'What about building 7'?

[beachnut]

Nope! Can't explain it without an experiment!

What about the gaping holes and the vaporization of the steel?

... an experiment was done which debunks 911 truth claims.

The steel was corroded, not vaporized, not melted. You are making up nonsense.

 

[Miragememories]

"Nope! Can't explain it without an experiment!

What about the gaping holes and the vaporization of the steel?"

"... an experiment was done which debunks 911 truth claims.

The steel was corroded, not vaporized, not melted. You are making up nonsense."

bolding is mine

"The finding of aluminum in these steel samples, or what used to be steel samples, also supports the theory that thermite was used to melt the steel. I would certainly love to get an official sample of the steel that we know came from a large piece of the steel. This was actually done by Jonathan Barnett. He was contracted by FEMA to do this and he actually took some of the steel members and cut them up. He selected some very significant pieces of steel. He found ones that had oxidation, or sulphidisation of the steel members. Some of them looked like they had been vaporized, certainly melted and he cut up portions of that steel, at that point, at the locations where he saw the sulphidisation. He found similar things. He found iron sulphide in one phase. He found the phases rich in sulphur were attacking the grain boundaries of the steel which is exactly what thermate would do."

bolding is mine

MM

 

[beachnut]

bolding is mine


bolding is mine

MM

The steel was corroded, not melted.
Jeff is nuts on this issue, there was no melted steel, you are spreading lies again. You must be super gullible to fall for Jeff's lies.

Now "bolding is yours" is evidence for you. good for you, you believe idiots who lie.

That sums up your big pile of evidence?

 

[leftysergeant]

Determined by whom? NIST? Worcester Polytechnic group?
Both fraudulent! Lets see a public experiment, like Alien thinks he can do!

None of the morons posting thermite-themed videos reproduced the same effect.

Did you know there were tons of sulphuric acid in all the buildings? Would that have some effect on the steel?

 

[Miragememories]

"None of the morons posting thermite-themed videos reproduced the same effect.

Did you know there were tons of sulphuric acid in all the buildings? Would that have some effect on the steel?"

I find your conclusion based on your observation of a photo image of "the vermicular markings on some of the corroded steel" to be quite lame when compared to the work of people who actually handled and analyzed the material itself.

Neither FEMA's investigator, Dr. Barnett, or Dr. Farrer observed phases in the steel that were the result of exposure to sulphuric acid?

"More significantly probably, was the sulphur content that we found. In fact in one piece, I found a pore in the steel that had pure sulphur embedded in the pore, which I thought was very strange and that is when I really began looking for sulphur and finding it in great abundance in some of these phases."

MM

 

[The Big Dog]

I find your conclusion based on your observation of a photo image of "the vermicular markings on some of the corroded steel" to be quite lame when compared to the work of people who actually handled and analyzed the material itself.

Neither FEMA's investigator, Dr. Barnett, or Dr. Farrer observed phases in the steel that were the result of exposure to sulphuric acid?

MM

Originally Posted by Physicist, Dr. Jeff Farrer

Hee, appeal to authority much, MM?

Try this:

Lab Employee, Jeff Farrer,

 

[Oystein]

"The finding of aluminum in these steel samples, or what used to be steel samples, also supports the theory that thermite was used to melt the steel. I would certainly love to get an official sample of the steel that we know came from a large piece of the steel. This was actually done by Jonathan Barnett. He was contracted by FEMA to do this and he actually took some of the steel members and cut them up. He selected some very significant pieces of steel. He found ones that had oxidation, or sulphidisation of the steel members. Some of them looked like they had been vaporized, certainly melted and he cut up portions of that steel, at that point, at the locations where he saw the sulphidisation. He found similar things. He found iron sulphide in one phase. He found the phases rich in sulphur were attacking the grain boundaries of the steel which is exactly what thermate would do."

bolding is mine

MM

Re-bolding is mine.

The Barnett study ("FEMA Appendix C") is pretty clear on what happened:

(p. 1: )
...severe erosion found in several beams...
...the most severely eroded regions...
...Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack...
...subsequent intergranular melting...
...hot corrosion attack...
(p. 2: )
...the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1000°C (1800°F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel. ...
(p.5.: )
...The thinning of the steel occurred by a high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation...
...is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides ... severe corrosion...
(p. 8: )
...eroded region...
...It is possible and likely, that ... substantial penetration by a solid state diffusion mechanism would have occurred... . Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700-800°C.
(p. 13: )
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2...
...possible that this is the result of long-term heating...
...risk ... to steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

The better expert here is Jonathan Barnett: Because he a) had a chance to study the swiss cheese steel, and b) he is a professor in Fire Protection Engineering - one of the relevant fields of study here. He has teamed up with Ronald R. Biederman (a metallurgist) and R. D. Sisson (professor for Materials Science and Engineering, and dean of graduate studies at WPI). All three of them are a lot more academically accomplished than Mr. Farrer, with many more peer-reviewed papers, and tenure professorships.
These better experts do not describe the macro-appearence of these steel samples as "vaporized, certainly melted". That description is a lie, lied up by worse expert Farrer. The true expert description is "corroded" or "eroded". They do describe "melting" of eutectics and "liquefied" steel for Sample 1, but that is a micro-process, true for tiny regions ("intergranular") well within the steel samples that were particularly high in sulphides. For Sample 2, they point out that no melting at all is evident! They also conclude that the process must have occurred during a long period!

Please, MM, explain why Mr. Farrer so misrepresents the work of Barnett e.al.!

 

[Redwood]

Things have been slow around here, so I thought I'd revive this old thread. Any explanation of the collapse of WTC 7 must deal with the visible evidence, specifically the fall of the East Penthouse some ~7 seconds before the fall of the North Facade. This is true, whether one ascribes the collapse to fire, invisible nanothermite, silent high explosives, Judy Wood death rays, or Monstrous Metal-Munching Mechanical Moon Mice. And yet, Truthers consistently avoid mentioning the fall of the E.P.

A problem for Truthers who believe demolition charges were used is that, while the core columns of the Twin Towers were concealed from ordinary view, none of them being visible from the rentable space of the Twin Towers, the columns supporting the East Penthouse were in the middle of rentable space. How was the Vast Conspiracy able to rig them with demolition charges and keep them concealed, with people working all around them?

 

[ozeco41]

Things have been slow around here,...

Understatement award - I've been infesting a couple of other forums.

HOWEVER

Don't forget the need for "Delayed Action Gravity" ["DAG"] as part of the truther armoury of technologies - not available to us normal folks.

AFAIK first revealed in public by Tony Szamboti when he needed it to explain Twin Towers collapses - his claim being that there was CD of the core which dropped pulling in the perimeter façade panels (The observed and so called "Inward Bowing")

Collapse of the tower was not till some minutes later - therefore several minutes delay in gravity coming into effect.

I must admit that T Sz re-framed his support for the technlogy as soon as I pointed out the "bleedingly obvious" fact that "DAG" is not even in beta at this time.

 

[dadeets]

It may have been slow here the past 3+ years on Building 7, but not everywhere.

The 911 Consensus Panel has issued seven Points re: WTC 7

http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/

C. Consensus Points about the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Point WTC7-1: The Claim that WTC 7 Collapsed from Fire Alone

Point WTC7-2: The Claim in NIST’s Draft Report that WTC 7 Did Not Come Down at Free Fall Acceleration

Point WTC7-3: The Claim in NIST’s Final Report that WTC 7 Came Down in Free Fall Without Explosives

Point WTC7-4: Did the Official Simulation of the Fall of WTC7 Match the Observed Collapse?

New, June 2014:

Point WTC7-5: World Trade Center Building 7: NIST’s Analysis of the Collapse Initiation Is Not Valid

Point WTC7-6: The Fraudulent NIST Claim That There Was No Steel Recovered from Building WTC7 for Analysis

Point WTC7-7: Foreknowledge of the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

 

[dadeets]

Accidental post. Needs to be trashed.

 

[carlitos]

The 23-member 9/11 Consensus Panel is building a body of evidence-based research into the events of September 11, 2001. This evidence -- derived from a standard scientific reviewing process -- is available to any investigation that may be undertaken by the public, the media, academia, or any other investigative body or institution. The Panel regularly features selected excerpts from its Consensus Points, with links to full supporting documentation. These featured excerpts are shown below, along with other recent News items.

Whoops.

Press Release: World Trade Center Bldg. 7’s Controlled Demolition: 9/11 Consensus Panel Releases New Evidence from Witness Testimonies and Architectural Drawings

 

[ozeco41]

It may have been slow here the past 3+ years on Building 7, but not everywhere.

Greetings DD - long time no see.

I haven't read through the lot but try one sample - the first one I went to "TT-1" - not selected as either "best" OR "silliest". This is the first part:

The Official Account

The Twin Towers were brought down by airplane impacts, jet fuel, and office fires.

The Best Evidence

Experience, based on physical observation and scientific knowledge, shows that office fires, even with the aid of jet fuel, could not have reached temperatures greater than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 degrees Celsius).^A
But multiple scientific reports2 show that metals in the Twin Towers melted.^B These metals included steel, iron, and molybdenum – which normally do not melt until they reach 2,700˚F (1482˚C), 2,800˚F (1538˚ C), and 4,753˚F (2,623˚C), respectively.^C

So after years of determining a "highest common factor" we see (for this point - "TT-1"):

A A standard truther strawman built on a mix of explicit and implied untruths. And after so many years they must be deliberate untruths AKA lies. People can no longer be genuinely be unaware of reality:
(a) "Office fires" - get real.
(b) "aid of jet fuel" - ditto. One of the all time biggest unfought building fires - started with help from jet fuel BUT with immediate start across multiple floors and the material "bulldozed" to one side of the building. And still in 2014 resorting to the lie by innuendo "office fires". Grow up folks.
(c) Then the implied target that steel wouldn't melt - the core issue of the strawman. It didn't need to melt. Weakening of steel is what happened. It only needs to be small area of columns at a time to contribute to a cascade failure. Why don't these folks get a competent engineer to explain things to them.

B (a)Outright lie as all those on the working group should by now be aware.
(b) Even if true - so what? non-sequitur.

C Truisms used as padding. Clearly a propaganda ploy because:
(a) Anyone sufficiently aware of the physics to comprehend the implied argument would be aware of those melting point issues; WHILST
(b) Anyone who is sufficiently uninformed could be vulnerable to the deception.

So your claim of progress is a phantom. Progress certainly in getting some "inner movement" people agreeing as to what their creed is.

BUT a total waste of time because the CONTENT of the creed is the same long proven false technical nonsense.

In brief - from the samples I looked at - the consensus is merely recycling dead issues - all the same as the legal and technical nonsense of the Pepper letter is recycling the false WTC7 claims based on T Szamboti's false arguments. When Szamboti has many times been shown where those arguments are variously false, unproven, miss the point, evade other aspects etc.

 

[Animal]

It may have been slow here the past 3+ years on Building 7, but not everywhere.

The 911 Consensus Panel has issued seven Points re: WTC 7

http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/

C. Consensus Points about the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Point WTC7-1: The Claim that WTC 7 Collapsed from Fire Alone

Point WTC7-2: The Claim in NIST’s Draft Report that WTC 7 Did Not Come Down at Free Fall Acceleration

Point WTC7-3: The Claim in NIST’s Final Report that WTC 7 Came Down in Free Fall Without Explosives

Point WTC7-4: Did the Official Simulation of the Fall of WTC7 Match the Observed Collapse?

New, June 2014:

Point WTC7-5: World Trade Center Building 7: NIST’s Analysis of the Collapse Initiation Is Not Valid

Point WTC7-6: The Fraudulent NIST Claim That There Was No Steel Recovered from Building WTC7 for Analysis

Point WTC7-7: Foreknowledge of the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

You lose all credibility falling for the Tony S. claims and mentioning Pepper.

 

[beachnut]

It may have been slow here the past 3+ years on Building 7, but not everywhere.

The 911 Consensus Panel has issued seven Points re: WTC 7

http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/

C. Consensus Points about the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Point WTC7-1: The Claim that WTC 7 Collapsed from Fire Alone

Point WTC7-2: The Claim in NIST’s Draft Report that WTC 7 Did Not Come Down at Free Fall Acceleration

Point WTC7-3: The Claim in NIST’s Final Report that WTC 7 Came Down in Free Fall Without Explosives

Point WTC7-4: Did the Official Simulation of the Fall of WTC7 Match the Observed Collapse?

New, June 2014:

Point WTC7-5: World Trade Center Building 7: NIST’s Analysis of the Collapse Initiation Is Not Valid

Point WTC7-6: The Fraudulent NIST Claim That There Was No Steel Recovered from Building WTC7 for Analysis

Point WTC7-7: Foreknowledge of the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

Did you inspire pilots for truth to make up fake information? Why do you support lies about 911? Why can't you take action with your failed fantasy?

Point WTC7-6: The Fraudulent NIST Claim That There Was No Steel Recovered from Building WTC7 for Analysis

There was no melted steel. Can't you read and comprehend the report on the "swiss cheese" steel? It was corroded, to say otherwise is anti-intellectual claptrap. Why do you spread false information on 911?

What is the silly Consensus 9/11 paranoid conspiracy theorists' goal?

Wow, WTC 7, the first fire never fought in the history of high rise buildings. No water, no fire fighting, and the building collapsed. Wow, Consensus 9/11 fake experts can't figure out 911, so Consensus 9/11 fake experts make up nonsense. NASA must be so proud of your Consensus 9/11 fake expert consulting spreading lies about 911. What did they say about your failed support of Consensus 9/11?

I can't believe Consensus 9/11 puts out so much claptrap. How did Consensus 9/11 come up with so much dumbed down points? Consensus 9/11 audience who believes their fantasy junk are people like the Boston bombers, as the lies Consensus 9/11 spread and inspire, help reinforce the hate people have - why does Consensus 9/11 support so much junk? Who will Consensus 9/11 inspire now with their implied anti-government fantasy?

 

[ozeco41]

You lose all gredibility falling for the Tony S. claims and mentioning Pepper.

That is what I was hinting at with my reference to needing a "competent engineer".

They need an engineer who is on their side AND can explain to them in simple language why Tony is totally out of his depth on the complex issues, why he still will not correct the false basis of his Magnum Opus "Missing Jolt".

The bind is that any engineer good enough to show them why Tony is wrong would not be "on their side". Catch whatever...they are down a dead end street...nowhere to go.

Essentially they are all at the same stage as Gage - he is simply playing the game out for maximum revenue. "they" are not making money, there is little credible ego stroking left. The best advice to give them is sneak quietly away and get on with life as if it never happened. There is no way out with both dignity and fanfare.

 

[pgimeno]

(c) Then the implied target that steel wouldn't melt - the core issue of the strawman. It didn't need to melt. Weakening of steel is what happened. It only needs to be small area of columns at a time to contribute to a cascade failure. Why don't these folks get a competent engineer to explain things to them.

I don't think that's where that point is headed at. It basically insinuates that since the fire wasn't able to melt metals, and there were molten metals, something must have melted them, i.e. thermite.

 

[JSanderO]

Point WTC7-1: The Claim that WTC 7 Collapsed from Fire Alone

Point WTC7-2: The Claim in NIST’s Draft Report that WTC 7 Did Not Come Down at Free Fall Acceleration

Point WTC7-3: The Claim in NIST’s Final Report that WTC 7 Came Down in Free Fall Without Explosives

Point WTC7-4: Did the Official Simulation of the Fall of WTC7 Match the Observed Collapse?

New, June 2014:

Point WTC7-5: World Trade Center Building 7: NIST’s Analysis of the Collapse Initiation Is Not Valid

Point WTC7-6: The Fraudulent NIST Claim That There Was No Steel Recovered from Building WTC7 for Analysis

Point WTC7-7: Foreknowledge of the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

1. the collapse was not from fire, but from the loss of strength of components of the structure which then began a cascading failure which rendered what was left of the structure incapable of supporting itself and the service loads... it collapsed due to the force of gravity not fire.

2. It didn't come down at FF acceleration. The curtain wall did because it was undermined at floor 8 and it fell 104 feet to the ground and then crushed up. The motion was not precisely FF because the exterior frame and curtain wall still had some elements of the interior structure attached to it as it fell.

3. There was no evidence of explosives and gravity (FF) has nothing to do with explosives.

4. The simulation / animation did not. It was an attempt to show how a very complex series of interactions undoing a massive skyscraper MIGHT have occurred. This was probably one of many way it could have happened and apparently was not THE precise way. The simulation demonstrated that the building COULD collapse from col 79 failure. Taking this animation too literally is stupid.

5. Basically correct that their analysis was perhaps not a correct match to the real world. They imply lacked real world data and made it up (what they believed to be reasonable) to run the simulation.

6. How does this imply CD? The received steel that they didn't present shows no sign of fowl play... does it? Or did they destroy that steel? How would anyone know?

7. FDNY and DOB made assessments of the structure throughout the morning and by afternoon had determined that the structure has unstable . This is part of their mandate when a building has had some structural damage or is burning in an uncontrolled manner for hours as 7wtc was. So in the afternoon they made an INFORMED PREDICTION that the structure would collapse. This was not foreknowledge but a assessment based on their experience. And they were correct. They did what they were supposed to do... protect life and ordered personal to be removed from the area. Perhaps the consensus panel should have taken testimony from those who made the wide decision as opposed to suggest they were in on some plot.

The so called "consensus" panel is nothing but a "trick" to try to give legitimacy to the false claims of CD of the truth movement by assembling a biased panel members and calling their decisions consensus based on evidence. The only ones who accept this as valid are the ones who already have made up their minds that the towers came down by CD. Anyone else who looks at the panel's work with objectivity sees it is dropping with bias... and the whole truth movement appears to be very similar to a cult...

Or as they say... if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck...

911 truth... just another cult

 

[JSanderO]

Essentially they are all at the same stage as Gage - he is simply playing the game out for maximum revenue. "they" are not making money, there is little credible ego stroking left. The best advice to give them is sneak quietly away and get on with life as if it never happened. There is no way out with both dignity and fanfare.

They won't go away as long as they can make cash and have followers hanging on their every word.

As noted this is precisely the behavior of a cult... a set of false beliefs made to sound scientific and rational with a charismatic leader who they thing is the next best thing to sliced bread and who can do or say no wrong. Moonies, Scientology, Jones, Manson.... and now 9/11 truth... all cut from the same cloth.

It only shows that you can fool some of the people all of the time...

 

[ozeco41]

I don't think that's where that point is headed at. It basically insinuates that since the fire wasn't able to melt metals, and there were molten metals, something must have melted them, i.e. thermite.

Yes that is the intermediary step they are pressing. I decided to by-pass the thermXte diversions and point Dadeets at the inevitable structural problem they are heading towards....

...and took the opportunity to remind him of the reality that their structural engineering advisors don't know what they are talking about.