DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[thewholesoul]

what is your explanation of the extreme temperatures?

I see. Could you provide the source for the statements to which you are referring?

“Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure” http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

NIST also concluded that FEMA were wrong concerning the temperatures in the corroded region of the steel sample. According to NIST the temperatures must have been “much higher” than 800c. Now if 700-800c is “severe” for FEMA I would imagine greater temperatures are “severe” for NIST also. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf

the RJ Lee Report notes “extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize” http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...on of the Dust/S1_TechMemo.051204.2000.mh.pdf

If you bothered to read my post 809 to Norseman you would realize what the temperature range “severe high temperatures” is refering to.

I would like to check that when FEMA and NIST refer to “severe high temperatures” they are using the term in the same sense you are.

Yes I too consider temperatures approaching 1000c severe

However, given that you seem to mean “temperatures in excess of 1,500°C” – i.e. the approximate melting point of steel – I suspect not.

Temperature in excess of 1500c are required to melt steel. Molten steel was reported on sept 12 and for several weeks afterwards. I would call temperatures exceeding 1500c “extreme” temperatures. NIST denies the existence of the molten steel. NIST should read the following link of testimony seen here: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html and here: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AE911Truth-NIST-Written-Submission12-18-07.pdf

This is another weirdly premised argument.
• The Open Civil Engineering Journal raised the question of P.
• Therefore P.

P = the existence of severe temperatures; the journal raised a question not whether P existed but rather what was the cause of P. The fact that they raised the question - what was the “cause” of P - necessarily implies that P already exists! For example, when i ask what is the cause my skin to turning red on holidays the question necessarily implies that the phenomena i.e. my red skin, already exists. So of course raising the question as to the “cause” of P implies P unless that is you ascribe to Berkely’s subjective idealism?

The period in which the building stood burning was indeed a building fire. The point I am making, however, is that the period immediately following the collapses – the debris pile fire – was not.

Ok lets move away from semantics.

False dichotomy: Banality and fact are scarcely mutually exclusive characteristics. This very sentence circularly serves as conclusive evidence of the same.

Par – the king of hair splitting

Petitio principii: The question of whether or not the reactions took place during the building fires – as opposed to during the debris pile fires, etc. – is precisely the point at issue.

Good news Par, I just found examples of the “swiss cheese” appearance and evaporation of a “vesicular alumino-silicate particles” in the WTC dust samples collected by the RJ Lee report. You can find the images of these particles at http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf so we have clear evidence that eutectic reactions took place during the collapse. So you can hang on to the “belief” that the evaporated steel samples at wtc 7 examined by FEMA and NIST occured during the debris pile because the melting point of aluminosilicate particles is 2760c. That sounds “severe” to me...or should i say “extreme”...you choose! Oh yes and the RJ Lee report did not provide any explanation as to the origin of the “extremely high temperatures during collapse”. But I am sure you can!

Moving on...just watch the confidence in Par’s response
The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/07NYTimes7WTCwhy.html

“Mysteries that have confounded the scientific community”. http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

“Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese”. http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

“The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese” http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

This is peripherally interesting, but not relevant.

Rather central I would imagine as what the above point out is that there is no explanation for the swiss cheese appearance in the context of the official hypothesis. so next time you attempt to offer an explanation for certain anomoly just remember that there is no official explanation. And when i ask you what is your explanation behind the extreme temperatures and sulfidation, just be honest and say “i dont know” so we can move on to the next point.

In response to the follwoing question:

Explain how a slow burning, low temperature, oxygen starved, water saturated smoldering fire of concrete, dust and office material can burn for several months and reach temperatures exceeding 1500c?

you replied

The eutectic reactions did not require such temperatures.

Eutectic reactions refer to the swiss cheese appearance i.e. the evaporation; my question was refering to the molten steel which melts at 1500c. So does steel require 1500c to melt and if so how can the smoldering pile as described above produce these temperatures?

Argumentum ad tantrum

Good response.

Rationalism and extreme sports are worlds apart.

Clever response.

Petitio principii: The question of whether or not the reactions took place during the building fires – as opposed to within the debris pile fires, etc. – is precisely the point at issue.

Not so clever response. RJ Lee report notes the presence of such reactions during the collapse. 2760c to vapourize aluminosilicate particles. And your explanation is ...............ah can you hear the silence?

The above is a characteristically weird argument:
• Conditions within the debris pile were relatively unusual.
• But then so were collapses [and the factors which led to them].
• Therefore, the eutectic reactions took place while the buildings stood.
It’s a non sequitur.

Its not my fault you misunderstood my argument, but allow me to explain
Because you said this:

this serves as evidence that the reactions did not take place during the building fires, but more likely under the relatively unusual conditions within the debris

I inferred that you were trying to support YOUR position (i.e. that the reactions took place in the debris pile and not during the collapse) based on the following reason: that the debris pile possessed “relatively unusual conditions.” Whereas in contrast the collapse itself did not.

Naturally i wished to counter the reason in support of your position and so i cited the towers collapsing as equally if not more unusual. Therefore i argued that if we are to determine the occurance of the reactions based on the criterion “unusual conditions” then the reactions occured during the collapse.

To be honest though i think i was guilty knit picking with that argument.

Petitio principii: The question of whether or not the reactions took place during the building fires – as opposed to within the debris pile fires, etc. – is precisely the point at issue.

RJ Lee report

But i was merely establishing the fact that those who investigated the incident did not rule out the possibility of eutectic reactions happening during the collapse. This is a reason that supports the claim that eutectic reactions occured during collapse. I am sure you can appreciate that.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam: The mere fact that a theory has not been proven false does not provide us with any reason to think it true.
Incidentally, until now I had been under the impression you were claiming the reactions took place while the buildings stood.

RJ Lee report

However, going by the above (and some of your subsequent points) it seems you’re espousing a “during the physical collapse itself” theory. Strictly speaking, the reactions could have taken place during any number of the following rough and somewhat arbitrary periods:
1. During the building fires: Between the time the aircraft (or debris) stuck the building, igniting the fire and moment just prior to the initiation of collapse.
2. During the physical collapse itself: The relatively brief period between the initiation of collapse and the moment the roof of the building approximately reached the ground.
3. During the debris pile fires: The period of a number of weeks that the debris burned underground.

RJ Lee report

Now, as DGM has pointed out, there exist innocuous explanations for the reactions even if it turns out that they took place while the buildings stood. Thus, our current discussion, as I acknowledged earlier, has been somewhat academic. However, it seems you are currently claiming that the reactions took place solely during the physical collapse itself (2). If so, then the issue becomes marginally more interesting. It would be helpful if you could clarify this for me.

The towers were demolished with preplanted explsoives so when the towers actually were “being” demolished the explosives were going off and the anomolies were being produced (mircosphericules, horseshoe I-beams, etc). However i could accept that reactions were continuing within the debris pile e.g. production of molten steel and evaporation of steel. I also know of anomolies indicative and only explicable of explosives being produced when the building still stood post 377 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92099&page=10 but here the strongest argument against the official hypothesis is extreme temperatures before and during the destruction of the towers because it eliminates the available explanations since the ONLY source of heat is a little hydrocarbon fire with max temp of 825c.

You seem to be relying on a very strange principle: “Dust samples taken from the site can only contain particles which formed specifically during – not before and not after – the building collapses.” Said principle, however, is straightforwardly false.

When was the vast amount of dust produced? Not before, not after, but during the collapse. FEMA, USGS, RJ Lee, Jones, etc specifically took samples of the dust. And they too assumed it was produced...wait for it...during the collapse.

I wasn’t all that clear, admittedly, and so I’ll clarify: “This is something of a petitio principii. Whether or not the observation of the spheres serves as evidence of extreme temperatures [within the building fires, during the collapses or within the debris pile] is a crux point at issue.”

Well i am glad we settled the crux – read RJ Lee report. Now my friend you can nolonger avoid giving an explanation that you do not posses. Then i can move on to another subject where i will elicit another similar result.

You seem to have replaced your lone conditional premise with bare assertion. This much is less weird, but equally unsound.

I am too tired to respond. I’m off to bed. Looking forward to hearing your next response. I always enjoy intelligent people so eloquently avoiding the “i dont knows” in life.

peace

 

[bio]

NIST tested floor assemblies built to original specification with fireproofing applied. They did not test floor assemblies without fireproofing. See FAQ #8 here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

The aircraft dislodged the fireproofing from the steel on the impact floors, that is a well established fact.

strange.

Why did NIST test the steel with fireproofing, if dislodged fireproofing is "a well established fact"?

 

[thewholesoul]

1. insults with no single argument
2. again insults, no argument
3. again insults, no argumentation

are these the standard references of "debunkers" here?

nice post amigo, honest and effective

 

[Norseman]

Yes i read the entire thread. I send a post to dr greening and am awaiting a reply. My point is basically the following: both Dr. Greening and Chain saw claim that iron sphericules can be made in incinerators (below 1000c) or at room temperature. Assuming this is true. Then my question was well what about the other sphericules? http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

Molybdenum sphericules require an even higher temperature than iron sphericules (2623c). Can they be formed below 1000c or at room temperature?

If not, then the presence of molybdenum sphericules is evidence of extreme temperatures prior to collapse.

It was a molybdenum and aluminium rich spherule together with some other elements according to UGS. It could have come from a broad range of sources and chemical reactions in the area. Because molybdenum is used in stuff all around us. Again Jones have to count all those possible sources, so his "evidence" is useless.

Some comments by Crazy Chainsaw, Apollo 20 and Myriad:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3384852#post3384852
Read down to and including the next post by Crazy Chainsaw.

Some additional stuff I dug out last night when I took a look.

From the website of the International Molybdenum Association:

Molybdenum is a part of life and of our lives.
Molybdenum is an essential trace element in humans, animals and plants.
Molybdenum is used in buildings and bridges, pipes and power plants, cars
and computers, paints, plastics and catalysts.
More uses plus a wealth of information on the sources and markets,
characteristics and benefits of ‘moly’ are presented on this website.

Lots of stuff explore on that website, like the spherules on top of this page.

Some example of uses:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5066611/description.html
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=WO1984004629&DISPLAY=DESC

Maybe the spherule came from the engine of a Saturn car:

The aluminum pistons, which are produced for Saturn by Kolbenschmidt, have undergone a modification, with a redesign of the head profile to make it smaller than the previous piston. Also, a molybdenum coating is applied to the piston to help decrease friction.

From Wikipedia:

Although its melting point is 2623 °C, molybdenum rapidly oxidizes at temperatures above 760 °C, making it better-suited for use in vacuum environments.

A Google search for Molybdenum returns about 7 650 000 hits.

 

[applecorped]

nice post amigo, honest and effective

Effective how?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

strange.

Why did NIST test the steel with fireproofing, if dislodged fireproofing is "a well established fact"?

Part of NISTS's objective was to seek answers to the following:

• "Would the undamaged WTC towers have remained standing in a conventional large building fire scenario?"
  
• "What factors related to normal building and fire safety considerations, if any, could have saved additional WTC occupant lives or could have minimized the loss of life among the ranks of first responders?"

Source

The above are just two of many such scenarios taken into consideration. Their overall objective was to make building code assessments from the study of the trade centers and the associated damage and collapse initiation.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

When was the vast amount of dust produced? Not before, not after, but during the collapse. FEMA, USGS, RJ Lee, Jones, etc specifically took samples of the dust. And they too assumed it was produced...wait for it...during the collapse.

Not supportive of your argument. The dust is produced regardless of whether the building is collapsing due to structural failure or by explosives. You have the weight of what is equivalent to a 15 story building crushing materials with 1-acre of coverage...
This is common sense...

 

[thewholesoul]

sorry for the long post Norsman i will keep em shirter in future

I think you should read this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3332769#post3332769

Regarding flowing aluminum:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3093006#post3093006

I checked them out. Interesting read. But my question was show me a photo or video of molten aluminium flowing bright yellow in daylight. Neither thread could do so.

In your post 53 the following was proposed

The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color

The photos in support of this are found here http://eecue.com/log_archive/eecue-log-533-Drive_Slagging_Repost.html

In the bucket the material did look very similar to the stuff from the south tower, but when it was poured out of the bucket it did not look similar to the distinct bright yellow orange colour rather it was kinda dull orange.

The resident expert Crazy chainsaw wrote this

Steel does not have to melt to be flowing from the towers, though that is the main problem with truthers arguments and steel flowing does not mean thermite.

Low melt ferris-es exist and one of them is ironIIIchlorate. Which by the way oxidizes at over 700C so it could be the compound seen.
The compound could also be aluminum with iron dust included inside the oxide layer, from impact, or lead and iron dust.
It could also be the plastic PVC covering of the lead acid batteries combined with lead going though chemical reactions.
Without a sample of the material it is impossible to say what it is, however it is definitely not molten steel.

So steel doesnt have to melt to be flowing? For a layman I find this hard to swallow unfortuantely Chainsaw provides no links to photos, videos or scientific articles. So i will just have to take his word that non-melted steel flows.

But his reasoning is certainly perplexing. First he claims that the substance flowing from the south tower could be x, y or z; but without a sample of the material he contends that it would IMPOSSIBLE to determine what the substance actually is. But in his very next breath and without a sample of the material he is able to determine that the substance IS DEFINITELY NOT MOLTEN STEEL?

In contrast professor jones does experiments provides photos, explains everything, and debunks the hypothesis of Dr.Greening and NIST through experimentation http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf Jones’s paper is hands down far more convincing.

According to the Oxford American Dictionary included on my Mac computer "thousands" are any number between 1000 - 9999. I absolutely agree that the "expert" were talking in Fahrenheit. Converted into Celsius we are starting at 537,78 degrees. At 549 degrees Celsius steel has lost 50% of its strength and at 749 degrees it has lost 90% of its structural strength. This article should be of interest to you:

But thousand(s) is plural is it not? Perhaps your Mac computer has a virus my friend?

http://rustylopez.typepad.com/newcov...y_is_made.html

According to this link we should be building our skyscrapers with WOOD!

Unprotected steel looses 90%integrity in 40 minutes. So how come the floor assemblies in the north tower didnt loose their structural integrity in 3hrs?

Video showing how a Sherman's Necktie is made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg

I would like to see them make a shermans necktie with an eight ton steel I-beam. Besides norseman where was that I-beam located? In the imapct zone or below?

And who said that you need high temperatures to bend steel:
Tractor with steel beam wrapped around it

The experts who examined the steel.

But aside from that it was a good link because it illustrates the energy involved in creating horseshoes.

A description of the tornado:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/bou/severe/jul18_tor/PNSFAR
The remainder of the photo gallery:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/bou/severe/j.../jul18_tor.php

I think we can rule out that the towers fell from a tornado Noreseman. The experts who examined the steel I-beam said it was horseshoed from high temperatures not by other forces. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=2w6HWJ476z4&feature=related
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=DzTEIqkZKIM

can you produce any experts who actually examined the deformed wtc steel beams and claimed that the “bending” was not caused by high temperatures?

Yet another tornado that bent I-beams around threes, look down on the page:
http://www.wilcoxwebworks.com/tornado/

i get it norseman, tornados can bend steel beams. but we are talking about high temperatures bending steel beams, not tornados. Now if the I-beam in question was not located in or near the impact zone – where did the temperatures required to produce such a phenomenom come from?

The quality of the journal and article in question is covered in this thread, links directly to three posts in the thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...33#post3634733
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...84#post3634184
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...77#post3634377

One big ad hom...
When their papers are published in Journals to your standards what will you say then I wonder?

NIST tested floor assemblies built to original specification with fireproofing applied. They did not test floor assemblies without fireproofing. See FAQ #8 here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

I think i will await your reply to bio who asks

Why did NIST test the steel with fireproofing, if dislodged fireproofing is "a well established fact"?

This is a straightforward question. If NIST hypothesis is that the unprotected steel floor assemblies sagged 42 inches from fire – why on earth did they not test whether unprotected steel floor assemblies would sag 42 inches from fire? Because they failed to do such a test it is both correct and accurate to say that their hypothesis is not supported by any physical experiment.

Now i imagine you will respond citing the following link http://rustylopez.typepad.com/newcov...y_is_made.html and argue that its a known fact that after 50 minutes unprotected steel will lose all structural integrity therefore NIST had no need to conduct such experiments but if that were true how come the floor assemblies in the north towers did not loose their structural intergrity after being exposed to a fire for 3hours?

The aircraft dislodged the fireproofing from the steel on the impact floors, that is a well established fact.

According to NIST “widely-dislodged fireproofing” was the primary reason the towers collapsed

so how did they prove that the fireproofing was widely dislodged? they shot 15 rounds of a shotgun at a non representative plywood box!!!

but there own experiment disproves their theory that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of spray-on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire since the shoy gun balsts only removed the fireproofing where they were struck with the shotgun blast.
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#dislodged
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032

It was a molybdenum and aluminium rich spherule together with some other elements according to UGS. It could have come from a broad range of sources and chemical reactions in the area. Because molybdenum is used in stuff all around us. Again Jones have to count all those possible sources, so his "evidence" is useless.

I agree that many sources exist and i am sure with enough tme and your talent for research we would soon find sources of molybdenum in househld toothpaste and boxes of cornflakes! I agree that sphericules have different pathways of formation. But the question is where did the high temperatures originate to create these sphericules? And in response to your comment

“Although its melting point is 2623 °C, molybdenum rapidly oxidizes at temperatures above 760 °C” .

Does that mean that moly sphericules form at 760c? Does rapid oxidation = high temperature sphericule formation?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

In contrast professor jones does experiments provides photos, explains everything, and debunks the hypothesis of Dr.Greening and NIST through experimentation http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf Jones’s paper is hands down far more convincing.

TheWholeSoul... I'm reading that PDF, and I have immediate need to put on my tin foil hat... Molten metal aside that paper has serious neglect of facts. Why is a paper like that more convincing...

--This guy [Steven Jones] is pointing already to squibs on WTC 7:

THOSE AREN'T EVEN SQUIBS!!!!!!!!!!! NADA NONE NIL!!!!!!!

Here's his 'squibs':

oops... he missed the damage at that south corner near the top of the building.....

-- This link he gives to 911research does not show readers the initiating event that occurs 8 seconds prior to the onset of the final global collapse
911research does better presentation than loose change did, I'll give it that, but it doesn't help credibility if you leave out parts of the event in order to advance the argument.


-- Going back to molten steel... I tried to click the links there but got 404 errors, but I've read part of his book 'debunking 911 debunking... so I'll use that for the molten steel argument.

• First off he obtains 3 accounts, two of which spoke of the steel as being 'cherry red'. First off... steel at this stage could be as cool as 400oC & definitely no greater than 1100oC. These temperatures are easily reachable by normal office fires - contrary to Griffin's claim
  
• The third account doesn't specifically mention color however does note that liquid and solid steel being in contact with each other.
  In fact, the account is on tat file you linked:
  
  Greg Fuchek, was the vice president of a company that provided some of the computer equipment used to identify human remains.
  
  “sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from
  the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.”
  
  Obviously the only thing that is clear from that account is that Fuchek was in the area and not working to recover the steel. Is there any mention of him having expertise in metallurgy?
  
  
• In order for molten steel to drip off of a steel column, when both have been in place for some time, both the column and the dripping metal would need to be in thermal equilibrium.
  
• As steel has a significant heat of fusion, we have to assume that both the liquid and solid portions of steel were at the same temperature. If that were the case then parts of the column would have lost all of its integrity or melted around the edges. It would be damn near impossible to pull that beam out without severely distorting it in the process, if not leaving partially melted sections behind. This is not supportive of Griffin's steel argument...
  
  Later in your document Jones starts citing Dr. Jones again... here he begins deliberately confusing molten steel and molten metal:
  
  "The existence of the molten metal is very well known, partly because Steven Jones’ famous essay
  begins with this issue. After quoting several people who reported “observations of molten metal
  in the basements of all three buildings,”
  
  Jones added:
  Some six weeks after 9/11, the observed surface of the metal was still reddish orange. This
  suggests that there was a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a
  relatively large heat capacity. It is, therefore, more likely to be iron or steel than aluminum.
  
  Dr. Jone's words are bolded...
  A reddish-orange surface color implies a temperature too cold to be molten steel... Equally important is that we already know that materials continued burning in the debris piles for weeks afterwards.
  
  
  
• It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete, plastics from office furniture and equipment, fuels from elevator hydraulics, cars and other sources are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.
  Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said. The longest-burning fire on earth, in southeastern Australia, is thought to have been started by a lightning strike 2,000 years ago and is slowly eating away at a buried coal deposit. In Centralia, Pa., a fire that began in a landfill in 1962 spread to old coal mines and has been burning ever since.
  Article
  
  
  Then Jones goes back to NIST's claims to try and show that NIST neglected critical evidence:
  
  1. “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."
  
  2. He then argues that since molten steel ("or iron;" why does he like to confuse the hell out of readers by doing this?) was discovered in the debris piles, it must have necessarily come from a different source, whilst NIST claims it doesn't result from the fire.
  
  3. NIST states that the condition of steel found in the debris pile is not relevant to the question of what caused the collapses.
  
  4. Dr. Griffin disagrees, claiming that steel found in a molten state is evidence that the same steel was cut by explosives.
  
  
  
  
  
• No evidence apart from some uncorroborated and highly speculative accounts from non-experts
• that steel was ever melted either, prior, during, or after the collapse
• His witnesses all reflect the debris pile, not the towers prior to their collapse therefore no evidence that the steel melted before the collapse, which in this regard NIST happens to be right.

So that document of yours not only contains very terrible and shoddy errors... the WTC 7 squibs link is probably the worst in that entire paper just for it's shear ignorance of clearly documented damage to the tower... Jones also seems to confuse the hell out of readers by flip flopping between 'molten Steel' & 'molten iron' & 'molten metal'....

Dorry, but obvious misrepresentation like that WTC 7 squibs jit without any further elaboration just makes my eyes bleed... not intended to be an insult to you, it's my opinion of Jone's writing...

According to this link we should be building our skyscrapers with WOOD!

Unprotected steel looses 90%integrity in 40 minutes. So how come the floor assemblies in the north tower didnt loose their structural integrity in 3hrs?

At least you saw the link... 404 error
As for the bolded part... would you mind clarifying there a bit on what you're referring to? I keep thinking it's a typo....
EDIT" Don't worry about answering this^^^^^ I reread

Besides norseman where was that I-beam located? In the imapct zone or below?

Without adequate information as to its location it has little if any value as evidence in support of extreme heat exposure...

i get it norseman, tornados can bend steel beams. but we are talking about high temperatures bending steel beams, not tornados.

Considering that a tornado can bend a steel beam to ribbons just by slamming it into a vehicle, the collapse would be equally capable, however, we do not know the location of the beam, so it again serves little to advance either argument beyond speculation.

One big ad hom...
When their papers are published in Journals to your standards what will you say then I wonder?

Please tell Steven Jones at least to get rid of his glaring errors... they don't really help your argument either. You're using his information whilst his credibility is in serious question...

so how did they prove that the fireproofing was widely dislodged? they shot 15 rounds of a shotgun at a non representative plywood box!!!

You do realize that the jet fuel hits as if it's a mass... a mass of liquid substance scattering all over the interior as the plane is shredded to ribbons does nothing but ignite and contribute to the initial impact damage. Haven't you ever been hit by a wall of water before? Same basic effect...

 

[bio]

Part of NISTS's objective was to seek answers to the following:

• "Would the undamaged WTC towers have remained standing in a conventional large building fire scenario?"
  
• "What factors related to normal building and fire safety considerations, if any, could have saved additional WTC occupant lives or could have minimized the loss of life among the ranks of first responders?"

Source

The above are just two of many such scenarios taken into consideration. Their overall objective was to make building code assessments from the study of the trade centers and the associated damage and collapse initiation.

... and the computer model of the collapse was not part of this consideration? NIST dislodged all fireproofing there.

Why was the computer modell obviously not part of this consideration, but the test with "real" fire?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

... and the computer model of the collapse was not part of this consideration? NIST dislodged all fireproofing there.

Why was the computer modell obviously not part of this consideration, but the test with "real" fire?

Why don't you ask NIST... as far as my answer goes... the performance in fire is as important to studying the effects of the combination of structural damage and fire. Usually when these disasters happen they review numerous aspects of structural performance in order to make recommendations for building code improvements....
When hurricane Andrew hit here in 1992, they examined which houses withstood the storm and which ones didn't, and they revised the building codes according the the considerations they made after assessing the aftermath...

 

[applecorped]

...hindsight is 20/20, but some people are myopic.

 

[thewholesoul]

You do realize that those steel beams deformed under their own weight right?

wtc were designed to support their own weight. And the imagine you posted did not show “core box columns” which are an entirley different matter and tend not to collapse under their own weight.

or been hit with an air plane... or any that have suffered extreme structure damage from an impact... It would help if you stopped separating the two...

wtc towers were designed fro plane impact

There isn't a need... the truthers apparently decided that the damage sustained to WTC 1, 2 & 7 were negligible... neither do they seem to look for relevant comparisons. The question isn't whether or not other towers of similar scale have ever collapsed before:

• How many steel sky scraper have been hit head on with a jet liner speeding into it at 400+ mph?
• How many of your examples had fires that were neglected the entire time they burned?
• How many of your examples had fire ignite on SEVERAL floor at the same time?

This sort of ignorance annoys me...

well you should be even more annoyed when 400 (and growing) professional archectects and engineers believe the towers were deomloished and demand a new investigation. - i suppose still being a student of archecture that removes "their ignorant" argument

the towers were designed for plane impacts, they were designed to survive damage to core columns, they were designed for fires on several floors. In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind." "Most buildings in excess of 40 stories constructed in the United States from the period after World War II to the 1990’s were of this structural type (tube-in-tube)."

the truth is it was the first time in history three skyscrapers designed to survive the fire and the structural damaged they received were totally destroyed.

the above is a true statement, now the best you can do is not to actually contest the truth of this statement but rather to attempt to undermine how unusual such an occurance is, how improbable it is for not one but three skyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they received - all failing on the same day!!

You're denying that their circumstances were?

no i am not - you are denying the fact they were designed to survive these circumstances

However there is extensive firefighter testimony to support it, and I know for a fact that you have seen it... this isn't the first time, or the only place we have debated...

so we met again luke skywalker

Load versus no redistributed load... tall vs. short buildings... rather important...

designed versus not designed...

• 
  [*] How many steel sky scraper have been hit head on with a jet liner speeding into it at 400+ mph?
  [*] How many of your examples had fires that were neglected the entire time they burned?
  [*] How many of your examples had fire ignite on SEVERAL floors at the same time?
  [*] How many had floor that were each an acre in size?
  [*] How many classic example HAD the tube on tube construction? They certainly became common practice more recently but how many of the examples I've ben shown b the truth movement that HAD THE SAME?
  

the towers were designed to survive and withstand ALL of these events. or are you denying this fact?

As for WTC 7... Does this look 'minor' to you?

yes. the building was designed to survive such damage

For the WTC 1& 2 towers does this look 'minor'? I don't know about you... but fires looking like that and realizing that each of those floors is over 200 ft wide, with 6 or 7 floors burning simultaneously, there's nothing 'minor' about them...

yes. the buildings were designed to survive such fires and compared to 100's of other skyscraper they were comparatively small fires.

That looks like some reasonable damage buddy... That particular section of damage might not have compromised the core columns but it's an indication of the kind of hit the tower took....

the building was designed to survive damage to its core columns.

No, it's a stated fact that steel deforms and weakens when exposed to at or over 1100 degrees (F). Study steel behavior before you debate me further on his... There's no 'opinion' about it.

so how come the steel in the north tower did not fail after 3hrs of fire? is this fact just another opinion?

Why do you think they focused up to the point of collapse initiation? Their job was to assess why the collapse started, not whether the floors could provide resistance to it.

that is a FALSE statement grizzly

Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and how and why WTC 7 collapsed"

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf

where does it say their objective was to determine "why the collapse started" grizzly? their stated objective was to determine why the buildings collapsed. they did not achieve this objective.

- they produced no computer simulation/model, calculations or experiments as to how and why the intact building below the impact gave little to no resistance so your statement below

Considering that the floors were all but 4 inch slabs of concrete with corrugated metal panels, there's not much resistance for them to provide against a chunk of tower slamming into them with a dynamic load...

" is absolutely nothing more than an unproven conjecture.

- they "proved" collapse initiation with computer models that they refuse to release
- they "proved" the fireproofing was removed with a shotgun that actually "disproved" their hypothesis that all the fireproofing would be removed
- they "proved" that the floor assemblies would not fail from fire after longer exposure (two hours) with less fireproofing and double the load.
- nearly 7 years and still no how and why for building 7’s collapse?

They're job was to make recommendations for better building to account for similar events in the building code.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf i can read. their objective was to explain how and why the buildings completely collapsed.

Irrelevant since the charges were never needed once the collapse initiated

and NIST supports this claim how actually?

Irrelevant when you have such an immense dynamic load applied to the floors. They were over designed, but the moment that 15 to 20 story section of tower began it's fall all loads became dynamic. You be surprised at how hard something like that hits...

well that is believe why dont you prove it. drop 1/5 of an object onto 4/5 of the same material and watch what happens.

again NIST provided no computer models, calculations, or experiments in support of the claims you are making.

I'm still waiting for you to confirm to me if I got the part of the NIST report you used to make that analysis... If it is, then from what I am able to see it simulated only a normal fire...., on top of that, the floors were not loaded with furniture.

See Figure 3-5 (tests on floor assemblies) + 4-24 (computer simulations) in http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf
- In fig. 3-5 you will read and see that “maximum loads” were placed on top of the floor assemblies. Your right, they didnt use furniture, they didnt use elepahents either! And by the way “maximm loads” means double the weight known to be on the floors.

If you get a minute read this rebuttal from Kevin ryan to R. Mackey.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

The tests performed by UL included two test specimens with “as built” fireproofing of 0.75 inches, one with “as specified” fireproofing” thickness of only 0.5 inches, and one with the “as specified” condition of
essentially no fireproofing. None of the test specimens had fireproofing to represent the “as impacted” condition of 3.25 inches, reported in NCSTAR 1-6A, figure A-60.

bolding is mine

finally, the temperatures used in the ASTEM E119 test definitely exceeded the duration of the wtc fires. And for a more in depth discussion as to why they were also hotter read the link above. and visit the following link for the time temperature curve of ASTEM E119 here: http://www.bia.org/BIA/technotes/Image179.gif

Their experiments are valid but they weren't simulating the kind of damage the towers had aside from the heat of fires...

why did they not simulate the kind of damage the towers had? because they did not their experiments are not representative and do not support the hypothesis that noninsulated steel floors assemblies will sag 42 inches after 50 minutes of exposure to fire. there is no physical test conducted by NIST that supports their hypothesis. and you defend these cowboys!

i can admit that jones needs to experiemnt with thermite on steel columns to prove his hypothesis that they will fail and molten iron will be produced etc. i am fully in favor of more representative experimentation, period. that is the difference between me and you my friend and i can prove that by reading your answer to the following question:

(lets just leave the total collapse aside for the moment) do you think NIST should have made at least one representative experiment in order to prove collapse initiation hypothesis?

 

[thewholesoul]

There was no melted steel. Construction machinery is made of steel. I did not see them melting.

maybe because they were above the rubble pile?

1) temperatures were recorded using thermal imaging cameras ranging from 200 to more than 1500c. steel melts at those temperatures.
American Journal of Industrial Medicine 42, 532, (2002): Paper on health and safety issues at the WTC site by R. Spadafora: "Fires burned beneath the rubble for the first 4 months of the operation. Helicopters using thermal imaging cameras revealed underground temperatures ranging from 400 to more than 2,800 deg F."

2) plenty of testimony here citing molten steel http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html and there are many more

stop living in denial my friend

peace

 

[DGM]

Interesting article:

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm (lots of links)

 

[TexasJack]

well you should be even more annoyed when 400 (and growing) professional archectects and engineers believe the towers were deomloished and demand a new investigation.

You mean like structural engineer Charles Pegelow, who thinks the towers and building 7 were destroyed by a nuclear bomb?

 

[Dave_46]

<snip>
... which far exceeds the maximum temperature of a hydrocarbon fire which is 825c

<snip>

You might want to reconsider this. I refer to the British Fire Resistance test standard for testing building elements, BS476: Part 20 (I think the part number is correct, I'm going by memory and it is a few years since I tested to this standard).

This test standard gives a hydrocarbon temperature/time regime, which reaches temperatures of approximately 1200°C. This is somewhat higher than your quoted maximum of 825°C

 

[Grizzly Bear]

wtc were designed to support their own weight.

And what do you think happens when you sever core columns thewholesoul?

• The severed columns are no longer contributing to carrying the load from the point they are severed and above.
  
• The load of everything from the point of impact and above, AKA 15 and 20 stories of steel is redistributed to adjacent columns which increases strain on what remains.
  
• Some core columns that were not destroyed were likely damaged, lowering their structural load capacity.
  
• While they [columns] have enough integrity to to continue carrying the loads ensuing fires add to that initial damage. So now we have intact columns supporting abnormally high vertical loads, and fire causing the columns is some areas to lose integrity.

wtc towers were designed for plane impact

And in fact they did just that... Nobody considered the loss of fire proofing, they assumed that the fires would rapidly burn out.

Neither did they consider that conditions would be so severe that the buildings could potentially collapse from such major damage. I think the size of the stair wells they built into the towers tell you that. They NEVER anticipated the need to evacuate upwards of 6, 7, 8 or more thousand occupants... They considered a great deal into the design of the towers and plane crashes were among them, however it was not a requirement in their building code requirements, there were many things that the designer also did not consider in the event of such an emergency.

well you should be even more annoyed when 400 (and growing) professional archectects and engineers believe the towers were deomloished and demand a new investigation.

Let's see... 400 (if all of them are certified) vs. a couple hundred thousand who have far greater experience in the field than I do... If a couple hundred thousand professionals don't have a problem, then where do you think I'll lean?

- i suppose still being a student of archecture that removes "their ignorant" argument

No it doesn't...

the towers were designed for plane impacts, they were designed to survive damage to core columns, they were designed for fires on several floors.

And individually the towers survived both... It survived a fire in the 1970's, and a plane in both towers failed to cause collapse immediately, saving thousands of lives... You can design these towers using the latest and greatest technology, however predicting the effects of a real scenario can never be perfectly done.

how improbable it is for not one but three skyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they received - all failing on the same day!!

And you are assuming that these buildings would perform perfectly in their one and only real life scenario that was never modeled at the time the towers were built. They did the math, they designed accordingly, they did not have real life data.

[
designed versus not designed...

and last but not least... predictability vs unpredictability... we can go on & on...

the towers were designed to survive and withstand ALL of these events. or are you denying this fact?

Tower 7 was not designed for aircraft impacts and certainly not for debris impact from a 1300 ft tower collapsing only 300 ft away. Neither was considered for it. Fire... definitely, impact damage... considering that nobody ever worried about collapsing skyscrapers at the time why would they have made any design considerations for it? They either withstand the damage or they don't, and it relies on whether the existing structural system is able to tackle redistributed loads in the face of damage.

As for the twin towers... I'm not denying what they were designed to do. they performed to specifications by not collapsing the moment the planes struck them. Had it just been the impacts... the towers 'might' have survived .

yes. the buildings were designed to survive such fires and compared to 100's of other skyscraper they were comparatively small fires.

But you're not denying that the fires were larger than conventional fires given the scale of the trade centers?

so how come the steel in the north tower did not fail after 3hrs of fire? is this fact just another opinion?

Which tower survived 3 hours... are we even discussing the WTC towers anymore in this one? Last I recall, the towers both suffered critical failure after 50 and 102 minutes respectively.

that is a FALSE statement grizzly
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf

where does it say their objective was to determine "why the collapse started" grizzly? their stated objective was to determine why the buildings collapsed.

You misread my context. Perhaps I should clarify since you misread: ... I said they were analyzing why the collapse started -- as in they studied what lead to the collapse initiation. That is the scope of their work is it not?

they did not achieve this objective.
- they produced no computer simulation/model, calculations or experiments as to how and why the intact building below the impact gave little to no resistance

Try an experiment... rest a brick on your forehead and tell me what happens. Now take that same brick and drop it on your forehead from an elevation of 1 meter. Tell me how differently that feels.

Same principal for the towers... 100,000 tons dropping a mere 12 feet with gravity chugging it along. What kind of force do you think that hits with. I think NIST is aware of this. You seem to think of the towers as solid blocks, and they are not. I fail to see why NIST should have to cater to this with as simple as that principal is.

- they "proved" the fireproofing was removed with a shotgun that actually "disproved" their hypothesis that all the fireproofing would be removed

Here's a little hint: it's called over-estimation. They assumed for the sake of modeling.

and NIST supports this claim how actually?

Go back to the brick experiment I mentioned earlier in this post.

well that is believe why dont you prove it. drop 1/5 of an object onto 4/5 of the same material and watch what happens.

The towers aren't 'blocks', they were a culmination of steel columns bolted together to form a system of parts. It'd be nice if people stopped treating them as such when they're not.

- In fig. 3-5 you will read and see that “maximum loads” were placed on top of the floor assemblies. Your right, they didnt use furniture, they didnt use elepahents either! And by the way “maximm loads” means double the weight known to be on the floors.

Which are... static loads... loads that were not suddenly applied... the collapse dealt with dynamic loads, hence the brick experiment to help you understand my point.

Once the collapse initiated all loads coming from the top sections became dynamic.

I'll try to answer your remaining questions when I have additional time...

 

[Jwheelz]

the towers were designed for plane impacts, they were designed to survive damage to core columns, they were designed for fires on several floors. In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind." "Most buildings in excess of 40 stories constructed in the United States from the period after World War II to the 1990’s were of this structural type (tube-in-tube)."

the truth is it was the first time in history three skyscrapers designed to survive the fire and the structural damaged they received were totally destroyed.

the above is a true statement, now the best you can do is not to actually contest the truth of this statement but rather to attempt to undermine how unusual such an occurance is, how improbable it is for not one but three skyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they received - all failing on the same day!!

The towers were designed to take "the impact" of the largest airliner of that time - the 707 - assumed to be at landing speed and lost in the fog. We are talking about approx 200MPH not a fully throttled 767 going almost 3 times as fast.

theauthor - can you tell me what the difference would be in the same plane (a 707) hitting a tower at 200MPH vs it hitting at 600MPH?

Do you really think that since the towers were designed to take a 707 flying at landing speed, they should have been able to take the impact of any plane at any speed?

Leslie Robertson explains that the calculations were done only on impact damage and didn't take into account all the jet fuel which spread over numerous floors and basically flash started all the combustibles over those numerous floors.

So no, you are incorrect in saying that the towers were designed to take the damage they received. They very clearly were not.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB

"The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires."

 

[Norseman]

sigh....it never ends.

I couldn't agree more.