Steel failing in hydrocarbon fires.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

,,, and to educate RedI about the towers,,,,,,
This is the first time that an all steel tube-in-tube, long span high rise has been hit by a fast, large airliner and also the first instance of a multifloor widespread office fire developing within seconds due to the presence of 10,000 gallons of liquid acellerant.

This is the first time for a lot of things, but in both cases, you're simply blaming hypothetical design considerations and overlooking the most obvious realities.

Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse.

In the case of the towers, there is zero physical evidence that core columns ever reached temps necessary to cause them to fail.

NIST has to rely on a series of undocumented design based failures to even suggest what has never even remotely happened in another steel frame high-rise.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

...
Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse.

In the case of the towers, there is zero physical evidence that core columns ever reached temps necessary to cause them to fail.

...

The fires were hot enough; proved by the collapses which are physical evidence last time I checked. Wrong on all counts your delusions remain based on failed ideas, lies, hearsay and a dash of fantasy.

You have an obsession with Gravy, get over it and try to cure your ignorance on 911 issues.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

,,, and to educate RedI about the towers,,,,,,
This is the first time that an all steel tube-in-tube, long span high rise has been hit by a fast, large airliner and also the first instance of a multifloor widespread office fire developing within seconds due to the presence of 10,000 gallons of liquid acellerant.

That requires rational thinking based in reality; Why would someone with delusions about 911 use rational thinking or reality to guide their obsession with supporting idiots who lie?

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

This is the first time for a lot of things, but in both cases, you're simply blaming hypothetical design considerations and overlooking the most obvious realities.

Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse.

So it was column 78 or 80. Not being sure which column was the first to fail doesn't mean that anything but a protracted unfought fire caused the structure to collapse.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

This is the first time for a lot of things, but in both cases, you're simply blaming hypothetical design considerations and overlooking the most obvious realities.

Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse.

In the case of the towers, there is zero physical evidence that core columns ever reached temps necessary to cause them to fail.

NIST has to rely on a series of undocumented design based failures to even suggest what has never even remotely happened in another steel frame high-rise.

Do you have a theory that better fits the observed events of that day? Does anyone?

[Seymour Butz]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse.

In the case of the towers, there is zero physical evidence that core columns ever reached temps necessary to cause them to fail.

.

There IS physical evidence.

NIST documents the window breakage. That is physical evidence that verifies their temp estimate and fire spread models.

And for the towers, they DID collect some core columns. The temp that THEY saw verified the fire spread and temp models, since they agreed with the models.

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

This is the first time for a lot of things, but in both cases, you're simply blaming hypothetical design considerations and overlooking the most obvious realities.

Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse.

In the case of the towers, there is zero physical evidence that core columns ever reached temps necessary to cause them to fail.

NIST has to rely on a series of undocumented design based failures to even suggest what has never even remotely happened in another steel frame high-rise.

What's your physical evidence that the NWO blew up the building?

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by DGM

Do you have a theory that better fits the observed events of that day? Does anyone?

Well of course...controlled demolition using thermite/thermate/hushaboom.

TAM

[The Platypus]

From what I've seen, their alternative theory is basically something like this.

That it was done by the 'Jooooz', in a centuries old plan to bring about an NWO which has a weather control / natural disaster machine and is always busy creating all diseases, to make us take vaccines, and spraying chem-trails from planes as well as putting fluoride in the water which is all designed to imperceptibly dumb us all down and enslave our minds, helped by, completely scripted and constantly choreographed control of every TV, radio and newspaper company, to make us compliant and easy to round up in FEMA concentration camps where they will murder 80% of the population, enslaving the rest while they live forever and become immortal from super duper advanced technology secrets...

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse.

In the case of the towers, there is zero physical evidence that core columns ever reached temps necessary to cause them to fail.

NIST has to rely on a series of undocumented design based failures to even suggest what has never even remotely happened in another steel frame high-rise.

Are you a certified structural engineer/firefighter/fire investigator? No, you're not! You're just a person trying to act smart so it would make you look good on the internet. Well pal, noone ain't buying your paranoid garbage because everyone knows that in order to prove something you've got to have solid evidence. Without evidence you've got nothing! Googling Truther websites for stupid information, that doesn't have evidence, is so over-rated that they're only rated by the idiots who made them & idiots follow what they say.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

This is the first time for a lot of things, but in both cases, you're simply blaming hypothetical design considerations and overlooking the most obvious realities.

Hypothetical design? I'm pretty sure they have how the buildings were designed, correctly described in their report.

Quote:

Namely, in the case of WTC 7, there is zero physical evidence that the fire ever got hot enough, long enough in the region of Column 79 to initiate the global collapse

Well other than the century of fire engineering data, a close estimate of the fuel load in the building and, as was mentioned, the north side window breakage which indicates that the glass reached a certain temp which matches what their computer modelling agrees with. Beyond that you are correct there were no temp sensors mounted on the columns during the blaze. Another obvious design flaw

Quote:

In the case of the towers, there is zero physical evidence that core columns ever reached temps necessary to cause them to fail.

Once again there is of course a century of fire engineering data and research to accompany the fact that of the positively identifiable columns from the outer edges of the fire floors the temps reached by them, as evidenced by the changes to paint and metal, also matches what the computer modelling indicates these columns would reach. Other than that there is also the pictures of sagging floor trusses and the fact that(I see you ignore this fact) this was amultifloor widespread fire within seconds of impact. That last part is a condition that simply has not occured and would result in an obviously much greater rate of temp rise in the columns.

Quote:

NIST has to rely on a series of undocumented design based failures to even suggest what has never even remotely happened in another steel frame high-rise.

Like I said perhaps you consider the fact that structures are not built with temp sensors installed a design flaw.
As for other steel framed structures it seems you are trying to infer that all steel structures react to fire in exactly the same fashion. I assume you are not saying that and so you must agree that these structures should be compared to similar structures. The Windsor for instance is not a similar structure as it had a concrete core column system and was not long span either.
However the Kader toy factory, also not long span construction, was completely destroyed by fire despite the fact that its more conventional design would have aided its resistance to fire damage.

[RedIbis]

[quote=jaydeehess;6046446]

Quote:

Hypothetical design? I'm pretty sure they have how the buildings were designed, correctly described in their report.

You're misreading what I said.

Quote:

Well other than the century of fire engineering data, a close estimate of the fuel load in the building and, as was mentioned, the north side window breakage which indicates that the glass reached a certain temp which matches what their computer modelling agrees with. Beyond that you are correct there were no temp sensors mounted on the columns during the blaze. Another obvious design flaw

Odd that you would rely on everything but physical evidence. And what you call a "close estimate" of fuel loads was admittedly a "mild overestimate." NIST overestimated because more realistic fuel loads wouldn't get the WTC 7 to collapse. Therefore, computer models came in handy to tweak the data and arrive at the desired result. For some reason this doesn't bother the supposed skeptics around here.

Quote:

However the Kader toy factory, also not long span construction, was completely destroyed by fire despite the fact that its more conventional design would have aided its resistance to fire damage.

Kader was not a high rise. Why even bother trying to make the comparison? Remember what NIST told us: WTC 7 was the first known instance of a steel framed high rise collapsing primarily from fire.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense

everyone knows that in order to prove something you've got to have solid evidence. Without evidence you've got nothing!

I agree and what physical evidence did NIST present to come up with their single column collapse hypothesis?

What physical evidence did NIST present to prove that core columns in the towers ever got hot enough to weaken and fail?

[Edx]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Kader was not a high rise. Why even bother trying to make the comparison?

Because truthers claim no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire because they act like steel is this indestructible building material.

And its ironic you should say that since truthers compare all manor of buildings the the WTC that are clearly significantly different.

Quote:

Remember what NIST told us: WTC 7 was the first known instance of a steel framed high rise collapsing primarily from fire.

The point is that truthers act like steel doesn't fail in fires, if a steel frame building can collapse from fire then so can a steel frame high rise. Seriously, what do you imagine is stopping it? Do you imagine that building it higher makes it stronger?

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Edx

Because truthers claim no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire because they act like steel is this indestructible building material.

And its ironic you should say that since truthers compare all manor of buildings the the WTC that are clearly significantly different.



The point is that truthers act like steel doesn't fail in fires, if a steel frame building can collapse from fire then so can a steel frame high rise. Seriously, what do you imagine is stopping it? Do you imagine that building it higher makes it stronger?

Why am I responsible for what this mythical band of Twoofies says?

[BenBurch]

Now might be a good time for this link to be re-used; http://www.quantumtour.com/entity/mcallister/video/1/

[Edx]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Why am I responsible for what this mythical band of Twoofies says?

1. Why mythical? Do you imply they dont exist? I am describing at least 99% of all truthers I've encountered.

2. You ignored my response.... "if a steel frame building can collapse from fire then so can a steel frame high rise. Seriously, what do you imagine is stopping it? Do you imagine that building it higher makes it stronger?"

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

And what you call a "close estimate" of fuel loads was admittedly a "mild overestimate." NIST overestimated because more realistic fuel loads wouldn't get the WTC 7 to collapse. Therefore, computer models came in handy to tweak the data and arrive at the desired result.

Apologies to Thunder for breaking the boycott, but I had to ask: RedIbis, is the above purely the product of your imagination, or do you believe you have a source for it? If the latter, could you post it please? If your source is NIST NCSTAR 1A, a page number would be much appreciated.

Dave

[BenBurch]

Wow am I glad I have certain people on ignore...

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I agree and what physical evidence did NIST present to come up with their single column collapse hypothesis?

What physical evidence did NIST present to prove that core columns in the towers ever got hot enough to weaken and fail?

The point is, if a buildings structural steel is comprimised in the slightest degree, it will fall/fail, reguardless of what you might think or say that gravity doesn't exist.

RedIbis, you're not a structural engineer, nor are you a firefighter or a fire investigator. The proof was in the debris pile with the steel supports & beams being warped by the intense heat from the fires.

I've gotta ask you a question: When was the last time you ever looked for pictures of steel beams that have been subjected to fire & caused it to fail?

Please tell me that you atleast Googled a picture or something?? Show me that you atleast have a brain in that skull of yours RedIbis!

[jaydeehess]

[quote=RedIbis;6048514]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

You're misreading what I said.

Nope, you worded your statement incorrectly.

Quote:

Odd that you would rely on everything but physical evidence. And what you call a "close estimate" of fuel loads was admittedly a "mild overestimate." NIST overestimated because more realistic fuel loads wouldn't get the WTC 7 to collapse. Therefore, computer models came in handy to tweak the data and arrive at the desired result. For some reason this doesn't bother the supposed skeptics around here.

Really?? They said that did they? Perhaps you can show that a slightly lower fuel load would not have the building collapse or is it all just extrapolation from the term "mild overestimate" coupled with your politically motivated view of 'what really happened'?

Quote:

Kader was not a high rise. Why even bother trying to make the comparison? Remember what NIST told us: WTC 7 was the first known instance of a steel framed high rise collapsing primarily from fire.

You are correct it is not a direct comparison to the towers. Neither is the Windsor or any other structure that others of similar mindset as you have brought up.
So, ok let's take it that you believe that only structures with similar characteristics should be compared to the 3 WTC structures that collapsed.

I believe that is what I said above. Glad you are coming around on this.
Fact is that never before in history of tall structures (which goes back barely 100 years) has there been multifloor unfought fires in long span all steel structures(a style that was not present until about 40 years ago) let alone conditions such as were present in the towers in which several thousand gallons of acellerant was spread out over half a dozen floors and ignited to create widespread multifloor fires within in seconds of having had significant structural damage done to them.


ONCE AGAIN RedI; Given that the steel in WTC 7 was unmarked and thus it would be impossible to tell where any specific floor beams of girders came from how would these structural elements be useful in a forensic investigation? Seems to me I asked you that about a year ago. I do not recall your reply.(at the time you were going on about the idea that they should have saved col 79 and I pointed out that all that would do is show that col 79 failed, not why. NIST's study has it failing due to damage done by having the girder pushed off its column seats so those are the pieces you would need)

I also pointed out that there were underground fires as well as collapse damage done to all structural elements and it would be quite problematic to determine what heat damage occured pre collapse versus post collapse so even if it were possible to positively identify the beams and girders you would still be unable to garner much usable data from them if they were located in an area of post collapse fires.

HOWEVER, NIST does give examples of the type of damage that is OFTEN done to steel in office fires. NIST does use the wealth of information available on steel expansion, strength of connections and other well docuemented technical data and research.

For the conjecture that explosives or some mythical form of thermite was used to deliberatly bring these structures down what do you have?
Squat!

Its entirely possible that I have you confused with another, Christopher 7 perhaps, but if I am and it was not you that I questioned before, here is your chance to address it.

YOU know what NIST should have done so let's hear it.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

And what you call a "close estimate" of fuel loads was admittedly a "mild overestimate." NIST overestimated because more realistic fuel loads wouldn't get the WTC 7 to collapse. Therefore, computer models came in handy to tweak the data and arrive at the desired result.

Nothing but crickets. RedIbis, failure to post a source for this assertion will henceforth be taken as an admission that it was a deliberate lie.

Dave

[jaydeehess]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...88#post5181288

RedI has had all of this pointed out to him before and chose to ignore it then as now.

Quote:

I asked you a page or two back what physical evidence would have sufficed for you? Col/79 itself? What would that do? The floor beams that pushed the girder? The girder itself? How would you identify them?

So you already KNOW that the evidence YOU require simply could (not would) never be available and you are using that to try to say that the computer sims are fudged.

NIST gives the calculations on the expansion of the beams. One could, with enough time on their hands, verify them, and then go on to verify that this would have beenm enough to push the girder off its seat. One could also verify that the collapsing floor would take out other floors. So tell me Red, how many floors COULD be safely removed (violently or otherwise) before col 79 buckles due to loss of lateral support?

Surely the brain trust at AE911 have done the calculations, have they not?

Oh, but you then doubt that taking out col 79 could possibly lead to a progressive collapse of the entire structure!

This is an arguement with what science backing Red? AE911 has done their own sim on this and shown that the structure would only fail locally, right?
NO??? I wonder why not? Money? Architects and Engineers, for that matter Lawyers, or pilots, all make good money yet none of them in their "... for 911 Truth" groups has raised anything to conduct any such research.

[dtugg]

RedIbis a liar? No way.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by dtugg

RedIbis a liar? No way.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Nothing but crickets. RedIbis, failure to post a source for this assertion will henceforth be taken as an admission that it was a deliberate lie.

Dave

Yeah ok, it's not like I have a life and have to do other things than post all day. The good news for you is that you get to plan a huge party and invite all of your favorite debunkers because I was inaccurate.

NIST did overestimate fuel loads, but they admitted to mildly overestimating burn duration.

This is obviously a huge gaffe and you should probably focus on it rather than have to confront the reality that NIST had to overestimate burn durations to get their computer models to simulate collapse.

I suspect you and your cohorts will continue to post more laughing dogs, call me silly names and yuk it up like schoolboys, but what you won't do is ask me for a source this time because you probably already know that this is accurate.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Yeah ok, it's not like I have a life and have to do other things than post all day. The good news for you is that you get to plan a huge party and invite all of your favorite debunkers because I was inaccurate.

NIST did overestimate fuel loads, but they admitted to mildly overestimating burn duration.

Cite, please.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Yeah ok, it's not like I have a life and have to do other things than post all day. The good news for you is that you get to plan a huge party and invite all of your favorite debunkers because I was inaccurate.

NIST did overestimate fuel loads, but they admitted to mildly overestimating burn duration.
This is obviously a huge gaffe and you should probably focus on it rather than have to confront the reality that NIST had to overestimate burn durations to get their computer models to simulate collapse.

I suspect you and your cohorts will continue to post more laughing dogs, call me silly names and yuk it up like schoolboys, but what you won't do is ask me for a source this time because you probably already know that this is accurate.

Could you source this for me?





Damn!!!! BigAl beat me to it.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by BigAl

Cite, please.

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 p. 383

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by dtugg

RedIbis a liar? No way.

Drunk again?

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 p. 383

Assuming you are speaking of this publication, the page numbers don't go that high and if you are looking at the page # shown in acrobat, it doesn't say anything like what you claim.


http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...%20Vol%201.pdf

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Yeah ok, it's not like I have a life and have to do other things than post all day. The good news for you is that you get to plan a huge party and invite all of your favorite debunkers because I was inaccurate.

Well, it's good of you to admit you were wrong so graciously.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

NIST did overestimate fuel loads, but they admitted to mildly overestimating burn duration.

Did you mean "did not overestimate fuel loads"? I know it's difficult to tell the truth, but since you've tried so hard I think you deserve a little help.

So, if NIST overestimated burn duration but didn't overestimate fuel loads, that means that they underestimated the rate at which the structure was heated, but calculated the heat energy supplied to the structure correctly. What effect would that have? Firstly, if the rate of heat loss was correct, then the peak temperature would have been lower. Secondly, if the heating rate was lower, then the thermal shock on the structure would be less. Overestimating the burn time, therefore, makes the building less likely to collapse, not more.

ETA: I've found the page. Let's see the actual quote, shall we?

Originally Posted by NIST NCSTAR 1.9

The Floor 11 fires were represented by the floor 12 fires delayed by 1h. This resulted in a westward fire spread rate along the north face that was faster and led to a burn duration that was longer than observed in the photographs. Combined, these results could have led to a mild overestimate of the heating on the north side of the floor.

A mild overestimate of the heating on one side of one floor. RedIbis, are you seriously trying to say that the conditions in WTC7 were so close to causing collapse that a very mild increase in heating of a small part of one floor would have caused collapse, and yet that it's absurd to conclude that the fire actually caused collapse? If you think that's what you mean, you must be able to see what a ridiculous position you're taking. If you don't think that's what you mean, then you don't even understand your own line of argument.

I'd also draw your attention to the word "mild". If any more proof of nitpicking were required, this would be it.

As for your assertion that:

Originally Posted by RedIbis

NIST overestimated because more realistic fuel loads wouldn't get the WTC 7 to collapse. Therefore, computer models came in handy to tweak the data and arrive at the desired result.

You have no grounds for the accusation that NIST deliberately altered the input data to make the models predict collapse. This is therefore a deliberate lie.

Go on, prove me wrong with a credible source.

Dave

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I'd also draw your attention to the word "mild". If any more proof of nitpicking were required, this would be it.

e

Lord only knows what NIST considers a "mild" estimate?

And I did not make a mistake with my previous post, NIST did overestimate fuel loads, as well. They just didn't as readily admit it.

And please drop the bluster and indignation and just have a conversation like an adult.

[dtugg]

Still no evidence that NIST tweeked the data in order to arrive the desired result, I see.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Lord only knows what NIST considers a "mild" estimate?

And I did not make a mistake with my previous post, NIST did overestimate fuel loads, as well. They just didn't as readily admit it.

And please drop the bluster and indignation and just have a conversation like an adult.

Please provide a citation for that assertion. Your link to a NIST pub failed to address your point. See

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...97#post6060397

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by BigAl

Please provide a citation for that assertion. Your link to a NIST pub failed to address your point. See

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...97#post6060397

Sorry for not responding when you posted that eariler. I just thought you would have figured out by now that if the link you provided was for Volume 1 then there must be a Volume 2 somewhere.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

And please drop the bluster and indignation and just have a conversation like an adult.

OK. Can you please post the source for your claim that NIST deliberately adjusted the fuel levels because their initial values did not predict WTC7 collapsing?

At this point, if you'd like to join in the adult conversation, you either post a source or say "I haven't got one".

Dave

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by BigAl

Assuming you are speaking of this publication, the page numbers don't go that high and if you are looking at the page # shown in acrobat, it doesn't say anything like what you claim.


http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...%20Vol%201.pdf

Red's assertion:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedIbis
NIST did overestimate fuel loads, but they admitted to mildly overestimating burn duration.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...99#post6060299

OK. Got it.

On page 393 NIST also says they ran a simulation that underestimated fuel load with no change in results. This is "Simulation 101" to test the model for sensitivity to a range of inputs.

Page 383 contradicts Red's claim.

Page 383 says this:

Quote:

The westward fire rate along the north face was moderately faster and the burn duration was longer than in the visual evidence. Combined, these effects could have led to a mild overstatement of the heating on the north side [of floors 12 and 13]"

So NIST says that if the model was wrong it "mildly" overestimated temperatures in a location far away from the bulk of the fire, the south side.

NIST didn't do that. It is a result of the model.

[Dave Rogers]

While we're waiting, here's something NIST NCSTAR 1A has to say that may be worthy of consideration.

Page 32:

Originally Posted by NIST NCSTAR 1A

Three different thermal response computations were used. Case A used the temperature data as obtained from the FDS simulation. Case B increased the Case A gas temperatures by 10% and case C decreased the gas temperatures by 10%.

Page 36:

Originally Posted by NIST NCSTAR 1A

The three different thermal response cases (A, B and C) were used in the ANSYS analysis. Based on the ANSYS model results, it became apparent that the calculated fire-induced damage to connections and beams were occurring at essentially the same locations and with similar failure mechanisms, but shifted in time. (Case C failures occurred at a later time than the same failures in Case A, and Case A failures occurred at a later time than Case B failures.) As a result, only the fire-induced damage produced by Case B temperatures was carried forward as the initial condition for the building collapse analysis, since the damage occurred in the least computational time (i.e., 6 months).

This makes it quite clear that NIST first checked that their model was insensitive to 10% variations in the input parameters, then used a dataset representative of all their variants to predict the failure mechanism. This is completely in opposition to the assertion that they adjusted the data to achieve a required result; on the contrary, they varied the data to confirm that their conclusions were robust. If they'd deliberately underestimated the fuel load, the collapse would still have occurred, but would have taken longer to occur.

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

This makes it quite clear that NIST first checked that their model was insensitive to 10% variations in the input parameters, then used a dataset representative of all their variants to predict the failure mechanism. This is completely in opposition to the assertion that they adjusted the data to achieve a required result; on the contrary, they varied the data to confirm that their conclusions were robust. If they'd deliberately underestimated the fuel load, the collapse would still have occurred, but would have taken longer to occur.

Dave

Furthermore, if I'm reading things correctly, the initial inputs to the model did indeed predict a collapse. The "tweaking" was nothing more than what you wrote above.

[MikeW]

Perhaps Prof Quintiere might also be useful here. The truthers love him for criticising NIST, after all, so I'm sure they'll also take him seriously when he says "I believe the fuel loading used by NIST is in error and was too low" (for WTC1 and 2, at least), and gives his reasons.