steel structure of the bridge collapsed because fire weakened said structure. Therefore, such is possible without explosives. (Unless you have proof that explosives were used)

[ZENSMACK89]

No:

1 - It was a different roadway
2 - It was not subject to fire as the bridge was.

Point being, the steel structure of the bridge collapsed because fire weakened said structure. Therefore, such is possible without explosives. (Unless you have proof that explosives were used)


OK

Were all the floors of the WTC on fire? I'm trying to see how this overpass equates not only to the WTC but how does one consider it a global collapse? I not saying the roadway that failed didn't collapse but if you are going to relate it to the WTC then what happen when the floors that were on fire in the WTC hit the floors below that weren’t on fire and not even from the same distance as the two roadways? What happen according to the official version that is? The fires of the WTC were also not as concentrated as a tanker full of fuel.

[ZENSMACK89]

Windsor Fire Time frame

23:00
Fire started at the 21st Floor

23:05 ~ 23:20
After receiving a fire signal, the security guards went to the 21st floor and attempting to fight the fire before giving up

23:21
Fire brigade was called

23:25
Fire brigade arrived

23:30
Fire brigade started to fight the fire (news report)

00:00
All floors above the 21st floor were in fire (news report)

00:30
Fire brigade retreated and adopted a defensive position, preventing fire spread to adjacent buildings

02:00
Fire spread below the 17th floor

02:15
Chunks of facade started falling off (news report)

03:30
Fire spread below 16th floor, crossing over the upper technical floor

04:00
Floors at upper level collapsed (news report)

05:30
Fire spread below the 12th floor (news report)

08:30
Fire spread below the 4th floor

13:30
Fire was under controlled

17:00
Fire brigade declared the put out of the fire (news report)



Collapse Time frame

1:29
East face of the 21st floor collapsed

1:37
South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed

1:50
Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:02
Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:11
Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:13
Floors above about 25th floor collapsed
Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor

2:17
Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:47
Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed

2:51
Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed

3:35
South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed
Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor

3:48
Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor

4:17
Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down
Well walk me through this maybe I'm missing something.

The fire started at 23:00 hours all floors above the 21st floor were on fire at 00:00 hours and the first collapse occurred at 4:00 hours?

What did the WTC look like after this much time had passed?

[nicepants]

OK

Were all the floors of the WTC on fire? I'm trying to see how this overpass equates not only to the WTC but how does one consider it a global collapse?

It collapsed...I don't know what else you're looking for.

I not saying the roadway that failed didn't collapse but if you are going to relate it to the WTC then what happen when the floors that were on fire in the WTC hit the floors below that weren’t on fire and not even from the same distance as the two roadways?

I'm not equating the entire structure to the WTC....my point is that the fire caused the steel to weaken, which caused the structure to succomb to gravity. That result was also seen in the WTC towers.

A highway overpass is designed to hold more weight than the floor of an office building, and the support structure was completely different, so after one floor collapses, the similarities end.

What happen according to the official version that is? The fires of the WTC were also not as concentrated as a tanker full of fuel.

On that highway, the tanker was the ONLY source of fuel. In the WTC...fuel sources were EVERYWHERE.. Offices, furniture, doors, desks, computers, carpet, jet fuel, etc.

Again, bottom line, fire causes steel to lose strength. Lose enough strength, and it fails to support its designed load. This will happen regardless of whether or not a global collapse is initiated.

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm not the one presenting opinions counter to the hundreds of experts in the relevant fields with regard to their findings on the subject of the events of 9/11.

I trust that my doctor knows what he's talking about when he offers a diagnosis. If you disagree with him, best you're not a short order cook.So then you can match up to the two degrees in Physics Steven Jones has?Are you Steven Jones?
I mean you did bring it up. Where's your qualifications?

I didn't ask to debate anyone. Someone who claims to be an architect asked me. Why is that?

Is it because I bring nothing to the table?

Why bother then?Again, my qualifications are of no importance. It is you who are asserting things counter to the status quo. If you wish to remain coy about your background and education, don't be surprised when your thoughts are given less weight than those who sign their names to their work.

What you "bring to the table" is little more than oft-addressed points that have been refuted time and time again. You're welcome to try something new. But those pesky extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why bother? Good question. When I first joined these discussions I was under the impression that those "asking questions" about 9/11 were sincerely interested in having them answered. It has become clear that the great majority are either ignorant and unwilling to do the work necessary to elevate themselves from their stupor, or agenda-driven liars. I "bother" because both types upset me just a bit.

Oh, and Architect has provided his credentials to several people on the forum, only choosing to refrain from making them fully public. You can do the same (say, PMing them to a moderator) if you like.

[Checkmite]

OK

Were all the floors of the WTC on fire? I'm trying to see how this overpass equates not only to the WTC but how does one consider it a global collapse? I not saying the roadway that failed didn't collapse but if you are going to relate it to the WTC then what happen when the floors that were on fire in the WTC hit the floors below that weren’t on fire and not even from the same distance as the two roadways? What happen according to the official version that is? The fires of the WTC were also not as concentrated as a tanker full of fuel.

Once the support was destroyed, the tower was basically seperated into two seperate structures, with the upper one being "dropped" on the lower one. Notice during the collapse, the entire "upper structure" begins to fall as a unit (it slowly disintegrates on the way down). So you don't have the weight of one floor falling onto another floor, you have the weight of 14 (or however many, etc) floors falling onto one floor and collapsing it.

[uk_dave]

The fire started at 23:00 hours all floors above the 21st floor were on fire at 00:00 hours and the first collapse occurred at 4:00 hours?

What did the WTC look like after this much time had passed?

So, steel structure collapsed through fire alone? Yes? You get it now?

OK

How long do you think the wtc towers should have survived the fires there?

1. 30 minutes?
2. 60 minutes?
3. 120 minutes?
4. 480 minutes?
5. Indefinately

Go on, give it your best guess. Trust me, it is possible to estimate this. (unless you go for (5) in which case you need a check up from the neck up)

[ZENSMACK89]

It collapsed...I don't know what else you're looking for.

I'm looking for Global collapse from a full tanker of fuel.

I'm not equating the entire structure to the WTC....my point is that the fire caused the steel to weaken, which caused the structure to succomb to gravity. That result was also seen in the WTC towers.

The overpass doesn't compare but I didn't bring it up. Yes we all know about gravity. My point was according to the official version on the WTC the floors pulverized in midair as they fell and hit the next floor. What did this falling mass of overpass pulverize when fell?

A highway overpass is designed to hold more weight than the floor of an office building, and the support structure was completely different, so after one floor collapses, the similarities end.

Don't they equate? One mass design with a certain strength falling on one of equal strength. No? In fact I believe the floors of the WTC were lighter at the top. They also they weren’t as far apart as the overpass.

On that highway, the tanker was the ONLY source of fuel. In the WTC...fuel sources were EVERYWHERE... Offices, furniture, doors, desks, computers, carpet, jet fuel, etc.

The tanker was a full tank of fuel though I don't know how many gallons that is. NIST estimated the tanks in the planes were about half full with most of it burning up in the fireball. All other Jet fuel 10-15 minutes later. Office content fires burned up in any give area in about 20-25 minutes. I also saw something once where Jet fuel doesn't burn as hot as gasoline but I'll have to see if I can confirm this.

http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Tanker_Fire_Literally_Melts_Freeway_Pics?t=6406121
by nakedtruth on 04/30/2007
Gasoline burns at a much higher temperature than does jet fuel. Even the "9/11 debunkers" at Popular Mechanics admit that jet fuel only burns between 800 and 1500 degrees C. Gasoline burns at over 2000 degrees C putting it MUCH higher than temperature of jet fuel.


Again, bottom line, fire causes steel to lose strength. Lose enough strength, and it fails to support its designed load. This will happen regardless of whether or not a global collapse is initiated.

Fire does weaken steel. But the question is how hot and for how long to cause Global collapse of multiple supports at the same time.

[johnny karate]

Fire does weaken steel. But the question is how hot and for how long to cause Global collapse of multiple supports at the same time.

Then this would be the part where you tell us how long the WTC buildings should have burned before they collapsed and how NIST got it wrong. Please provide your calculations to support these claims.

[ZENSMACK89]

So, steel structure collapsed through fire alone? Yes? You get it now?

OK

How long do you think the wtc towers should have survived the fires there?

1. 30 minutes?
2. 60 minutes?
3. 120 minutes?
4. 480 minutes?
5. Indefinately

Go on, give it your best guess. Trust me, it is possible to estimate this. (unless you go for (5) in which case you need a check up from the neck up)
How about the top of the WTC should last at least as long as the top of the Windsor. I think NIST found only 3 inches of sag after 2 hours but needed 42 inches in an hour to just initiate collapse in the computer model. Still then when it collapses how does it do it evenly enough to evenly smash the intact floors below all the way down? And how much weight and load is left after these supposedly intense fires burned everything up? Did you see the top of the Windsor? It looked like a house of sticks. And what are you claiming? A dynamic broken up unsecured mass broke through a static mass of still intact floors all the way down to the ground level? What is this pile driver made of and where is any significant part of it at the end of the collapse? What pulverizes first? The falling floor when it hits the next floor or the floor that gets hit? Why didn’t NIST model this?

[ZENSMACK89]

Are you Steven Jones?
Again, my qualifications are of no importance. It is you who are asserting things counter to the status quo. If you wish to remain coy about your background and education, don't be surprised when your thoughts are given less weight than those who sign their names to their work.

What you "bring to the table" is little more than oft-addressed points that have been refuted time and time again. You're welcome to try something new. But those pesky extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why bother? Good question. When I first joined these discussions I was under the impression that those "asking questions" about 9/11 were sincerely interested in having them answered. It has become clear that the great majority are either ignorant and unwilling to do the work necessary to elevate themselves from their stupor, or agenda-driven liars. I "bother" because both types upset me just a bit.

Oh, and Architect has provided his credentials to several people on the forum, only choosing to refrain from making them fully public. You can do the same (say, PMing them to a moderator) if you like.
So now there's a pre-requisite for posting on JREF? Stop dodging. If you're going to claim someone unworthy to debate the official version of 9-11 then present your own worthiness and stop hiding behind Architect. What are you his agent?

He asked me to debate not the other way around.

Why is that?

[The Almond]

How about the top of the WTC should last at least as long as the top of the Windsor. I think NIST found only 3 inches of sag after 2 hours but needed 42 inches in an hour to just initiate collapse in the computer model.

If you would please read page 141 of NCSTAR 1 as I suggested to you in another thread, you would learn the context of NIST's scale load test. The tests were done to establish a baseline performance for the structure of the floors, not to validate the computer model.

Still then when it collapses how does it do it evenly enough to evenly smash the intact floors below all the way down? And how much weight and load is left after these supposedly intense fires burned everything up?

NCSTAR 1-6 has most of the answers to these questions. Specifically, I would suggest reading the section on collapse initiation. It should make it very clear why the floors failed the way they did.

Did you see the top of the Windsor? It looked like a house of sticks. And what are you claiming? A dynamic broken up unsecured mass broke through a static mass of still intact floors all the way down to the ground level?

The video evidence, along with they eyewitness testimonies of thousands of witnesses saw this exact thing happen. Why do you deny it?

What is this pile driver made of and where is any significant part of it at the end of the collapse? What pulverizes first? The falling floor when it hits the next floor or the floor that gets hit? Why didn’t NIST model this?
At the end of the NCSTAR 1, there is a reproduction of the National Construction Safety Team Act. Congress did not direct NIST to model the entirety of the collapse.

Beyond that, the computation power and complexity involved in modeling the entire collapse is not feasible. There are millions of elements, thousands of equations and thousands of variables. I'd also like to mention that there's not scientific basis for modeling a collapse in a computer to see if it simulates real life.

[DavidJames]

How about the top of the WTC should last at least as long as the top of the Windsor.In addition to reading, as The Almond suggests, how about you show your analysis which leads you to that conclusions?

[uk_dave]

How about the top of the WTC should last at least as long as the top of the Windsor. I think NIST found only 3 inches of sag after 2 hours but needed 42 inches in an hour to just initiate collapse in the computer model. Still then when it collapses how does it do it evenly enough to evenly smash the intact floors below all the way down? And how much weight and load is left after these supposedly intense fires burned everything up? Did you see the top of the Windsor? It looked like a house of sticks. And what are you claiming? A dynamic broken up unsecured mass broke through a static mass of still intact floors all the way down to the ground level? What is this pile driver made of and where is any significant part of it at the end of the collapse? What pulverizes first? The falling floor when it hits the next floor or the floor that gets hit? Why didn’t NIST model this?

No, what I'm saying is that, depending on the building codes in force at the time of construction, the wtc tower steel would have be given fire protection designed to resist the effects of fire for a given period of time.

Fire proofing isn't a matter of just applying any old inert material at any old thickness. It is DESIGNED to protect for as long as it is deemed necessary to evacuate the building and to give the firefighters a chance to control the blaze.

The windsor tower had fireproofing. It did it's job. But the steel eventually failed.

The WTC towers had impact from large commercial aircraft. The structures were damaged. It is not unreasonable to speculate that the fireproofing was also damaged. This means that some areas of the towers were effectively unprotected against fire.

You now jump to the matter of how the structure above the damage zone managed to destroy the structure below it. I will assume, therefore, that you now understand that steel will fail in fire and that fireproofing is applied in order to delay this failure. Perhaps we're making progress with you.

Now, once again you argue from ignorance on the subject of the global collapse.

Let's say you have a suspension bridge and you cause a large number of the supporting cables to break. What happens? Well, if you break enough then the bridge deck will fail because it is no longer supported. But you never broke the bridge deck, you broke the cables. Amazing, huh?

This goes to show that structures are interdependent upon their various elements. The bridge deck may be sound and undamaged, but remove the support it requires and it fails.

The WTC towers were engineered structures. They were Dependant on the various structural elements in order to remain standing. Remove the perimeter columns and the fall down. Remove the floors and they fall down.

When the wtc towers failed it was because the floor trusses were no longer able to withstand the fires. Did they lose fireproofing during the plane impacts? It would be amazing if they had not.

Once the flor trusses started to fail they pulled at the perimeter columns. These columns were not designed to take this amount of lateral load. They failed.

We then had a fall of material from the point of failure, down onto the sound structure below.

But this structure was designed to accept normal live and dead loads calculated upon normal usage and environmental conditions.

The failure of the upper structure overloaded the lower structure. Floors below the initiation point failed. As the floors failed, so did the lateral restraint to the perimeter columns. These columns, unrestrained but still transferring a load from above, moved out of upright, something they were not designed to do. The columns then failed.

Get it now?

[beachnut]

How about the top of the WTC should last at least as long as the top of the Windsor. I think NIST found only 3 inches of sag after 2 hours but needed 42 inches in an hour to just initiate collapse in the computer model. Still then when it collapses how does it do it evenly enough to evenly smash the intact floors below all the way down? And how much weight and load is left after these supposedly intense fires burned everything up? Did you see the top of the Windsor? It looked like a house of sticks. And what are you claiming? A dynamic broken up unsecured mass broke through a static mass of still intact floors all the way down to the ground level? What is this pile driver made of and where is any significant part of it at the end of the collapse? What pulverizes first? The falling floor when it hits the next floor or the floor that gets hit? Why didn’t NIST model this?
NIST was using fire protected steel. Do you even understand this stuff? No facts still?

The WTC fires were started all at once, not in one small place. I have never seen, until 9/11, a fire started in an office building with 20,000 gallons of accelerant.

You have lost this one, and this is a reason why.

[ZENSMACK89]

If you would please read page 141 of NCSTAR 1 as I suggested to you in another thread, you would learn the context of NIST's scale load test. The tests were done to establish a baseline performance for the structure of the floors, not to validate the computer model.

Good so what's invalid the computer model or the physical fire test? What’s more likely?

NCSTAR 1-6 has most of the answers to these questions. Specifically, I would suggest reading the section on collapse initiation. It should make it very clear why the floors failed the way they did

Actually I sited NCSTAR 1-6 on the very thread you speak of before you ever replied to me. I know all about the NIST theory of collapse initiation. I suggest you go back and read their own disclaimers before you go reciting NIST as Gospel on the collapse of the towers.

The video evidence, along with they eyewitness testimonies of thousands of witnesses saw this exact thing happen. Why do you deny it?


Because there is no video evidence of the inside of the towers or things like 42 inches of sag.

At the end of the NCSTAR 1, there is a reproduction of the National Construction Safety Team Act. Congress did not direct NIST to model the entirety of the collapse.

Lucky for them.

Beyond that, the computation power and complexity involved in modeling the entire collapse is not feasible. There are millions of elements, thousands of equations and thousands of variables. I'd also like to mention that there's not scientific basis for modeling a collapse in a computer to see if it simulates real life.


Yes I know all about the problems NIST had with the complexity of their own computer modeling. Maybe that’s why they needed to tweak the numbers? I agree it would be hard to marry real life and the official version of the WTC collapse. Maybe Hollywood should try.

[ZENSMACK89]

In addition to reading, as The Almond suggests, how about you show your analysis which leads you to that conclusions?
I already did as far as my observations. Beyond that I have no access to any physical evidence and as you probably well know even NIST had limited access in that area.

How about you?

[DavidJames]

I already did as far as my observations. Beyond that I have no access to any physical evidence and as you probably well know even NIST had limited access in that area.

How about you?I'm not arrogant enough to make unqualified assertions. Especially ones which lead to accusation of murder.

How about you? Oh wait, you already have.

[johnny karate]

ZEN, what "physical evidence" to you require access to in order perform your calculations?

[ZENSMACK89]

ZEN, what "physical evidence" to you require access to in order perform your calculations?
Being that I don’t have a lab and I don’t think my neighbors would appreciate me performing any fire tests in my basement I'd have to say none for myself personally.

I would point out though that if NIST did perform many fire tests where collapse “did not occur” and derived some numbers from that testing one would think they wouldn’t stray too far from those numbers just to work backwards towards a pre-determined conclusion.

I would also think that NIST should have looked deeper into investigating the rapid corrosion phenomenon FEMA found in their steel examinations and felt was in need of closer look.

[ZENSMACK89]

I'm not arrogant enough to make unqualified assertions. Especially ones which lead to accusation of murder.

Don't be modest. You're plenty arrogant.

How about you? Oh wait, you already have.

Why do people here keep responding to someone they feel is such an arrogant unqualified person? And asking them questions no less. Why is that?

[DavidJames]

Why do people here keep responding to someone they feel is such an arrogant unqualified person? And asking them questions no less. Why is that?Speaking personally, I feel it's important to point out when people are making baseless and unfounded accusations. I feel it's important to point out and keep pointing out when unqualified people make baseless and unsubstantiated claims.

Personally, I know you're blowing smoke out your butt, but there may be new lurkers who haven't caught on to that disingenuous game you CTists play.

[cloudshipsrule]

Why do people here keep responding to someone they feel is such an arrogant unqualified person?

It's a great time-waster while things at work are a little slow.

[The Almond]

Good so what's invalid the computer model or the physical fire test? What’s more likely?

Fallacy, false dichotomy. For the third time, NIST was establishing a baseline performance for a scale model of the WTC floor design. There were numerous differences between the standardized test and the actual conditions in the WTC tower. Thus, the two results cannot be compared directly.

Actually I sited NCSTAR 1-6 on the very thread you speak of before you ever replied to me. I know all about the NIST theory of collapse initiation. I suggest you go back and read their own disclaimers before you go reciting NIST as Gospel on the collapse of the towers.

I noticed that you didn't bother to address my objection.

Because there is no video evidence of the inside of the towers or things like 42 inches of sag.

So video evidence is the only way to prove that something is happening?

Lucky for them.

I'll take that to mean, "I concede the point."

Yes I know all about the problems NIST had with the complexity of their own computer modeling.

Problems or challenges? And I'm talking about the infeasability of modeling a post collapse initiation event, not of modeling the events to collapse initiation.

Maybe that’s why they needed to tweak the numbers?

Per our discussion in the other thread, if you have a stochastic model, you need to fit it to global parameters. NIST chose the model that most closely matched the observed photographic and video evidence. That's not tweaking the numbers, that's rejecting scenarios that don't reflect reality.

I agree it would be hard to marry real life and the official version of the WTC collapse. Maybe Hollywood should try.

Sarcasm is a poor rhetoric tool. It's not just hard, it's impossible without making wild, unrealistic assumptions and simplifications. That's why it's done in Hollywood, not in science.

[ZENSMACK89]

No, what I'm saying is that, depending on the building codes in force at the time of construction, the wtc tower steel would have be given fire protection designed to resist the effects of fire for a given period of time.

Actually the opposite would be true for the still standing Windsorhttp://ncdr.nat.gov.tw/iwerr/doc/pdf/S12%20PDF/s12-1.pdf
• The lack of a sprinkler system
• Incorrect installation of spandrels
• The lack of fire prevention regulations in Spain

Fire proofing isn't a matter of just applying any old inert material at any old thickness. It is DESIGNED to protect for as long as it is deemed necessary to evacuate the building and to give the firefighters a chance to control the blaze.

Ok?

The Windsor tower had fireproofing. It did it's job. But the steel eventually failed.

The trade centers had fire proofing. The sheering off of this fire-proofing is a theory by NIST.

Purdue also had a theory for their model that it burned off then the seel was heated enough to initiate collapse.

They’re both just theories to try and explain how the steel could possibly fail as quick as it did.

The WTC towers had impact from large commercial aircraft. The structures were damaged. It is not unreasonable to speculate that the fireproofing was also damaged. This means that some areas of the towers were effectively unprotected against fire.
You now jump to the matter of how the structure above the damage zone managed to destroy the structure below it. I will assume, therefore, that you now understand that steel will fail in fire and that fireproofing is applied in order to delay this failure. Perhaps we're making progress with you.

It’s not unreasonable to speculate that the fireproofing was knocked off of pieces of steel that were damaged by the plane on impact. Most of that steel is already compromised by the impact. How did the plane knock off the fireproofing on steel that didn’t fail until an hour later that wasn’t damaged by the plane?

Now, once again you argue from ignorance on the subject of the global collapse.

Let's say you have a suspension bridge and you cause a large number of the supporting cables to break. What happens? Well, if you break enough then the bridge deck will fail because it is no longer supported. But you never broke the bridge deck, you broke the cables. Amazing, huh?

What would happen if you stacked 80 of them on top of each other. Would they all fall straight down to dust and no pieces longer then what a flat bed could haul away?

This goes to show that structures are interdependent upon their various elements. The bridge deck may be sound and undamaged, but remove the support it requires and it fails.

The WTC towers were engineered structures. They were Dependant on the various
structural elements in order to remain standing. Remove the perimeter columns and the fall down. Remove the floors and they fall down.

When the wtc towers failed it was because the floor trusses were no longer able to withstand the fires. Did they lose fireproofing during the plane impacts? It would be amazing if they had not.

Once the floor trusses started to fail they pulled at the perimeter columns. These columns were not designed to take this amount of lateral load. They failed.

We then had a fall of material from the point of failure, down onto the sound structure below.

But this structure was designed to accept normal live and dead loads calculated upon normal usage and environmental conditions.

The failure of the upper structure overloaded the lower structure. Floors below the initiation point failed. As the floors failed, so did the lateral restraint to the perimeter columns. These columns, unrestrained but still transferring a load from above, moved out of upright, something they were not designed to do. The columns then failed.

Get it now?

The following begs to differ.

Several building design features have been identified as key to the buildings' ability to remain standing as long as they did and to allow the evacuation of most building occupants. These included the following:
• robustness and redundancy of the steel framing system
• adequate egress stairways that were well marked and lighted
• conscientious implementation of emergency exiting training programs for building tenants

Similarly, several design features have been identified that may have played a role in allowing the buildings to collapse in the manner that they did and in the inability of victims at and above the impact floors to safely exit. These features should not be regarded either as design deficiencies or as features that should be prohibited in future building codes. Rather, these are features that should be subjected to more detailed evaluation, in order to understand their contribution to the performance of these buildings and how they may perform in other buildings. These include the following:
•the type of steel floor truss system present in these buildings and their structural robustness and redundancy when compared to other structural systems
•use of impact-resistant enclosures around egress paths
•resistance of passive fire protection to blasts and impacts in buildings designed to provide resistance to such hazards
•grouping emergency egress stairways in the central building core, as opposed to dispersing them throughout the structure

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm

[johnny karate]

Being that I don’t have a lab and I don’t think my neighbors would appreciate me performing any fire tests in my basement I'd have to say none for myself personally.

So you readily admit that A) you have no access to physical evidence that you imply would be necessary to conduct testing and B) you lack the proper facilities and equipment to conduct testing. This leads one to the obvious conclusion that you have actually not done any sort of proper scientific analysis to support your claims.

This being the case, how can you possibly assume your conclusions are correct?

[Regnad Kcin]

So now there's a pre-requisite for posting on JREF?Of course not. And of course I never said or implied there was.

Stop dodging. If you're going to claim someone unworthy to debate the official version of 9-11 then present your own worthiness and stop hiding behind Architect. What are you his agent?This is growing tiresome.

First, I am not dodging. I am not making a claim in regard to the subject at hand; you are. It's true that I side with the conventional wisdom, but that is because I have been persuaded by all manner of pertinent work, published and reviewed by the thousands of engineers and analysists who have put their names to it. You may stop dodging and attempting to shift the burden of proof to me, however.

Second, I have not suggested you are unworthy to debate. However, it would be interesting to know if you are qualified to hold forth on subjects related to high-rise construction and demolition.

Third, I am not "hiding behind Architect" in any way, shape, or manner. You, however, have evaded his offer to discuss the subject in general or in detail.

He asked me to debate not the other way around.

Why is that?Who knows? Furthermore, what difference does it make? Do you have facts and the educational background to articulate and defend them? It's a yes or no question.

[ZENSMACK89]

Speaking personally, I feel it's important to point out when people are making baseless and unfounded accusations. I feel it's important to point out and keep pointing out when unqualified people make baseless and unsubstantiated claims.

Personally, I know you're blowing smoke out your butt, but there may be new lurkers who haven't caught on to that disingenuous game you CTists play.


You mean it's not obvious to everyone? Do you feel you have to point it out to the stupid people? Who's arrogant?

[ZENSMACK89]

Who knows? Furthermore, what difference does it make? Do you have facts and the educational background to articulate and defend them? It's a yes or no question.

Do you have the facts or education to dispute them? After all you are the one who dug the qualifications hole for yourself.

[ZENSMACK89]

This being the case, how can you possibly assume your conclusions are correct?


I didn't dispute what NIST found in the physical fire test. They found collapse "did not occur". Is that not the version you believe? I'm pointing to how when NIST could not reproduce collapse in their own fire tests they went to the computer and tweaked the numbers. If you want proof read the report.

[Architect]

Just a mo. And that means all of you.

Zen, I do intend to come back to the NIST steel failure assessment/fire concerns you have. But first, looking at the last few posts, it may be helpful if we just stop and check that we're coming at this from the same direction.

What is your understanding of the collapse initiation process, as set out by NIST?

[uk_dave]

The trade centers had fire proofing. The sheering off of this fire-proofing is a theory by NIST.

Purdue also had a theory for their model that it burned off then the seel was heated enough to initiate collapse.

They’re both just theories to try and explain how the steel could possibly fail as quick as it did.



It’s not unreasonable to speculate that the fireproofing was knocked off of pieces of steel that were damaged by the plane on impact. Most of that steel is already compromised by the impact. How did the plane knock off the fireproofing on steel that didn’t fail until an hour later that wasn’t damaged by the plane?

So, you're saying that only the steel which was damaged by the plane impact could have had it's fireproofing knocked off? It's all or nothing, right?

If a steel truss was hit by fast moving pieces of landing gear but wasn't destroyed by it, you're saying the fireproofing wasn't damaged either?

It is the nature of fireproofing materials that they tend to be brittle. What if the fireproofing on a structural member wasn't completely knocked off but was reduced in thickness by two thirds? Wouldn't you agree that this would have a profound affect on it's ability to protect the steel? If not, then why is the thickness specified in the first place? Why any thickness at all? Why not just a few microns of material to provide 4 hours fireprotection?

The odds are in favour of the fire proofing material being knocked off by the plane impacts.



What would happen if you stacked 80 of them on top of each other. Would they all fall straight down to dust and no pieces longer then what a flat bed could haul away?



I would say that dropping one bridge on to the stack of bridges below would cause sufficient damage for the failure to progress down through the stack. More so because you didn't cut the cables all at once and so the top bridge is tilted and when it falls it falls eccentrically and concentrates it's load on a smaller area of the lower stack.

That part of the lower bridge then fails before the rest of it and it too hits the next bridge down eccentrically.

And so forth.

All the way down.


The following begs to differ.

Several building design features have been identified as key to the buildings' ability to remain standing as long as they did and to allow the evacuation of most building occupants. These included the following:
• robustness and redundancy of the steel framing system
• adequate egress stairways that were well marked and lighted
• conscientious implementation of emergency exiting training programs for building tenants


Nothing wrong with that. The structures survived the impact of the planes. The remaining undamaged columns and trusses were able to accept the increased load transferred to them after failure of the damaged elements.

But, just like the Windsor building, the steel structure was going to fail eventually, unless the fires were put out. But they failed before the fires could be put out because the compromised fireproofing started to allow weakening of the remaining structure which was already accepting greater loading than before.


Similarly, several design features have been identified that may have played a role in allowing the buildings to collapse in the manner that they did and in the inability of victims at and above the impact floors to safely exit. These features should not be regarded either as design deficiencies or as features that should be prohibited in future building codes. Rather, these are features that should be subjected to more detailed evaluation, in order to understand their contribution to the performance of these buildings and how they may perform in other buildings. These include the following:
•the type of steel floor truss system present in these buildings and their structural robustness and redundancy when compared to other structural systems
•use of impact-resistant enclosures around egress paths
•resistance of passive fire protection to blasts and impacts in buildings designed to provide resistance to such hazards
•grouping emergency egress stairways in the central building core, as opposed to dispersing them throughout the structure

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm

Nothing wrong with any of that either.

Trusses are a compromise between robustness and handling. A solid 'I' beam would have survived the plane impacts much better than an engineered beam made up of many members. With an engineered beam, if you damage or remove some of the struts and ties you destroy it's loadbearing capacity. But trusses are easier to handle than solid steel beams (and they add less load to the supporting structure from their own self weight).

So, what's your point?

The towers performed well in some respects and poorly in others. But as NIST have said, rather than change building codes, it is better to stop a plane being flown in to the building in the first place.

And if you would prefer building codes to be changed we will see the end of elegant, slender steel structures and everything will end up being constructed in reinforced concrete (though the twin towers in kuala Lumpur are reinforced concrete, and they didn't do a bad job of that, but it wasn't an easy project and they actually had to develop a new mix of concrete to carry it out)

[ZENSMACK89]

Just a mo. And that means all of you.

Zen, I do intend to come back to the NIST steel failure assessment/fire concerns you have. But first, looking at the last few posts, it may be helpful if we just stop and check that we're coming at this from the same direction.

What is your understanding of the collapse initiation process, as set out by NIST?
Post 547

The NIST theory claims the force of the planes damaged or destroyed columns and sheered off fireproofing. Jet fuel though burning up in 10 to 20 minutes ignited building contents and weakened the steel that the fire proofing was sheered off of. The sheered off fire-proofing also allowed the fires to spread. Some have claimed the asbestos fireproofing that was in the lower floors of WTC1 would have done a better job. This all led to sagging which pulled inward thus according to NIST caused collapse initiation. This theory though different from the FEMA findings which blamed the fire more then the structural damage in my opinion is more in line with the original Bazant findings as stated in “Why did the World Trade Center towers collapse?”

[ZENSMACK89]

So, you're saying that only the steel which was damaged by the plane impact could have had it's fireproofing knocked off? It's all or nothing, right?

If a steel truss was hit by fast moving pieces of landing gear but wasn't destroyed by it, you're saying the fireproofing wasn't damaged either?


It could be sheered of by fragments of a plane according to NIST but probably not evenly distributed sheering. If it's knocked off as you say by a bigger piece of plane that would be in essence shaking it off then one could assume it's also causing pretty severe damage to the steel itself.

It is the nature of fireproofing materials that they tend to be brittle. What if the fireproofing on a structural member wasn't completely knocked off but was reduced in thickness by two thirds? Wouldn't you agree that this would have a profound affect on it's ability to protect the steel? If not, then why is the thickness specified in the first place? Why any thickness at all? Why not just a few microns of material to provide 4 hours fireprotection?

It certainly would have an effect on the steel but not profound in less then an hour from pockets of fire.

I would say that dropping one bridge on to the stack of bridges below would cause sufficient damage for the failure to progress down through the stack. More so because you didn't cut the cables all at once and so the top bridge is tilted and when it falls it falls eccentrically and concentrates it's load on a smaller area of the lower stack


That part of the lower bridge then fails before the rest of it and it too hits the next bridge down eccentrically.

And so forth.

All the way down.


I would say the odds are it would fall over the side enough during the collapse that it stops before it even gets halfway through.


Nothing wrong with that. The structures survived the impact of the planes. The remaining undamaged columns and trusses were able to accept the increased load transferred to them after failure of the damaged elements.

But, just like the Windsor building, the steel structure was going to fail eventually, unless the fires were put out. But they failed before the fires could be put out because the compromised fireproofing started to allow weakening of the remaining structure which was already accepting greater loading than before.

The Windsor was engulfed in flames for hours.

Nothing wrong with any of that either.

Trusses are a compromise between robustness and handling. A solid 'I' beam would have survived the plane impacts much better than an engineered beam made up of many members. With an engineered beam, if you damage or remove some of the struts and ties you destroy it's loadbearing capacity. But trusses are easier to handle than solid steel beams (and they add less load to the supporting structure from their own self weight).

So, what's your point?.


My point being that once the plane impact was over and the load bearing stood it should have kept standing unless there was significant increase in the load bearing or something like an earthquake or explosion occured.

The towers performed well in some respects and poorly in others. But as NIST have said, rather than change building codes, it is better to stop a plane being flown in to the building in the first place.

And if you would prefer building codes to be changed we will see the end of elegant, slender steel structures and everything will end up being constructed in reinforced concrete (though the twin towers in kuala Lumpur are reinforced concrete, and they didn't do a bad job of that, but it wasn't an easy project and they actually had to develop a new mix of concrete to carry it out)


Now this is something of real importance that you touch on that doesn't seem to get enough attention at all as far as I'm concerned. Building codes do need to be looked at and should have before ground was broken to rebuild on ground zero or anywhere else there are plans for a new high-rise. If I never see another person jump out of a window to their death because of terrorism of a fire it won't be too soon. There’s got to be a better way.

[nicepants]

I'm looking for Global collapse from a full tanker of fuel.

What would you define as a global collapse? The entire overpass? Including the areas that were not subject to fire?
The overpass doesn't compare but I didn't bring it up.

Overpass - Steel Structure
WTC - Steel Structure
Overpass - Subjected to fire
WTC - SUbjected to fire AND impacts
Overpass - Support beams buckled when fire weakened supporting steel
WTC - Support beams buckled when fire weakened supporting steel

Yeah, no comparison.

Yes we all know about gravity. My point was according to the official version on the WTC the floors pulverized in midair as they fell and hit the next floor.

Please source your claim that the floors pulverized in mid-air and not while colliding with other floors.

Don't they equate? One mass design with a certain strength falling on one of equal strength. No? In fact I believe the floors of the WTC were lighter at the top.

Source that the bridges were of equal strength?
Source that the WTC floors were lighter @ the top?
Source that one floor of the WTC could support the weight of another floor falling on it?

The tanker was a full tank of fuel though I don't know how many gallons that is. NIST estimated the tanks in the planes were about half full with most of it burning up in the fireball. All other Jet fuel 10-15 minutes later. Office content fires burned up in any give area in about 20-25 minutes. I also saw something once where Jet fuel doesn't burn as hot as gasoline but I'll have to see if I can confirm this.

The office contents continued to burn after the jet fuel was incinerated.

http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Tanker_Fire_Literally_Melts_Freeway_Pics?t=6406121
by nakedtruth on 04/30/2007
Gasoline burns at a much higher temperature than does jet fuel. Even the "9/11 debunkers" at Popular Mechanics admit that jet fuel only burns between 800 and 1500 degrees C. Gasoline burns at over 2000 degrees C putting it MUCH higher than temperature of jet fuel.

So, fire heats up the bridge and what happens...the steel becomes softer and softer until it collapses.

How hot would the steel in the WTC have to get in order for it to collapse?

Fire does weaken steel. But the question is how hot and for how long to cause Global collapse of multiple supports at the same time.

If enough supports collapse sequentially, eventually the load on the remaining supports will be too great and they will collapse simultaneously. Ever try lifting something so heavy that it takes 8 or 10 people? If one person lets go, then another...eventually the weight on the remaining people will be so great that they will all fail simultaneously. Same principle.

[Arus808]

why are you guys still entertaining this troll? he is not interested in debate, as proven by his claims and non-answers. he just loves to hear himself speak.

[Regnad Kcin]

Who knows? Furthermore, what difference does it make? Do you have facts and the educational background to articulate and defend them? It's a yes or no question.Do you have the facts or education to dispute them? After all you are the one who dug the qualifications hole for yourself.Mine was a yes or no question. Try again, please.

[uk_dave]

Would they all fall straight down to dust and no pieces longer then what a flat bed could haul away?


Important point I neglected to make:

The reason why the pieces were no longer than a flat bed could haul away was...........

......... (exciting isn't it?)..................

....... because that's how the pieces got there in the first place!!

I've always loved it when 'truthers' see significance in the short lengths of steel which resulted from the collapse. I mean, it's almost as if the imaginary controlled demolition also made sure the steels were cut into easily handled lengths.

And, of course, this fantasy reinforces the fact that 'truthers' have not the faintest idea about which they speak. The columns (as our friend Zen no doubt knows already) were not long, continuous lengths of steel from ground to roof. They were (relatively) short lengths bolted together. And (gasp!) what's the weakest pont on two solid steel members bolted together? The bolts! Amazing, aint it?

So, as those massive towers tore themselves to pieces on the way down to the ground they.... ummmmm... tore themselves to the same size pieces they were originally delivered to the site as. On the back of lorries.

[uk_dave]

why are you guys still entertaining this troll? he is not interested in debate, as proven by his claims and non-answers. he just loves to hear himself speak.

You should bear in mind that though one may be responding to the post of a 'truther', it might not actually be the 'truther' itself to whom the post is directed. ;)

[ZENSMACK89]

Mine was a yes or no question. Try again, please.


ditto

[ZENSMACK89]

So, as those massive towers tore themselves to pieces on the way down to the ground they.... ummmmm... tore themselves to the same size pieces they were originally delivered to the site as. On the back of lorries.


Yeah...
Every single bolt and weld right?

[Regnad Kcin]

dittoYour manners are as lacking as your comprehension abilities. Which is to say completely.

Continue to play your little games. The puerile and pathetic little games of the "truth" movement.

[ZENSMACK89]

Last time around on this stupid overpass

What would you define as a global collapse? The entire overpass? Including the areas that were not subject to fire?

Was every floor of the WTC hit by a plane or even on fire? Did the entire WTC fall down?


Overpass - Steel Structure
WTC - Steel Structure
Overpass - Subjected to fire
WTC - SUbjected to fire AND impacts
Overpass - Support beams buckled when fire weakened supporting steel
WTC - Support beams buckled when fire weakened supporting steel

Yeah, no comparison.


It was insinuated to me on my comparisons like the Windsor that it doesn’t compare because it wasn't hit by a plane.

Please source your claim that the floors pulverized in mid-air and not while colliding with other floors.

mid-air as in before ground level.


Source that the bridges were of equal strength?.


That's my question. Sources that they weren't, please.


Source that the WTC floors were lighter @ the top?


I'll try to find this for you. I know I read it somewhere.


Source that one floor of the WTC could support the weight of another floor falling on it?


That was the comparison to the overpass that did support the falling road.


The office contents continued to burn after the jet fuel was incinerated.


Yes. Did I dispute this? How long did officie contents take to burn up in any given area? NIST claims 20 -25 minutes.


So, fire heats up the bridge and what happens...the steel becomes softer and softer until it collapses.


The bolts most likley failed. Not exactly truss failure. And how thick is that steel in the overpass? hmmmmm


How hot would the steel in the WTC have to get in order for it to collapse?


NIST never found out. They only got as far as 3 inches of sag after 2 hours. Twice as long as it took the WTC to collapse.



If enough supports collapse sequentially, eventually the load on the remaining supports will be too great and they will collapse simultaneously. Ever try lifting something so heavy that it takes 8 or 10 people? If one person lets go, then another...eventually the weight on the remaining people will be so great that they will all fail simultaneously. Same principle.


That's a very poor comparison of the obvious way the towers were witnessed to collapse. If it did happen like your comparison it might of made more sense. The towers fell like everyone let go at the same time.

[ZENSMACK89]

http://911blogger.com/node/10779

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

[PhantomWolf]

http://911blogger.com/node/10779

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.
And of course you are ignoring the entire thread on that topic that you could have posted in, the one where it is posted:

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the TwinTowers were brought down by pre-planted explosives.

[DavidJames]

You’re the third CTists to bring this up in the past few hours. In fact you overlooked a thread dedicated to it. Are you ready for the big shocker? None of you included his quotes where he states he doesn’t support a CT. Plus, when he’s looking for alternative theories, the alternative he’s thinking of is just a variation on the NIST theory.

Disingenuous, arrogance and ignorance, three attributes of the common CTist.

But please, keep posting, you are a great spokesman for the CT crowd, you guys do more to hurt your cause then anyone on this forum could ever hope to do :D

[ZENSMACK89]

You’re the third CTists to bring this up in the past few hours. In fact you overlooked a thread dedicated to it. Are you ready for the big shocker? None of you included his quotes where he states he doesn’t support a CT. Plus, when he’s looking for alternative theories, the alternative he’s thinking of is just a variation on the NIST theory.

Can you hear me laughing?

Disingenuous, arrogance and ignorance, three attributes of the common CTist.

attributes? maybe for you.

But please, keep posting

Oh you can bet on it.

[ZENSMACK89]

And of course you are ignoring the entire thread on that topic that you could have posted in, the one where it is posted:
No I've been there too.

lol

I didn't want any of you to miss it. It's just the kinda guy I am.

You're welcome.

[uk_dave]

Yeah...
Every single bolt and weld right?


You tell me. You're the one claiming that the towers collapsed into individual pieces which could be fitted on a flatbed and taken away. I guess those pictures of the clean-up crews cutting steel on the site were faked then.

If there were short sections it was because they started out as short sections and the joints failed during the collapse. Simple as that.

But then you knew this already.

[ZENSMACK89]

You tell me. You're the one claiming that the towers collapsed into individual pieces which could be fitted on a flatbed and taken away. I guess those pictures of the clean-up crews cutting steel on the site were faked then.

If there were short sections it was because they started out as short sections and the joints failed during the collapse. Simple as that.

But then you knew this already.
Controlled Demolition, Inc. [CDI] - the company that received a reported $35 billion for the cleanup of the WTC site - boasts on their website about their DREXS demolition technology, which conveniently segments buildings and other structures into sizes that match their clientele's removal equipment. They also mention that their demolitions "facilitate the fast-track debris removal required by ODDC to meet the site clearance schedule".

So DREXS demolition technology is just a sales pitch? Buildings just automatically fall to the right size for easily removal anyway?

[uk_dave]

So DREXS demolition technology is just a sales pitch? Buildings just automatically fall to the right size for easily removal anyway?

All buildings are identical, right?

Doesn't matter if they're masonry, reinforced concrete or steel, every building should behave just like every other. Is that what you're saying?

And can you prove that the wtc towers completely disintegrated into their component parts without any need for cutting by the clean up contractors?

You're the one making this claim, not me.

All I'm saying is that if you end up with some elements which happen to fit on the back of a truck without the need to cut them on site, well that's how they got there in the first place so why is it so surprising that the joints between members are the point of failure resulting in those members ending up in the same state (lengthwise) as before the towers were constructed?

[Belz...]

Well walk me through this maybe I'm missing something.

The fire started at 23:00 hours all floors above the 21st floor were on fire at 00:00 hours and the first collapse occurred at 4:00 hours?

What did the WTC look like after this much time had passed?

Oh, gee darn! They didn't collapse in the exact same amount of time so comparison is impossible. Thanks Zen!

I'm looking for Global collapse from a full tanker of fuel.

Irrelevant. You've been shown steel structure collapses. Ergo, steel structures can fail due to fire alone. Add a 767 in the mix...

My point was according to the official version on the WTC the floors pulverized in midair as they fell and hit the next floor.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608046a8d2f10b671.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7279)

Gasoline burns at a much higher temperature than does jet fuel. Even the "9/11 debunkers" at Popular Mechanics admit that jet fuel only burns between 800 and 1500 degrees C. Gasoline burns at over 2000 degrees C putting it MUCH higher than temperature of jet fuel.

At what temperature does a carpet burn ? A computer ? A desk ?

Fire does weaken steel. But the question is how hot and for how long to cause Global collapse of multiple supports at the same time.

Depends on the size of the aircraft that crashed into it.

How about the top of the WTC should last at least as long as the top of the Windsor. I think NIST found only 3 inches of sag after 2 hours but needed 42 inches in an hour to just initiate collapse in the computer model.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045892c4f64e35.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3266)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045892c65f25a4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3267)

[twinstead]

I don't know if this has been posted, but here's the video where many of these stills came from. Very interesting stuff.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

[Reptiliano]

I was on a gaming site (of all places) and I happen upon a run-of-the-mill Jonesian truther who'd just posted a Youtube "Pull It". I decide to take him on.

The guy not only violently brushes my rebuttals off, about the only things he can really reply are insults against my intelligence and accuses me of being a "CIA Disinformation blogger.. Eventually he deletes my comments and proclaims me "pwned," though I actually took the liberty of copying the conversation to my own blog. That was quite a few months ago. Sometime after that he threatened to murder Maddox in his sleep for his anti-CT rant.

Later on when things have calmed down a bit he sends me a poll with a number of basic and broad questions about 9/11 and the War on Terror. I answer it and later the results come back in the usual biased manner (turns out he hand-picked whom he was asking) and added that most of America stood against "fulfilling jew[sic] prophesies." Wth. He later got banned for calling a news editor he disliked a Jew.

What really bugs me is that I saw my first truthers when I was on vacation in NYC back in July of 2005, and I actually thought "Just an extremist fringe." Thought they were leftists too. Crazy how these things turn out.

[defaultdotxbe]

Controlled Demolition, Inc. [CDI] - the company that received a reported $35 billion for the cleanup of the WTC site
please tell me this is just a typo, i dont want to believe you are this dumb

[HyJinX]

He probably meant $35 Gazillion.

[Belz...]

The trade centers had fire proofing. The sheering off of this fire-proofing is a theory by NIST.

Crashing 767s tend to do that.

Purdue also had a theory for their model that it burned off then the seel was heated enough to initiate collapse.

They’re both just theories to try and explain how the steel could possibly fail as quick as it did.

Yeah. Usually when something happens your theories will seek to explain why it happened. What's wrong with that ?

It certainly would have an effect on the steel but not profound in less then an hour from pockets of fire.

There's that ridicule again. "Pockets" of fire are what was described on the 78th floor of 2 WTC, below the area of greater damage.

I would say the odds are it would fall over the side enough during the collapse that it stops before it even gets halfway through.

Why ? HOW would the rest of the building stop such a falling mass ? So far, nobody has offered such a theory except crazy Judy.

The Windsor was engulfed in flames for hours.

Apples <> Oranges

My point being that once the plane impact was over and the load bearing stood it should have kept standing unless there was significant increase in the load bearing or something like an earthquake or explosion occured.

That's a lie. You've admitted that fire destroys steel elements, and I hope you don't deny there was a fire in the WTC towers.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080454892c10a786.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2336)

[Belz...]

Was every floor of the WTC hit by a plane or even on fire? Did the entire WTC fall down?

So undamaged structures are invincible ?

mid-air as in before ground level.

Ah! So their contact with OTHER structural members can damage them ?


That's my question. Sources that they weren't, please.

There's that burden of proof again.

NIST never found out. They only got as far as 3 inches of sag after 2 hours. Twice as long as it took the WTC to collapse.

Well explosives don't produce sag, do they ?

Can you hear me laughing?

Yes. I can tell that this is just a game to you.

[ZENSMACK89]

please tell me this is just a typo, i dont want to believe you are this dumb

I was just commenting on the DREXS. I don't know if it's a typo I think they just got it wrong and included re-building costs with the clean-up cost. I can't find the site again but I did find this...

"Waste Industry, Others Help with Cleanup at World Trade Center Site
Implosion consultant Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI), Phoenix, Md., has reported that it could take up to 14 months to remove all of the debris. New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has estimated that cleanup could take up to one year. Total estimated cost for cleanup and rebuilding is $39 billion." -Waste Age (11/01/21) - http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/collapse.html


"A May 30 ceremony will mark the end of the cleanup and recovery work at the World Trade Center site, as the last heap of Sept. 11 debris is removed, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Thursday. The excavation will be completed three months ahead of what city officials had predicted, and will have cost about $750 million — about one-tenth of the initial estimate of $7 billion." -CBS (05/16/02)

More on DREXS...

"Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s implosion capabilities and DREXS (Directional Remote Explosive Severance) System facilitate the demolition or dismantling of all types of steel and concrete facilities to provide the safe, expeditious and cost-effective removal of industrial structures." -CDI

"Our DREXS (Directional Remote Explosives Severance) systems are engineered and applied to segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment. State of the art, proprietary underwater blasting techniques guarantee fragmentation of concrete and masonry piers to removal limits, and maximize efficiency of debris removal." - CDI-UK

"CDI’s international affiliate, CDI UK, Ltd. acted as a subcontractor to CDI for implosion preparation supervision and explosives-handling operations." -CDI

"Using its DREXS (Directional Remote Explosive Severance) System, Controlled Demolition Incorporated segmented the spans into 300 ton sections which matched the lifting capabilities of Tidewater's equipment." -CDI

[defaultdotxbe]

I was just commenting on the DREXS. I don't know if it's a typo I think they just got it wrong and included re-building costs with the clean-up cost. I can't find the site again but I did find this...
plus the fact that CDI wasnt the only company involved in the cleanup, in fact CDI wasnt even one of the 4 initial contractors (they were hired on by one of the contractors) so even if you find how much the cleanup itself cost, not all of that would have been paid to CDI

[ZENSMACK89]

So undamaged structures are invincible?

No just undamaged.

Ah! So their contact with OTHER structural members can damage them?

Apparently not in the case of the lower overpass.

There's that burden of proof again.

That’s what I said.

Well explosives don't produce sag, do they?

They don’t need to.

Yes. I can tell that this is just a game to you.

Just a spectator enjoying a game of spin. It makes me laugh.

[nicepants]

Was every floor of the WTC hit by a plane or even on fire? Did the entire WTC fall down?

1 - No, and no. But the floors most damaged are the ones which caused the global collapse.

2 - Yes, the entire wtc fell down when these floors collapsed on the others.

It was insinuated to me on my comparisons like the Windsor that it doesn’t compare because it wasn't hit by a plane.

It doesn't. I'm not comparing them on every level. Only on the fact that in both cases, fire caused steel to weaken. Period.

mid-air as in before ground level.

Concrete traveling 60mph into other concrete won't cause breakage?

Source that the bridges were of equal strength?. That's my question. Sources that they weren't, please.

You claimed:

"One mass design with a certain strength falling on one of equal strength."

So the onus of a source is on YOU.

That was the comparison to the overpass that did support the falling road.

Just because an overpass can support the weight of another overpass falling on it, it doesn't mean that one floor of an office building can support the weight of multiple floors above it.

Yes. Did I dispute this? How long did officie contents take to burn up in any given area? NIST claims 20 -25 minutes.

Then the fire would move to another area, unlike the bridge, where the tanker was the only source of fuel.

The bolts most likley failed. Not exactly truss failure. And how thick is that steel in the overpass? hmmmmm

Hmm...what were the bolts made of? Why did they fail?

NIST never found out. They only got as far as 3 inches of sag after 2 hours. Twice as long as it took the WTC to collapse.

They used a 1/2 and a 1/4 scale slab.
If the floor trusses didn't sag, what was pulling in on the exterior columns?

That's a very poor comparison of the obvious way the towers were witnessed to collapse. If it did happen like your comparison it might of made more sense. The towers fell like everyone let go at the same time.

LOL. Even looking at videos of the collapse we can see that your statement is bunk. You can see columns buckling...one, then another, then a few more, then all at once the rest begin. It all happens very quickly.


You're missing the big point here...the hotter metal gets, the more it weakens. Period. I hope we can agree on that.

[twinstead]

Here is a pretty good image that suggests, if I'm not mistaken, a sagging floor truss.

http://www.debunking911.com/east15.jpg

Am I correct or does it show something else?

[ZENSMACK89]

Here is a pretty good image that suggests, if I'm not mistaken, a sagging floor truss.

http://www.debunking911.com/east15.jpg

Am I correct or does it show something else?
I don't know? Are you talking about what they call a hanging object?

[ZENSMACK89]

1 - No, and no. But the floors most damaged are the ones which caused the global collapse.

2 - Yes, the entire wtc fell down when these floors collapsed on the others.



It doesn't. I'm not comparing them on every level. Only on the fact that in both cases, fire caused steel to weaken. Period.



Concrete traveling 60mph into other concrete won't cause breakage?



You claimed:

"One mass design with a certain strength falling on one of equal strength."

So the onus of a source is on YOU.



Just because an overpass can support the weight of another overpass falling on it, it doesn't mean that one floor of an office building can support the weight of multiple floors above it.



Then the fire would move to another area, unlike the bridge, where the tanker was the only source of fuel.



Hmm...what were the bolts made of? Why did they fail?



They used a 1/2 and a 1/4 scale slab.
If the floor trusses didn't sag, what was pulling in on the exterior columns?



LOL. Even looking at videos of the collapse we can see that your statement is bunk. You can see columns buckling...one, then another, then a few more, then all at once the rest begin. It all happens very quickly.


You're missing the big point here...the hotter metal gets, the more it weakens. Period. I hope we can agree on that.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/ULTestResults.pdf

[Belz...]

No just undamaged.

Undamaged structures remain undamaged no matter what ? You're weird.

That’s what I said.

No, you're trying to have people DISPROVE your UNPROVEN theory.

They don’t need to.

Why not ? Pray tell, what destroyed the WTC towers if not planes and fires ?

And if you say thermite, you're disqualified, because that STILL wouldn't explain the "molten steel".

Just a spectator enjoying a game of spin. It makes me laugh.

That's what I'm talking about. Truthers don't care about the 3000 people who died that day. It's all a game to get attention.

Want to get attention ? Go to school, learn stuff, work, contribute.

[Belz...]

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...estResults.pdf

Leave it to truthers to answer whole series of points with a single link.

[Architect]

[sigh, shakes head]

Zen

You need to focus. You're skipping about from issue to issue without properly debating any of them.

Or are you just trying to present a moving target in order to put off the inevitable?

[ZENSMACK89]

[sigh, shakes head]

Zen

You need to focus. You're skipping about from issue to issue without properly debating any of them.

Or are you just trying to present a moving target in order to put off the inevitable?
I know the world only revolves around you in your delusional little universe but try to remember I'm responding to multiple people here not just the self appointed representative of all architects.

Now what's the inevitable and what's taking it so long?

[ZENSMACK89]

Leave it to truthers to answer whole series of points with a single link.
whole lotta nothin

[HyJinX]

<snip>...what's taking it so long?

Your inability to grasp logic, reason and reality.

[Pardalis]

whole lotta nothin

Like your contributions to this forum the past few days.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Just a spectator enjoying a game of spin. It makes me laugh.For uncontrollable giggles, try conceiving that the ignorant, toothless, lying "truth" movement is ever going to amount to more than a dropped pebble's ripple in the ocean of reality.

[mortimer]

Leave it to truthers to answer whole series of points with a single link.

Hey, give him credit. At least it wasn't a link to YouTube.

[nicepants]

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/ULTestResults.pdf

I'm confused....do you agree with NIST's findings or not?

[PhantomWolf]

NIST never found out. They only got as far as 3 inches of sag after 2 hours. Twice as long as it took the WTC to collapse.

When they tested SMALLER scale trusses WITH fireproofing ON.

These tests where to determine if the fireproofing that had been originally applied was actually succient to stand up to the regulations that they were supposed to have met, they weren't tests to check that the Truss sag theory was correct. The results showed that in most cases that the Trusses would have meet the regulations with the original fireproofing levels, but that in some cases it didn't. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[ZENSMACK89]

When they tested SMALLER scale trusses WITH fireproofing ON.

These tests where to determine if the fireproofing that had been originally applied was actually succient to stand up to the regulations that they were supposed to have met, they weren't tests to check that the Truss sag theory was correct. The results showed that in most cases that the Trusses would have meet the regulations with the original fireproofing levels, but that in some cases it didn't. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Wrong. No NIST physical fire test indicated anything near the 42 inches of sag they took the liberty of inputting into their computer model.

[ZENSMACK89]

I'm confused....do you agree with NIST's findings or not?
I don't believe that what they discovered in their own fire testing is consistent with their computer model or the explanation given in their collapse initiation theory.

[beachnut]

I don't believe that what they discovered in their own fire testing is consistent with their computer model or the explanation given in their collapse initiation theory.
And what is the real story behind 9/11?

[Corsair 115]

ZENSMACK89, you are aware that this...

Controlled Demolition, Inc. [CDI] - the company that received a reported $35 billion for the cleanup of the WTC site......does not equal this...

"Waste Industry, Others Help with Cleanup at World Trade Center Site Implosion consultant Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI), Phoenix, Md., has reported that it could take up to 14 months to remove all of the debris. New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has estimated that cleanup could take up to one year. Total estimated cost for cleanup and rebuilding is $39 billion." -Waste Age (11/01/21) - http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/collapse.html

In the first quote you are clearly saying that CDI alone was paid $35 billion for the cleanup of the WTC site.

In the second quote it is clear that CDI was but one of several companies contributing to the cleanup, and the cost of the total cleanup was $35 billion, not the amount paid to CDI alone.

You contradicted yourself... so is your first quote merely a mistake or was it intentional hyperbole?

[PhantomWolf]

Wrong. No NIST physical fire test indicated anything near the 42 inches of sag they took the liberty of inputting into their computer model.

What physical fire tests did they do that simulated the uncoated tusses sagging of 42 inches they used in the model?

[njslim]

What physical fire tests did they do that simulated the uncoated tusses sagging of 42 inches they used in the model?


Used video from NYPD helicopters which showed floor trusses in South Tower
sagging from heat

[PhantomWolf]

Used video from NYPD helicopters which showed floor trusses in South Tower
sagging from heat

Well that wasn't a test. Zen is claiming that they did tests that they then ignored and used 42 inches from no where. I want to know what physical tests they did on uncoated or partially coated trusses, because unless they did those tests, then Zen is refering to the other testing they did, which was to determine if the trusses as originally coated would have been up to the 2-hour they were supposed to have been.

[Digest]

i despise the truther because it causes me to doubt the one infallable truth i thought the world lived by - Darwinism - that the strong would survive and the weak be culled - I assumed - Falsely it seems- that that applied also to the smart would outlast the stupid ... how could the great darwin have been so wrong...

need proof of stupidity running rampant?

Reynolds Makes a Federal Case of 9/11 —
Sues NIST Contractors for 9/11 Plane Fraud
Morgan Reynolds
August 21, 2007
Summary:
Last month the U.S. District Court, Southern New York, unsealed a 9/11 case filed by Dr. Morgan Reynolds, thereby making the case public. Reynolds is suing on behalf of the United States of America after the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who represents "the government" declined to intervene in the case. The suit, a so-called qui tam case, alleges that the 9/11 contractors NIST hired to investigate destruction of the WTC Towers on 9/11 defrauded the U.S. government of substantial money by rendering bogus, impossible physical analysis and animations about how two hollow aluminum aircraft (allegedly Boeing 767s) flew into a steel/concrete tower and disappeared. Yet it can be easily demonstrated, after a great deal of hard work by dedicated 9/11 researchers, that no planes hit the towers. The office of Reynolds' attorney, Jerry V. Leaphart of Connecticut, is now serving(notifying) the defendants in the suit, including Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Applied Research Associates (ARA), Boeing, American Airlines, United Airlines and Silverstein Properties. I will post new information on the case as developments warrant.

i rest my case the great Darwin was WRONG!! NOOOoOOOooo :jaw-dropp The stupid can survive!!!!

[uk_dave]

Now far be it for me to apply the 'truther' MO of ascribing motives to the actions and statements of others...buuuuuuut....... our friend LUCUS on LCF has hit on hard times. Strangely I'd always thought he was a successful businessman with expertise in a number of diverse fields, from marketing to website design (and probably structural engineering too), but it seems life is being harsh to friend LUCUS, and he's taking a break from the 'truth' movement.....again.

In total regret, I wanted to inform you all that I can no longer do what I have been doing. I wanted to send this to all of you because I did not want a bunch of rumors floating around about why nobody is going to be seeing my around. I was not “taken out” or “bought off” or “forced by anyone” to do this.

I am a busted guy right now. I am broke, stuck in the middle of no place without a car/license and can’t seem to find a job right now. I owe $1500 before I am allowed to get my license back which leaves me in kind of a weird situation. Without a license/car I can’t get a job, and without a Job I can’t afford to get my license back. Not only that but I have no health insurance and my knee is in bad shape so I am very limited at what I can do right now.

Obviously LUCUS isn't looking for a handout. He's too proud for that. He does give rather alot of information about his financial situation though, but of course this is merely to keep his friends and co-woos fully informed of his plight.

Luckily however his ..... heartfelt message has resulted in one piece of generosity from a fellow 'truther'......

I wanted to thank HTURT For making me a LOAN of $2000 to help me get back on track.

I just checked my email and found the paypal email in there. He say's it is a donation, but I say it's a LOAN until I can get back on my feet and pay him back.


Hmmmmmmmmmmm

All at http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=14326

One does wonder why people like LUCUS insist on posting these things on public forums rather than private messages to his most trusted co-woos. Oh well, make of it what you will (coz you just know the 'truthers' would certainly make plenty of it)

[Digest]

i read this thread also and i have to say my first reaction was a sour taste in my mouth - that there was another motive - chalk that up to my belief that many things are not what they seem - and general distrust of types that implore fear mongering and propaganda. :cool:

however that being said if it is true and taking it at face value it is a very nice jesture and I commend a truther for helping out a fellow man. :blush:

[leftysergeant]

i rest my case the great Darwin was WRONG!! NOOOoOOOooo :jaw-dropp The stupid can survive!!!!

Not a bit of it.

"Survival of the fittest" implies not just surviavl of the smart or powerful individual, but of the species, or, at least, of the superior individual's bloodline.

The superior characteristic may be a physical attribute, or a complex, inante behavior.

As I have pointed out elsewhere (I started a thread in the Science forum yesterday) altruism is one of the behavioral characteristics that separates humans from beasts, and one of the things that allowed our species to emerge from the predator-filled environment of the bushveld.

The down side of that is that we also brought along baggage like Killtown and Dylan. Oh, WELL!

The behavior of the twoofer who extended a helping hand to Lucus is fully human. Which raises the question, who'd he become a twoofer?

[qarnos]

Wrt LUCUS:

This was posted by an admin in that thread. I thought it was a troll at first. Seems like he has ruffled a few feathers:


Wow LUCUS! It is truly remarkable that a kind stranger (here since June) would donate two thousand dollars to you, the formidable infowarrior you are, especially when the likes of wearechange have trouble scraping up a few dollars for their important historic endeavors.

This should serve as a reminder to you to be the utmost appreciative, because this person gave/loaned you the money as a reminder that you, the venerable LUCUS are truly at the epicenter of this battle for truth.... dude you are the truth movement incarnate! [/sarcasm]

[Belz...]

whole lotta nothin

I do believe that summarizes your entire posting history.

But lets leave flame wars aside...

Didn't you answer a rather elaborate post containing several points with a single link ? Well, you did.

So how come you're hand-waving my comment on it ?

[Belz...]

Wrong. No NIST physical fire test indicated anything near the 42 inches of sag they took the liberty of inputting into their computer model.

So ? You seem to be grasping at straws, here. Basically, you're saying that, as long as the simulation wasn't precisely what happened, it's invalid. But that wasn't the point of the simulation in the first place. It was to verify that the mechanics of the collapse as theorised were possible within set parameters.

I don't believe that what they discovered in their own fire testing is consistent with their computer model or the explanation given in their collapse initiation theory.

I'm starting to be a little annoyed with truther "belief" trumping reality.

[ZENSMACK89]

You contradicted yourself... so is your first quote merely a mistake or was it intentional hyperbole?

#1662

Read the first sentence. Slowly

[nicepants]

I don't believe that what they discovered in their own fire testing is consistent with their computer model or the explanation given in their collapse initiation theory.

What about their fire testing was inconsistent with their conclusions? (Please be specific)

[ZENSMACK89]

What about their fire testing was inconsistent with their conclusions? (Please be specific)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf

Figure 3-11 (p 49) PDF page 131
Figure 3-15 (p 52) PDF page 134
Figure 9-6 (p 297) PDF page 297

[ZENSMACK89]

And what is the real story behind 9/11?
That's what we need an independent uncompromised investigation for.

[defaultdotxbe]

That's what we need an independent uncompromised investigation for.
what if said uncomprised independent investigation says they got it right the first time? would you accept this or claim it had been compromised or was not independent?

[slyjoe]

nicepants asked "What about their fire testing was inconsistent with their conclusions (be specific)?"

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf

Figure 3-11 (p 49) PDF page 131
Figure 3-15 (p 52) PDF page 134
Figure 9-6 (p 297) PDF page 297

This doesn't answer the question; those figures SUPPORT their conclusions.

[ZENSMACK89]

I believe I posted a chart of the NIST fire test and findings. What else needs to be addressed? Read it. Video evidence witnessed through smoke and darkness of the inside of the building is hardly enough to draw a conclusion from. Fire testing results of steel which was fabricated to match the WTC steel wasn’t consistent with what NIST took the liberty to input into their computer model. This computer model is the NIST primary source for their collapse initiation theory. Even if it were to ever be proven to be even remotely accurate it still never addresses how this collapse initiation developed into a global collapse that followed through all the way to ground level at the speed witnessed.

[ZENSMACK89]

what if said uncomprised independent investigation says they got it right the first time? would you accept this or claim it had been compromised or was not independent?
I would accept it.

[defaultdotxbe]

I would accept it.
good for you, your a step ahead of pretty much every other truther out there

[ZENSMACK89]

what if said uncomprised independent investigation says they got it right the first time? would you accept this or claim it had been compromised or was not independent?
Page number Correction

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf

Figure 3-11 (p 49) PDF page 131 Physical fire test
Figure 3-15 (p 52) PDF page 134 Physical fire test
Figure 9-6 (p 301) PDF page 383 (Probable collapse sequence)

[Belz...]

I believe I posted a chart of the NIST fire test and findings. What else needs to be addressed? Read it.

Yeah, why the hell would YOU bother to state any conclusions ?

Video evidence witnessed through smoke and darkness of the inside of the building is hardly enough to draw a conclusion from.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045892c4f64e35.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3266)

Explosives, you say ?

Fire testing results of steel which was fabricated to match the WTC steel wasn’t consistent with what NIST took the liberty to input into their computer model.

Evidence ?

This computer model is the NIST primary source for their collapse initiation theory.

I doubt it.

Even if it were to ever be proven to be even remotely accurate it still never addresses how this collapse initiation developed into a global collapse that followed through all the way to ground level at the speed witnessed.

Zen, you're not very good at this and it's unfortunate that you don't realise it. It's obvious to anyone with a modicrum of knowledge in buildings, demolitions, collisions and fires that once the collapse began, nothing was going to stop it. Your refusal to understand that does not change the facts.

[nicepants]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf

Figure 3-11 (p 49) PDF page 131
Figure 3-15 (p 52) PDF page 134
Figure 9-6 (p 297) PDF page 297

These are all consistent with NIST's conclusions. This is why I asked you to explain "specifically".

I believe I posted a chart of the NIST fire test and findings. What else needs to be addressed? Read it.

Read it, it supports NIST's conclusions

Video evidence witnessed through smoke and darkness of the inside of the building is hardly enough to draw a conclusion from. Fire testing results of steel which was fabricated to match the WTC steel wasn’t consistent with what NIST took the liberty to input into their computer model.

The fire testing was done with steel that had intact fireproofing, and used to determine whether a properly-protected truss would fail as quickly as the ones in the WTC (which suffered impact damage).

This computer model is the NIST primary source for their collapse initiation theory. Even if it were to ever be proven to be even remotely accurate it still never addresses how this collapse initiation developed into a global collapse that followed through all the way to ground level at the speed witnessed.

Do you, for some reason, believe that once the collapse initiated it should have either slowed down or stopped without any outside intervention?

[The Almond]

Page number Correction

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf

Figure 3-11 (p 49) PDF page 131 Physical fire test
Figure 3-15 (p 52) PDF page 134 Physical fire test
Figure 9-6 (p 301) PDF page 383 (Probable collapse sequence)

Zensmack, would you consider adding page 141 of NCSTAR 1 to your list? It explains, very clearly, what the purpose of the scale model test was and how its results were used in conjunction with the computer model.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

So the one involving these guys doesn't count, right?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79698

I don't think the twoofer movement has enough rope for when they come to power (killing more than 3000 people in the process)

[ZENSMACK89]

Zensmack, would you consider adding page 141 of NCSTAR 1 to your list? It explains, very clearly, what the purpose of the scale model test was and how its results were used in conjunction with the computer model.
I don't see exactly what you are referring to because you didn't exactly site it. But if you are referring to disclaimers about how physical truss tests were not intended to model real world performance but were done as more of a comparison of performance then fine. I also understand that NIST wasn't taxed with task of going any further then the collapse initiation itself and that's fine also.

So if the physical fire tests are not a real life representation of what actually happened and the mechanisms of the collapse itself is nothing more then an alluded to assumption then what good is any of it? And when I say that I mean what good is any of it as far as pointing to it as proof of what actually happen on 9-11?

[nicepants]

So if the physical fire tests are not a real life representation of what actually happened and the mechanisms of the collapse itself is nothing more then an alluded to assumption then what good is any of it? And when I say that I mean what good is any of it as far as pointing to it as proof of what actually happen on 9-11?

It was pretty obvious to most engineers what happened on 9/11. The purpose of the truss tests was to determine if the building was up to the proper standards and whether or not it would have failed absent the impact and fireproofing damage.

They already know that the building would collapse due to impact and fire damage (it happened 2x on 911), the question was, would it collapse with fire alone?

Example: I dropped my phone in water, and whenever I use it in an environment where the temperature is over 105 degrees, it crashes.

The way to determine whether the heat is causing the crash is to use a phone with no water damage in 105 degree heat.

[The Almond]

I don't see exactly what you are referring to because you didn't exactly site it.

It's an extremely simple process. Simply go to wtc.nist.gov and download the NCSTAR 1 report. Open the report in Adobe Acrobat and look at the numbers at the bottom right side of each page. These are page numbers. Advance the pages until you get to page 141. I have provided you a citation including page number and volume number.

But if you are referring to disclaimers about how physical truss tests were not intended to model real world performance but were done as more of a comparison of performance then fine.

I'm glad that you acknowledge this difference. One of your talking points thus far has been to state that NIST found only 3 inches of deflection in a physical test, but required 42 in the computer model. That would indicate that you believe the tests are equivalent and should yield similar results. The truth is that the physical test and the computer model are meant to test very different conditions, despite the fact that both reported deflections as a result of the test. Their results cannot be compared.

I also understand that NIST wasn't taxed with task of going any further then the collapse initiation itself and that's fine also.

That's great.

So if the physical fire tests are not a real life representation of what actually happened

They are, in fact, an ASTM standard test. Frankly, no ASTM standard actually tests real life conditions, though the results are often correlated to real life performance.

and the mechanisms of the collapse itself is nothing more then an alluded to assumption then what good is any of it?

The mechanisms were modeled in a computer program using experimentally verified input values. Values such as heat transfer, thermal conductivity, modulus of elasticity, compressive strength, etc., are not tested using tests that approximate the conditions in the WTC towers. Each value is determined in a carefully controlled analytical test.

And when I say that I mean what good is any of it as far as pointing to it as proof of what actually happen on 9-11?
When the proper values are input into a model, mathematics shows us what the conclusion most likely is.

That particular branch of mathematics is known as partial differential calculus. The biggest problem with PDC is that the solutions are frequently not exact (deterministic). When you don't have a deterministic solution, you have to iteratively solve the equations. This is the basis for computer modeling, and its little brother, finite element analysis.

The point is that, in order to model a solution which is mathematically valid, you need only determine the initial conditions and the rate at which the system is changing. That was largely the purpose of the tests listed on page 141 and of others such as the paint-chip analysis.

The last step in validating the model is to apply it to global characteristics. Thus, if the all of the thousands of equations working in conjunction with each other are able to correctly predict behavior that can be experimentally identified, the model is validated. In the case of the WTC towers, the model that correctly matched the observed deflection of the towers and the considerable deformation of the columns was chosen as the most valid model.

[ZENSMACK89]

It's an extremely simple process. Simply go to wtc.nist.gov and download the NCSTAR 1 report. Open the report in Adobe Acrobat and look at the numbers at the bottom right side of each page. These are page numbers. Advance the pages until you get to page 141. I have provided you a citation including page number and volume number.

PDF pages and actual NIST pages are different.

I'm glad that you acknowledge this difference.
That's great.

Glad your glad but I was looking for someone to show me something NIST did to warrant their computer input other then video and working backwards.

The mechanisms were modeled in a computer program using experimentally verified input values. Values such as heat transfer, thermal conductivity, modulus of elasticity, compressive strength, etc., are not tested using tests that approximate the conditions in the WTC towers. Each value is determined in a carefully controlled analytical test.

Not of the collapse itself just the initiation. And I disagree that it's valid to assume what exactly occurred after this assumed initiation. Experimentally verified is relative.

When the proper values are input into a model…

Opinion as to proper values. There are those who debate this very subject.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

The point is that, in order to model a solution which is mathematically valid, you need only determine the initial conditions and the rate at which the system is changing.

Yes you need to determine initial conditions not assert.

The last step in validating the model is to apply it to global characteristics. Thus, if the all of the thousands of equations working in conjunction with each other are able to correctly predict behavior that can be experimentally identified, the model is validated.

"If" is correct. And exactly what I feel wouldn't have validated in a model of collapse initiation following through to the end of the collapse.

In the case of the WTC towers, the model that correctly matched the observed deflection of the towers and the considerable deformation of the columns was chosen as the most valid model.

“most” is not necessarily accurate. Out of NY, PN, and OH, Ohio is the closet to where I live but none of them are actually close to me.

[johnny karate]

Opinion as to proper values. There are software engineers who debate this very subject.

Fixed.

[twinstead]

Yea, speaking of debate there's a lot of debate by REAL experts about whether those folks at 911research are remotely qualified to credibly debate the NIST report.

[Corsair 115]

#1662Irrelevant. You still posted contradictory information. Which quote do you believe, the first you made or the second? Do you always post information that is contradictory? Did you not notice the two quotes contradicted each other? Should that not have raised a red flag with you if you were earnestly evaluating those quotes as sources of information?

[ZENSMACK89]

Irrelevant. You still posted contradictory information. Which quote do you believe, the first you made or the second? Do you always post information that is contradictory? Did you not notice the two quotes contradicted each other? Should that not have raised a red flag with you if you were earnestly evaluating those quotes as sources of information?
Gad yer thick. Go back and read a little will you. I wasn't even commenting on the cost. I was commenting on the demolition technique. That's why I posted the differing quotes to show where the original site might have got that billion number from.

[ZENSMACK89]

Yea, speaking of debate there's a lot of debate by REAL experts about whether those folks at 911research are remotely qualified to credibly debate the NIST report.
Yes there seems to be more then a few at odds with some of NIST's practices and conclusions. I think there was another beef that came out just the other day if I remember...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

[johnny karate]

Yes there seems to be more then a few at odds with some of NIST's practices and conclusions. I think there was another beef regarding fire safety and absolutely nothing else that came out just the other day if I remember...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

Fixed

[Corsair 115]

Yes there seems to be more then a few at odds with some of NIST's practices and conclusions. I think there was another beef that came out just the other day if I remember...Dodge noted.

So why didn't you catch the contradictions in the quotes you posted? I noticed it the very time time after finishing reading both. Which quote do you think is correct - the first one or the second?

[ZENSMACK89]

Dodge noted.

So why didn't you catch the contradictions in the quotes you posted? I noticed it the very time after finishing reading both. Which quote do you think is correct - the first one or the second?

Oh brother give it a rest…

I was talking about the demolition technology not the cost.

Someone asked me about the cost in the quote on the demo tech. I didn't even notice the cost listed when I posted it.

I told them I don't know if it's a typo I think they just got it wrong and included the rebuilding cost also. I couldn't find the site I got the original quote from. So I offered up two other quotes one that was an estimate before the clean-up and was in the billions for clean-up and rebuilding and one that showed the cost of just the clean-up after it was done and how it came in well under the original estimate and was under a million.

They were all quotes. I don't endorse any of them. Just pointing to them as an explanation as to where someone might have came up with that original statement in the billions. Someone asked. I showed them what I found.

That's it.

[ZENSMACK89]

Fixed
lol

yeah right safety

As in it's unsafe to be in a building that might collapse on your head since no one can explain for certain how it happened on 9-11.

Maybe you should go through the NIST report and fix some of that. You know... try to make sense of it?

[PhantomWolf]

I'm still waiting for those physical fire tests where NIST tested partially, or fully unclad trusses, Zen.

[ZENSMACK89]

I'm still waiting for those physical fire tests where NIST tested partially, or fully unclad trusses, Zen.
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6Gross2.pdf

I'm still waiting for how NIST came up with the data they input into their computer model. Temperatures, damaged columns (They removed every one that even had a percent of damage in their worse case scenario). Sag amounts, etc. etc. All worse case scenarios. Worse case based on what?

[Parsman]

Based on evidence from previous fires and structural damage, extrapolations based on the bset available evidence? Is how science and logic works rather than "troof".

[twinstead]

So, while most rational people who aren't experts rely on actual experts in relevant fields to help them understand complex issues like the WTC collapses, it appears that Zensmack will believe anybody no questions asked, no relevant qualifications needed, as long as they are saying what he wants to hear.

[Belz...]

As in it's unsafe to be in a building that might collapse on your head since no one can explain for certain how it happened on 9-11.

No one ?

wtc.nist.gov (http://wtc.nist.gov/)

I think they have a pretty good idea.

Oh, and have you ignored my previous posts, Zen ? Am I on ignore ? Aw, did I hurt your "truth" ?

[The Almond]

PDF pages and actual NIST pages are different.

And yet, even a modicum of research will reveal which is the right one to consider, seeing as how there are only two possibilities. Personally, since I work from a hard copy of the NCSTAR, I post actual page numbers.

Glad your glad but I was looking for someone to show me something NIST did to warrant their computer input other then video and working backwards.

You operate on the enthymeme that videos, photographs and eyewitness testimony are not proper ways to validate a computer model. This stands not only in opposition to the entirety of rational scientific debate, but also to most of the truth movement as well.

Not of the collapse itself just the initiation. And I disagree that it's valid to assume what exactly occurred after this assumed initiation.

1) NIST was not directed to study the post-initiation phase of the tower collapse. Any reference to a computer model used by NIST necessarily eliminates post initiation events because the computer model was designed only to analyze a quasi-static system.

2) It's perfectly valid to assume that once a floor loses its support, it will fall down. Frank Greening did the mathematics to show that there was sufficient potential energy in the towers to overcome the resistance provided by each floor. There are no assumptions in post-initiation events, only facts and the law of gravity.

Experimentally verified is relative.

No, it is not. The basis for the entirety of the scientific method.

Opinion as to proper values. There are those who debate this very subject.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

I noticed that none of the essays you've linked to debate the actual values input into the system. Am I to assume that said researchers agree with NIST's inputs?

Yes you need to determine initial conditions not assert.

The initial conditions were determined in scientifically rigorous ways. An FEA model of the airplane was created in addition to a model of the WTC towers. Frame by frame, NIST reconstructed how the planes entered, where the debris went and what damage was caused. At each step, NIST validated the model with pictures, videos and eyewitness testimony. I would add that none of the researchers working on "alternative theories" such as Dr. Jones have done this. Jones did not bother to determine the initial conditions, and it would be excellent for you to remember that the initial conditions are necessary for any "alternative theory."

"If" is correct. And exactly what I feel wouldn't have validated in a model of collapse initiation following through to the end of the collapse.

NIST's quasi-static pre-initiation model could never even begin to validate itself through complete collapse. In truth, there is no model in existence today which is capable of handling and calculating all of the variables necessary to replicate the exact conditions of the collapse in an analytical way.

To be clear, NIST's model DID correctly match the observed experimental conditions. There is no "if" to it.

“most” is not necessarily accurate. Out of NY, PN, and OH, Ohio is the closet to where I live but none of them are actually close to me.
Again, the problem with stochastic solutions is that, while they are mathematically valid, the possibility arises where one can acquire multiple solutions. Stochasticism and chaos theory are two interdependent issues when dealing with a situation as complicated as the WTC towers.

In the case of the WTC towers, the term "most" is quantifiable, whereas your example is not. If I don't know where you live, I can't determine how close the closest state is. But since I do know the global characteristics of the tower before collapse, I can quantify the accuracy of the model.

[Belz...]

Experimentally verified is relative.

That's a very fine way to ignore any and all scientific theories that do not please you.

[ZENSMACK89]

That's a very fine way to ignore any and all scientific theories that do not please you.
I don't disagree that it's a theory. It's just not the only theory.

[ZENSMACK89]

And yet, even a modicum of research will reveal which is the right one to consider, seeing as how there are only two possibilities. Personally, since I work from a hard copy of the NCSTAR, I post actual page numbers.

Yes but you were replying to my source of a PDF. Should I have assumed otherwise? You also were cryptic about whatever the point was you were trying to make. Why? Just spit it out.

You operate on the enthymeme that videos, photographs and eyewitness testimony are not proper ways to validate a computer model. This stands not only in opposition to the entirety of rational scientific debate, but also to most of the truth movement as well.

No I operate under the observed fact of the NIST practice to cherry pick factors and worse case scenarios.

1) NIST was not directed to study the post-initiation phase of the tower collapse. Any reference to a computer model used by NIST necessarily eliminates post initiation events because the computer model was designed only to analyze a quasi-static system.

Yeah we’ve already established what they were commissioned not to do.

2) It's perfectly valid to assume that once a floor loses its support, it will fall down. Frank Greening did the mathematics to show that there was sufficient potential energy in the towers to overcome the resistance provided by each floor. There are no assumptions in post-initiation events, only facts and the law of gravity.

Yes we all watched it fall but that doesn’t mean we assume how.

No, it is not. The basis for the entirety of the scientific method.

All factors were not verified. They were picked from a selected pool of factors that supported a pre-determined conclusion.

I noticed that none of the essays you've linked to debate the actual values input into the system. Am I to assume that said researchers agree with NIST's inputs?

No they don’t. Especially for example when they removed every support that even had just a small percent of damage to it.

The initial conditions were determined in scientifically rigorous ways. An FEA model of the airplane was created in addition to a model of the WTC towers. Frame by frame, NIST reconstructed how the planes entered, where the debris went and what damage was caused. At each step, NIST validated the model with pictures, videos and eyewitness testimony. I would add that none of the researchers working on "alternative theories" such as Dr. Jones have done this. Jones did not bother to determine the initial conditions, and it would be excellent for you to remember that the initial conditions are necessary for any "alternative theory."

This is even challenged in more recent computer models. For example does the Purdue model give the same cause for how the fire-proofing was compromised? Are all of the NIST factors verified or not?



NIST's quasi-static pre-initiation model could never even begin to validate itself through complete collapse. In truth, there is no model in existence today which is capable of handling and calculating all of the variables necessary to replicate the exact conditions of the collapse in an analytical way.

“At each step, NIST validated the model with pictures, videos and eyewitness testimony.”

They had all of this for the collapse also. Yeah I know… that’s not what they were commissioned to do. So it’s not determined.

To be clear, NIST's model DID correctly match the observed experimental conditions. There is no "if" to it.

There was plenty of “if” to it thus the multiple scenarios.

Again, the problem with stochastic solutions is that, while they are mathematically valid, the possibility arises where one can acquire multiple solutions. Stochasticism and chaos theory are two interdependent issues when dealing with a situation as complicated as the WTC towers.

Yes that is the problem. They can aquire multiple solutions or even miss one all together.

In the case of the WTC towers, the term "most" is quantifiable, whereas your example is not. If I don't know where you live, I can't determine how close the closest state is. But since I do know the global characteristics of the tower before collapse, I can quantify the accuracy of the model.

I live in the United States quantify it.

Most of this is just a bunch of dressed up excuses. But that seems to be the norm these days for anyone who endorses the NIST theory. To do so forces one to become an apologist for them.

[The Almond]

Yes but you were replying to my source of a PDF. Should I have assumed otherwise? You also were cryptic about whatever the point was you were trying to make. Why? Just spit it out.

I haven't been cryptic at all. My point is that NIST did not intend to use the fire test to directly verify the deflection viewed in the model, as you have repeatedly claimed. I then provided you a page number to read to verify my assertion. Have you done so?

No I operate under the observed fact of the NIST practice to cherry pick factors and worse case scenarios.

What factors did they fail to account for? Why should NIST not pick the scenario that best reflects observed reality?

Yeah we’ve already established what they were commissioned not to do.

Sneaky, but it is my claim that they were not commissioned to study the collapse, not commissioned not to study the collapse. There is a distinct difference there.

Yes we all watched it fall but that doesn’t mean we assume how.

Why can we not assume that gravity is the cause of the collapse?

All factors were not verified. They were picked from a selected pool of factors that supported a pre-determined conclusion.

Frankly, that's your opinion, and it has no bearing on this debate.

No they don’t. Especially for example when they removed every support that even had just a small percent of damage to it.

Would you care to post a citation for that assertion?

This is even challenged in more recent computer models. For example does the Purdue model give the same cause for how the fire-proofing was compromised? Are all of the NIST factors verified or not?

How does the Purdue model change, discredit or undermine the NIST report?

“At each step, NIST validated the model with pictures, videos and eyewitness testimony.”

They had all of this for the collapse also. Yeah I know… that’s not what they were commissioned to do. So it’s not determined.

This argument makes no sense. You're criticizing NIST for failing to publish conclusions in an area they did not study because they have photographic evidence. You've paired your complaint with the conclusion "it's not determined" as though your objection were support. That's called "begging the question."

There was plenty of “if” to it thus the multiple scenarios.

But only one "if" matched reality.

Yes that is the problem. They can aquire multiple solutions or even miss one all together.

Were there no way to validate the model, this would be the case. However, because we have global parameters, the solution that matches those is the right one.

I live in the United States quantify it.

This is arguably the most childish response I've ever read.

Most of this is just a bunch of dressed up excuses. But that seems to be the norm these days for anyone who endorses the NIST theory. To do so forces one to become an apologist for them.
May I posit that my explanations appear to be "dressed up" because you do not have the requisite education or experience to argue on my level? I've noticed that you do not appear to respond to any point I make specifically, but rather choose to make generalized contrarian arguments that do nothing more than dogmatically repeat your position.

To be clear, I'm arguing NIST's case by default. I'm not arguing that it is perfect, but rather that it is more accurate and more complete than any other counter theory. Pertaining to this debate, I'm arguing that your assertions against the NCSTAR are false.

[twinstead]

Good. I thought I was the only one who noticed zen wasn't addressing ANY of The Almond's technical points directly but was repeating his position in slightly different words over and over again.

[Belz...]

I don't disagree that it's a theory. It's just not the only theory.

Well, I don't know if you know what the word "theory" means.

Also, that it's not the only theory says nothing about its truth value. So if you meant that as an argument of some sort, you're mistaken.

Yeah we’ve already established what they were commissioned not to do.

Please stop twisting other people's words to match your beliefs. What you have to understand is this: since everybody with an ounce of knowledge in buildings realises that, once the collapse begins, it can't be stopped, the question was what exactly caused the collapse. Not because they doubted that the planes and the fires did it, but because they needed to understand the exact mechanics leading up to collapse initiation, and suggest improvements to the building code.

They were picked from a selected pool of factors that supported a pre-determined conclusion.

How do you know this ?

[Belz...]

What factors did they fail to account for? Why should NIST not pick the scenario that best reflects observed reality?

This is something that many people misunderstand about science. Often scientists will have several working hypotheses, and pick the one that matches reality best. This is not an indication of working backwards from a conclusion. Obviously, the one they pick is the most likely because it fits with observed reality.

[ZENSMACK89]

I haven't been cryptic at all. My point is that NIST did not intend to use the fire test to directly verify the deflection viewed in the model, as you have repeatedly claimed.

So what did they use especially in light of this admission?

wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-5ExecutiveSummary.pdf
"Fires deeper than a few meters inside the building could not be seen because of the smoke obscuration and the steep viewing angle of nearly all the photographs."

Would you care to post a citation for that assertion?

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
PDF page 150 actual NIST page 100

“The two Tower models included the core columns, the floor beams, and the concrete slabs from the impact and fire zones to the highest floor below the hat truss structure: from the 89th floor to the 106th floor for WTC 1 and from the 73rd floor to the 106th floor for WTC 2. Within these floors, aircraft-damaged structural components were removed. (p 100/150)”

How does the Purdue model change, discredit or undermine the NIST report?

It differs in its own so-called verified conclusions.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/06/purdue-simulation-full-of-hot-air.html
"1. Were columns on the south face of WTC severed by aircraft impact? NIST says maybe one, but Purdue now suggests several. NCSTAR1, p. 22-23.

2. Was there any jet fuel in AA11's center fuel tank? NIST says no, but Purdue now says yes, it was completely full. NCTSAR1-5A, p liii, lviii.

3. How did the fireproofing get "widely dislodged"? NIST suggests the aircraft debris turned into shotgun blasts to affect this. Purdue now suggests the jet fuel did it. Thanks to Purdue for invalidating NIST's work. NCSTAR1, p 119."

To be clear, I'm arguing NIST's case by default. I'm not arguing that it is perfect, but rather that it is more accurate and more complete than any other counter theory. Pertaining to this debate, I'm arguing that your assertions against the NCSTAR are false.

To be clear you're apologizing for them. More or most is not necessarily correct. And it’s not good enough.

[The Almond]

So what did they use especially in light of this admission?

The deflections seen in the photographic evidence, both global and localized.

wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-5ExecutiveSummary.pdf
"Fires deeper than a few meters inside the building could not be seen because of the smoke obscuration and the steep viewing angle of nearly all the photographs."

Imagine a tunnel going down at a steep angle. You attach a rope to a fully loaded mine cart and lower it into the tunnel. Once the mine cart is obscured in darkness, you can assume that the mine cart is the reason for the tension in the rope despite the fact that you cannot see the mine cart. You know the rope is connected to the mine cart, and that gravity works even in darkness.

Buildings are complex, interconnected structures. We know the nature of the connections and the transferral of loads and deflections by looking at the plans and calculating the forces involved. Thus we can view the outside of a building, and at least be reasonably assured of what is happening on the inside, within the boundaries of uncertainty and given a globally verified, stochastic computer model.


http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
PDF page 150 actual NIST page 100

“The two Tower models included the core columns, the floor beams, and the concrete slabs from the impact and fire zones to the highest floor below the hat truss structure: from the 89th floor to the 106th floor for WTC 1 and from the 73rd floor to the 106th floor for WTC 2. Within these floors, aircraft-damaged structural components were removed. (p 100/150)”


No they don’t. Especially for example when they removed every support that even had just a small percent of damage to it.


These statements do not support each other.


It differs in its own so-called verified conclusions.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/06/purdue-simulation-full-of-hot-air.html
"1. Were columns on the south face of WTC severed by aircraft impact? NIST says maybe one, but Purdue now suggests several. NCSTAR1, p. 22-23.

2. Was there any jet fuel in AA11's center fuel tank? NIST says no, but Purdue now says yes, it was completely full. NCTSAR1-5A, p liii, lviii.

3. How did the fireproofing get "widely dislodged"? NIST suggests the aircraft debris turned into shotgun blasts to affect this. Purdue now suggests the jet fuel did it. Thanks to Purdue for invalidating NIST's work. NCSTAR1, p 119."

Why are you quoting from an author who is summarizing Purdue's position without reference to the original work? Have you not read Purdue's research yourself?

To be clear you're apologizing for them. More or most is not necessarily correct. And it’s not good enough.
I'm defending NIST against baseless accusations and criticisms based on nothing more than fantasy and a complete misunderstanding of engineering and collapse forensics.

[Dave Rogers]

"1. Were columns on the south face of WTC severed by aircraft impact? NIST says maybe one, but Purdue now suggests several. NCSTAR1, p. 22-23.

2. Was there any jet fuel in AA11's center fuel tank? NIST says no, but Purdue now says yes, it was completely full. NCTSAR1-5A, p liii, lviii.

3. How did the fireproofing get "widely dislodged"? NIST suggests the aircraft debris turned into shotgun blasts to affect this. Purdue now suggests the jet fuel did it. Thanks to Purdue for invalidating NIST's work. NCSTAR1, p 119."

Purdue has considered the evidence, and now offers some modifications to NIST's findings in the light of their own work. This is how the scientific method works. Anyway, isn't it rather obvious that Purdue's findings indicate that the initial damage was greater than NIST found, and therefore that if Purdue are correct then collapse due to damage and fire is an even more reasonable conclusion? You are perpetrating a classic case of falsely assuming that any discrepancy in the official findings necessarily supports the conspiracy theory, whereas in fact Purdue's findings simply show it to be even more unlikely than it already was.

Dave

[leftysergeant]

Good. I thought I was the only one who noticed zen wasn't addressing ANY of The Almond's technical points directly but was repeating his position in slightly different words over and over again.

This is an example of why it will not, in the final analysis, matter whether or not the twoofers are proven wrong.

Youn Earthers have long been proven wrong, but so what? They are still being a royal pain in the butt.

I expect nothing else of the twoofers.

[ZENSMACK89]

Imagine a tunnel going down at a steep angle. You attach a rope to a fully loaded mine cart and lower it into the tunnel…. Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone.

What a load of nonsense. Just more excuses.

“at least be reasonably assured…” ?

Yeah that sounds confident.

These statements do not support each other.

Why because NIST didn’t exactly quantify what they removed?

Why are you quoting from an author who is summarizing Purdue's position without reference to the original work? Have you not read Purdue's research yourself?

Why are you questioning where I got it instead of refuting what it says? You asked where it differed and I showed you. Is it wrong?

I'm defending NIST against baseless accusations and criticisms based on nothing more than fantasy and a complete misunderstanding of engineering and collapse forensics.

It’s not baseless when much of the same kind of criticism of the NIST method also comes from a NIST insider. But I guess you would know better. Why is that? Don’t people from NIST know what they are talking about?

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding. “ - James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),

[ZENSMACK89]

Purdue has considered the evidence, and now offers some modifications to NIST's findings in the light of their own work. This is how the scientific method works.

Well Amen to the scientific method but who says we're done yet?

Anyway, isn't it rather obvious that Purdue's findings indicate that the initial damage was greater than NIST found, and therefore that if Purdue are correct then collapse due to damage and fire is an even more reasonable conclusion?

You mean something that was obvious to Purdue wasn't obvious to NIST? Why is that? What did Purdue have access to that NIST didn't?


You are perpetrating a classic case of falsely assuming that any discrepancy in the official findings necessarily supports the conspiracy theory, whereas in fact Purdue's findings simply show it to be even more unlikely than it already was.

"necessarily supports the conspiracy theory... "

I am? What was that about falsely assuming?

[johnny karate]

I'm defending NIST against baseless accusations and criticisms based on nothing more than fantasy and a complete misunderstanding of engineering and collapse forensics.

It’s not baseless when much of the same kind of criticism of the NIST method also comes from a NIST insider. But I guess you would know better. Why is that? Don’t people from NIST know what they are talking about?

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding. “ - James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),

ZEN, you are once again taking Quintiere's statements out of context and trying to make them mean something you know full well they don't in order to prop up your sad and failed little theories.

Quintiere's statements have absolutely nothing to do with the topics you and Almond are discussing.

Quintiere's criticisms of NIST have absolutely nothing to do with the topics you and Almond are discussing.

And you are very much aware of this.

ZEN, you are a liar. Plain and simple.

[ZENSMACK89]

ZEN, you are once again taking Quintiere's statements out of context and trying to make them mean something you know full well they don't in order to prop up your sad and failed little theories.

Quintiere's statements have absolutely nothing to do with the topics you and Almond are discussing.

Quintiere's criticisms of NIST have absolutely nothing to do with the topics you and Almond are discussing.

And you are very much aware of this.

ZEN, you are a liar. Plain and simple.
Those are Quintiere exact words as to what he feels is wrong with the NIST report.

You just can't stand it can you?

Live with it.

[pomeroo]

Those are Quintiere exact words as to what he feels is wrong with the NIST report.

You just can't stand it can you?

Live with it.


But, will you and your fellow conspiracy liars "live with it" when Quintiere issues a clarification and specifically rejects the controlled demolition myth?

No, the safest bet in the world is that the fantasists will shriek with one voice that he has been "gotten to," and he doesn't really mean what he's saying.

[ZENSMACK89]

But, will you and your fellow conspiracy liars "live with it" when Quintiere issues a clarification and specifically rejects the controlled demolition myth?

No, the safest bet in the world is that the fantasists will shriek with one voice that he has been "gotten to," and he doesn't really mean what he's saying.
He's already has so what? That doesn't solve any problems with the NIST report.

[Regnad Kcin]

He's already has so what? That doesn't solve any problems with the NIST report.Incidentally, ZENSMACK89 has refused to produce his credentials or indicate his expertise in regard to criticizing the work of others in these highly technical matters.

Just a reminder to everyone playing a copy of our home game.

[pomeroo]

He's already has so what? That doesn't solve any problems with the NIST report.


As people here have told you repeatedly, his problems with the NIST Report strengthen the case against controlled-demolition. Why do you require these constant reminders?

[ZENSMACK89]

As people here have told you repeatedly, his problems with the NIST Report strengthen the case against controlled-demolition. Why do you require these constant reminders?
"people here"?

Just who are "people here" to tell me anything but their opinion?

nothing else

[johnny karate]

What Quintiere's statements mean is not a matter of "opinion", unless you are an intellectually dishonest CTer trying to push a ridiculous agenda.

[twinstead]

"people here"?

Just who are "people here" to tell me anything but their opinion?

nothing else

All opinions are equal; just some opinions are more equal than others.

[Corsair 115]

I didn't even notice the cost listed when I posted it.So you're posting quotes to further your positions and you're not even bothering to check if the quotes are consistent?

That's not a particularly good way for you to support your theories.

[ZENSMACK89]

What Quintiere's statements mean is not a matter of "opinion", unless you are an intellectually dishonest CTer trying to push a ridiculous agenda.
I'm not the one trying to hijack Quintiere statements about NIST and mold them to what I want to assert. You are. I don't need to. Just read it.

"NIST falls short of expectations"

"by not definitively finding cause"

"by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause"

"by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation"


Oh yeah. I see it now. That comes down on YOUR side of thinking for sure.

Yeah that's right.

lol

Don't you just love it?