DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[bio]

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?

please give me a reference for above claim.

your claim is not right. reference:

Final-Report,NIST, Draft:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2Draft.pdf

Finding 11: Documents from The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey indicated that the safety of the WTC towers and their occupants in an aircraft collision was a consideration in the original design. The documents indicate that a Boeing 707, the largest commercial aircraft at the time, flying at 600 mph was considered, and the analysis indicated that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

 

[Grizzly Bear]

please give me a reference for above claim.

your claim is not right. reference:

Final-Report,NIST, Draft:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2Draft.pdf

Finding 11: Documents from The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey indicated that the safety of the WTC towers and their occupants in an aircraft collision was a consideration in the original design. The documents indicate that a Boeing 707, the largest commercial aircraft at the time, flying at 600 mph was considered, and the analysis indicated that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

Cannot believe I am saying this, but bio has a point :\

The same material is on the wikipedia page...
Source
Aircraft impact
The structural engineers on the project also considered the possibility that an aircraft could crash into the building. In July 1945, a B-25 bomber that was lost in the fog had crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. A year later, another airplane nearly crashed into the 40 Wall Street building, and there was another near-miss at the Empire State Building.[60] In designing the World Trade Center, structural engineers considered the scenario of a fully loaded Boeing 707 impacting the 80th floor of the buildings at 600 mph (1,000 km/h).[61][62] NIST found a three page white paper that provided evidence that aircraft impact was indeed considered, but the original documentation of the study was lost when Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of WTC1 and the copies held in WTC7 were also lost.[63] In 1993, John Skilling recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, "The building structure would still be there."[62] However in the analysis, it is unclear whether the effect of jet fuel and aircraft contents was a consideration in the original building design.[64] They assumed that the World Trade Center's lightweight trusses and columns would perform as well as the heavy masonry and steel structure in the Empire State Building.[65] Leslie Robertson did a second analysis of this possibility which is also now lost, but after the 9/11 attacks, he remarked, "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."[61]

Still I think it'd be wise to understand that while these considerations were made there are other considerations which were either not considered with the design for the impact or it's unclear to what degree they took impacts into account... as highlighted in bold, red, and green....

I think it should be noted however that if what I highlighted in red is true it was a bad assumption on the part of the designers... the performance of concrete versus steel construction either with simple foam fire retardant or completely exposed, is of a different level. Concrete is much more rigid than steel construction, and quite heavier, not to mention the passive protection concrete gives against fire is far superior to foam protection.

This is why examples like the windsor tower in particular withstood much worse fires than exhibited in the world trade center. The building's construction was largely of steel reinforced concrete with steel PERIMETER columns in the upper floors. This is why such examples as those are terrible in comparison... unlike concrete, steel does lose its strength faster under thermal stresses

 

[Jwheelz]

please give me a reference for above claim.

your claim is not right. reference:

Final-Report,NIST, Draft:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2Draft.pdf

Finding 11: Documents from The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey indicated that the safety of the WTC towers and their occupants in an aircraft collision was a consideration in the original design. The documents indicate that a Boeing 707, the largest commercial aircraft at the time, flying at 600 mph was considered, and the analysis indicated that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

http://www.graingerchallenge.org/nae/bridgecom.nsf/0754c87f163f599e85256cca00588f49/85256e8d00838af385256f2a004578e3/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf

Page 9
In figure 3 they show the Kinetic energy at impact and list the estimated speed of the 707 as 290km/hr which is about 180 miles per hour.

They also include this --- "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."

I think it would be quite unreasonable to assume that a 707 "lost in the fog and looking to land in Newark" to be traveling at 600MPH.

That sound fishy to anyone else?

 

[Par]

“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

I see. So there is no reason to think that when FEMA and NIST use the term “severe temperatures”, they necessarily mean anything over, say, 1000°C – out the outside. That is essentially all what I wanted to check.

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

This is not as specific as it could be. In any event, the statement to which you refer doesn’t actually appear to be in the report in question. Nor does a Google search turn anything up. The only mention of it I can find is in one of Jones’ conspiracy papers.

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...

I apologise for having misunderstood you. In any event, your clarified argument offers little in the way of improvement. When Jones questioned the cause of the severe temperatures, he indeed implied that such temperatures existed. However, Jones implying the existence of a given thing has no necessary connection to its objective ontological status.

Par – the king of hair splitting

A pedant, as Bertrand Russell once said, is merely someone who prefers their statements to be true.

[Y]ou can hang on to the “belief” that the evaporated steel samples at wtc 7 examined by FEMA and NIST occured during the debris pile...

I will need to stop you there. This is not my belief.

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....

This is a petitio princpii. The above argument (along with many similarly premised subsequent ones) relies on the notion that the dust samples taken from the site can only contain particles which formed specifically while – not before and not after – the buildings collapsed. This notion is still at issue. You do, however, address it much later in your post, and so I will bring it forward:

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.

The above argument is, of course, weird.

• Most Q was P: The vast majority of the volume of the dust was produced while the buildings collapsed.
• Therefore, all Q was P: Therefore, dust samples taken from the site can only contain particles which formed specifically while – not before and not after – the buildings collapsed.

It is, predictably, a non sequitur.

Dust samples taken from the site will straightforwardly be highly susceptible to containing particles which were originally produced before, during and after the collapses. This would seem to be an intractable problem. However, in hope of cutting a potentially long argument short, for this post at least, I will assume your claim is accurate and that dust samples taken from the site can only contain particles which formed specifically while the buildings collapsed. I will also assume that the presence of these particles genuinely requires such temperatures. However, even in light of these temporary concessions, I am still unsure of the argument you are ultimately attempting to make; it would appear to be something along the lines of the following:

• Temperatures specifically during the collapse were in excess 2,760°C.
• Therefore, the eutectic reactions took place specifically while – not before and not after – the buildings collapsed.

The problem is the usual one: non sequitur. There’s no reason to think the eutectic reactions required such temperatures. Thus, it’s quite possible that the requisite temperatures were present before, during and to some extent after the collapses.

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...

We could assume that you are precisely right. We could further assume that the “official theory” is the single worst theory in the history of humanity. The problem is that even if we make those two assumptions, we are no better off when it comes to knowing when and where eutectic reactions took place. Thus, the matter is, as I said, peripherally interesting but not relevant.

[M]y 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?

This, again, is a petitio princpii. The question of whether or not molten steel was present is a crux point at issue. I am quite familiar with the case for molten steel. I find it – to understate – unconvincing. However, for this post at least, I will assume your claim is accurate and that molten steel was indeed present within the debris pile: Your argument seems to run thusly:

• Temperatures within the debris pile were sufficiently high as to be consistent with molten steel.
• Therefore, the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed.

It is, as ever, a non sequitur.

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.

Again, I cannot. 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.

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 see. I now understand your position, if not your argument. Thank you for clarifying it for me. I’m glad to see your concession that the reactions might have taken place during the early stages of the debris pile fires. I happen to agree with you, but obviously for different reasons.

[Y]ou 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... I always enjoy intelligent people so eloquently avoiding the “i dont knows” in life.

Remember, it is you and not I making specific claims as to when the eutectic reactions took place. Thus, the burden of proof is on you.


In Summary: You have been claiming that the eutectic reactions took place specifically while – not before and not after – the buildings collapsed. You have now commendably modified this claim to include the possibility of the early stages of the debris pile fires, and I recognise this concession. Even so, it is still your responsibility to provide evidence for your claim. So far, you have introduced a considerable number of issues that are of no use when it comes to meeting this responsibility – what journalists say about supposed mysteries; the notion of molten steel in the debris pile; my supposed beliefs; whether I can answer certain peripheral questions; whether the reactions have been fully explained; whether I can explain them; etc. You have also adduced numerous rather peculiar and ambiguous arguments. In light of these factors, it might be best if you could summarise your core argument concerning specifically when the eutectic reactions took place as concisely and straightforwardly as possible – preferably in syllogistical form (premise; premise;… ; conclusion). I think I have demonstrated thus far that I have a genuine desire to understand your argument and it if I ultimately find it truly compelling, you have my word I will endeavour to take it seriously.

 

[bio]

http://www.graingerchallenge.org/nae/bridgecom.nsf/0754c87f163f599e85256cca00588f49/85256e8d00838af385256f2a004578e3/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf

Page 9
In figure 3 they show the Kinetic energy at impact and list the estimated speed of the 707 as 290km/hr which is about 180 miles per hour.

They also include this --- "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."

I think it would be quite unreasonable to assume that a 707 "lost in the fog and looking to land in Newark" to be traveling at 600MPH.

That sound fishy to anyone else?

i have problems to open the link. please say: Who is "they"?

 

[Darkhole]

i have problems to open the link. please say: Who is "they"?

The
BRIDGE
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
George M.C. Fisher, Chair
Wm. A.Wulf, President
Sheila E.Widnall, Vice President
W. Dale Compton, Home Secretary
Harold K. Forsen, Foreign Secretary
William L. Friend, Treasurer
Editor-in-Chief
George Bugliarello (Interim)
Managing Editor: Carol R. Arenberg
Production Assistants: Penelope Gibbs, Kimberly West
The Bridge (USPS 551-240) is published quarterly by the National Academy
of Engineering, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20418.

http://www.graingerchallenge.org/nae/bridgecom.nsf/

Periodicals postage paid at Washington, D.C.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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

I don't take things at face value, particularly after seeing some of the glaring assumption made by Jones over the WTC 7 'squibs' that turned out to be top level damage to the facade.. so expect it to take some time for me to respond to anything specific in the article. I'll need to research independently the standard tests and read the areas of NIST that I have not seen yet and compare it to Jone's paper vs Mackey's...

is absolutely nothing more than an unproven conjecture.
(See following)

wtc were designed to support their own weight.

Here's a bit more to elaborate on the pont I addressed earlier that is more specific to what you need to know:
Source

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

Consider the brick experiment I brought up earlier. When you place the brick on your forehead and let it sit there it is exerting a static load, meaning the force it applies is just it's own weight.

On the other hand raise the same brick 1 meter over your forehead and drop it... the force changes from static to dynamic, and thanks to the acceleration of gravity when it hits your forehead well... lets just say you'd better have a first aid kit ready... the force it applies is greater than that which is applies simply at rest as a static load. This is the fundamental understanding that you seem to lack in regards to the collapse. It's not a matter of 1/5 of a building crushing 4/5 of a building, if they were both monolithic blocks that might be the case, but the towers are not solid objects, they're 90 percent 'air'... and each floor is separated by 12 ft... when one gives way, the upper portion hits the floor below with a dynamic load, and the process repeats...

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.

In fact NIST actually addressed some of the concerns over their experiments which can be found via the link provided in the first excerpt:

8. Why did NIST conduct ASTM E119 testing of floor systems that were not representative of the condition of the fireproofing on September 11, 2001? Why did NIST ignore the results of these tests, which showed that the floor system did not collapse, in its analysis of the thermal-structural response of the towers?

NIST’s review of available documents related to the design and construction of the WTC Towers indicated that the fire performance of the composite floor system was an issue of concern to the building owners and designers from the original design and throughout the service life of the buildings (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A). NIST found no evidence to determine the technical basis for the selection of fireproofing material for the WTC floor trusses and of the fireproofing thickness to achieve a 2 hour rating. Further, NIST found no evidence that fire resistance tests of the WTC Towers’ floor system were ever conducted.

Therefore, NIST conducted a series of four Standard Fire Tests (ASTM E 119) for the following purposes, as stated clearly in NIST NCSTAR 1-6B:

• to establish the baseline performance of the floor system of the WTC Towers as they were originally built,

• to differentiate the factors (thermal restraint, fireproofing thickness, and scale of test) that most influenced the collapse of the WTC Towers as they may relate to normal building and fire safety considerations and those unique to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and

• to study the procedures and practices used to accept an innovative (at the time) structural and fireproofing system.

The thickness of fireproofing material used in this series of four tests ranged from ½ in. to ¾ in. This range of thickness was, indeed, consistent with the thickness of fireproofing as originally applied to the floor steel in the WTC Towers.

NIST concluded from its aircraft impact analyses (NIST NCSTAR 1-2) that the fireproofing was dislodged as a result of the aircraft debris and dispersed fuel traveling, initially, over 500 miles per hour (700 ft/s) (NIST NCSTAR 1-6D). Since the test assemblies for all four Standard Fire Tests were protected with sprayed fire-resistant material (SFRM), conclusions could not be drawn for the response of the WTC Towers to the fires on September 11, 2001, because the aircraft impact resulted in there having been unprotected steel in the fire-affected region.

The fire-affected floors in WTC 2 had the originally applied fireproofing, which was specified to be ½ in. and averaged approximately ¾ in. in thickness. The fire-affected floors of WTC 1 had upgraded fireproofing on the order of 2½ in. thickness. However, the fireproofing thickness did not matter, since much of the fireproofing was dislodged as a result of the aircraft debris and dispersed fuel.

and you defend these cowboys!

Then Steven Jones would be the bull on the ground laying sideways....

Heh, funny you'd be telling me this when Jones calls structural damage at the corner of a building 'squibs'. Interestingly, it doesn't seem that he's made any effort to correct that... and you're defending him?

 

[thewholesoul]

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

just another 399 to go tex

 

[TexasJack]

just another 399 to go tex

Nope, he's still on the AE911 roster as of today, in fact he's been featured over there. It make you wonder what other shoddy research truthers have done, oh wait, Mike Rotch has infilitrated these brilliant fact checkers roster. LOL

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3782554#post3782554

 

[R.Mackey]

I don't take things at face value, particularly after seeing some of the glaring assumption made by Jones over the WTC 7 'squibs' that turned out to be top level damage to the facade.. so expect it to take some time for me to respond to anything specific in the article. I'll need to research independently the standard tests and read the areas of NIST that I have not seen yet and compare it to Jone's paper vs Mackey's...

You may also wish to read my response to Mr. Ryan, which appeared first in v2.0 of my whitepaper, and is currently available as pp. 170-183 of v2.1. Mr. Ryan's claim about the "virtually unfireproofed" test in NCSTAR1-6B refers to the lack of fireproofing on the deck plates, not the trusses, and is thus of little consequence.

Likewise, the 3+ inch thickness only applies to the few floors with upgraded fireproofing, and also refers to only a single measurement -- the other two measurements were thinner -- therefore, he is cherry-picking. Regardless, the NCSTAR1-6B tests were certification tests of the design, not meant to predict behavior in the actual impact-affected floors, where some or all fireproofing would be damaged anyway.

I encourage you to verify my claims on your own against the NIST Report itself and any other source. But I'm confident that you will find I am correct, and Mr. Ryan is full of nonsense.

 

[beachnut]

http://www.graingerchallenge.org/na...838af385256f2a004578e3/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf
Page 9
In figure 3 they show the Kinetic energy at impact and list the estimated speed of the 707 as 290km/hr which is about 180 miles per hour.

They also include this --- "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."

I think it would be quite unreasonable to assume that a 707 "lost in the fog and looking to land in Newark" to be traveling at 600MPH.

That sound fishy to anyone else?

The lost in the fog study was done by the chief structural engineer. The 600 mph was in a white paper by the port authority and was not the study done by the chief engineer.

But you are right, there is no rational reason a 707 would be doing 600 mph at 1000 feet MSL, unless you were being chased and avoiding being shot down by some idiot Soviet fighter pilot who wants to shoot down a passenger plane. But a better speed would be a maneuver speed for that altitude, and it isn't 600 mph at 1000 feet.

But gee, maybe the person who did the white paper for the WTC, went to a Boeing document and took the top speed off the fact sheet. I think the 600 mph came from a mistake made by the Port Authority, by ignorance or error.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You may also wish to read my response to Mr. Ryan, which appeared first in v2.0 of my whitepaper, and is currently available as pp. 170-183 of v2.1. Mr. Ryan's claim about the "virtually unfireproofed" test in NCSTAR1-6B refers to the lack of fireproofing on the deck plates, not the trusses, and is thus of little consequence.

Likewise, the 3+ inch thickness only applies to the few floors with upgraded fireproofing, and also refers to only a single measurement -- the other two measurements were thinner -- therefore, he is cherry-picking. Regardless, the NCSTAR1-6B tests were certification tests of the design, not meant to predict behavior in the actual impact-affected floors, where some or all fireproofing would be damaged anyway.

I encourage you to verify my claims on your own against the NIST Report itself and any other source. But I'm confident that you will find I am correct, and Mr. Ryan is full of nonsense.

I've read the 1st version of that one. and the paper that TWS linked to a lesser extent. NIST did pretty much the expected tests IMO... I cited what they did here after hurricane Andrew, where they assessed the performance of all the buildings as per how they performed up to codes, and adjusted them accordingly.... I know hurricanes are a completely different kind of event but examinations like what NIST did in a very broad spectrum would be understandable...

I'll read both the revision and the TWS's link, and verify them with NIST's material as I get time... however, my principals at this point stand that I firm;y believe that none of these collapses were 'controlled' in part because the examples I've been provided on the opposing opinion have failed to give me ones for an apples vs apples comparison, among others

 

[applecorped]

I've read the 1st version of that one. and the paper that TWS linked to a lesser extent. NIST did pretty much the expected tests IMO... I cited what they did here after hurricane Andrew, where they assessed the performance of all the buildings as per how they performed up to codes, and adjusted them accordingly.... I know hurricanes are a completely different kind of event but examinations like what NIST did in a very broad spectrum would be understandable...

I'll read both the revision and the TWS's link, and verify them with NIST's material as I get time... however, my principals at this point stand that I firm;y believe that none of these collapses were 'controlled' in part because the examples I've been provided on the opposing opinion have failed to give me ones for an apples vs apples comparison, among others

And they always will.

 

[applecorped]

TWS - where did you go? Give up? Give in?

Good posts Grizzly.

 

[Par]

TWS - where did you go? Give up? Give in?

He’s attending to another matter, apparently.

 

[applecorped]

Unless any other troother has anything to add I will consider the question of WTC7 being a CD debunked.

 

[thewholesoul]

wife had a baby boy - thats ANOTHER 911 TRUTHER!!

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...

So experiments with photographs of the results dont convince you Grizzly?
Give me a break!

I read your post. You completely AVOIDED the reason why I cited the paper. I cited the paper because it disproves through experimentation and photos that aluminium does not flow bright yellow-orange in daylight. This debunks the official explanation. They also debunk dr greenings suggestion in a similar manner. I asked Norseman to show me one example of aluminium bright yellow-orange in daylight. He provided two links that did not show one example of what i asked. YOU cannot provide one example of what I ask so instead you attack jones on the “squibs”. I am not discussing squibs. So stop changing the subject. Either produce an experiment with photos or video like JONES DID – or concede the point that aluminium does not flow bright yellow orange in daylight.

The new unifficial JREF explanation is lead – which implies that NIST was wrong to claim it was aluminium. So show me an experiment with photos or videos of lead flowing bright yellow orange in daylight. This is WHY i consider Jones’s paper more convincing. And this is why i find your argument unconvincing – because you choose to AVOID taking on my points directly.

Until i see an example of aluminium or lead flowing bright yellow-orange in daylight, a thermite reaction is the most convincing explanation of the event for the simple reason that a thermite reaction is bright yellow-orange in daylight. Again Jones provides experiments and photos to support his argument.

In response to the Wtc 7 photo of smoke: there is no fire in the windows where the smoke is supposedly being emitted? Here is proof taht the smoke was not produced by building 7 but rather it was produced by wtc 5 and 6 http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007/200307building7.htm

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...

We have several experts on video who examined the I-beam in question stating that this phenomenon requires exposure to a serious degree of heat. A normal office fire does not produce thousands of degrees farenheit. If you are saying that it was caused by collapse then ALL of the core I-beams should have exhibited the same distortion because the upper floors fell simulataneously and symetrically on the intact building below. And none of the experts who examined the I-beam suggested that the horseshoe was created by the collapse.

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...

Yes i have been hit by a wave once on holidays and guess what it felt just like being hit by 15 rounds of a shotgun!!

Its simply amazes me how intelligent people can defend this experiment. Q: yes or no? Does shooting 15 rounds with a shotgun represent the impact of a jet liner?

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

Research. The towers were designed to withstand the extent of 25% core failure the impact severed less than 25%.

I expect an asymetrcal and partial collapse when cores are severed on one side of the building. Much like what happens a tree trunk when one side is severed.

PEACE

 

[thewholesoul]

wtc towers were designed for plane impact

And in fact they did just that...

Do you know why grizzly? Because they were designed to do so

Nobody considered the loss of fire proofing, they assumed that the fires would rapidly burn out.

The fires ONLY lasted about an hour and shooting 15 rounds into a plywood box with a shotgun does not prove that the fireproofing was “widely dislodged” by a jet impact. It did prove however that a shotgun can remove fireproofing so credit when credit is due.

Let's see... 400 (if all of them are certified) vs. a couple hundred thousand

And how many of those couple of hundred thousand spoke with richard gage or were exposed to his presentation?

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.

When somone designs a building for a class 5 earthquake they do not need the real life scenario to occur. Do they grizzly? The buildings were designed to withstand the jet impact and guess what, they did just that. The buildings were designed to withstand an office fire and guess what 1975 the north tower did just that.

designed versus not designed...

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

no we cant just go on grizzly – lets go back to designed versus not designed and how improbable it is for not one but three skyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they received - all failing on the same day!!
nothing unpredicted happened that day – the buildings were designed for jet impact and fires, period. They survived the impacts and the north towers survived a fire in 1975. and they would have survived if explosives werent planted.

And by the way the event itself was predicted by alex jones, among others

I do concede that

They NEVER anticipated the need to evacuate upwards of 6, 7, 8 or more thousand occupants..

but what in heavens name has that got to do with the buildings structural integrity?

Neither did they consider that conditions would be so severe

What conditions? The towers survived the condition produced by the jet impacts. Those who designed the towers were perfectly well aware of conditions produced by fire and they designed the building accordingly. The north tower survived an office fire in 1975. and NIST’s tests on floor assemblies survived the fire tests with maximum loads.

Tower 7 was not designed for debris impact from a 1300 ft tower collapsing only 300 ft away.

I knew you would say this grizzly.

You do know that building 7 was not designed for metal eating termites either but if metal eating termites ate through 10-15% of the core columns and outer perimeter then yes they were designed for such an event. The point is (and being a student of archetecture you know this all too well) that every single skyscrapers is designed to redistribute their loads if and when there is core column failure. What causes the core column failure is beside the point. I can design a crash helmet against receiving head injuries from motorcycle accidents but the crash helmet works just as well if someone hits me over the head with a baseball bat, eventhough it was not specifically designed for that.

considering that nobody ever worried about collapsing skyscrapers at the time why would they have made any design considerations for it?

They did consider the failure of core columns and that is precisely what happened when the debris fell on the building.

Had it just been the impacts... the towers 'might' have survived.

Thats funny and i suppose the sun “might” rise yesterday!

Grizzly we know that the towers were designed for jet impacts, we know that they survived the jet impact – you accept that they were designed for jet impacts, you even stated just a few comments earlier that “in fact they did just that” (i.e. survive jet impacts). There is no “might” grizzly because it already happened i.e. PAST TENSE.

It appears you argue for arguments sake.

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

The intensity and duration of fire is more relevant in relation to structural failure.

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

I was wondering when you were going to take the bait.

I was refering to the north tower in 1975. a fact you cited earlier but obviously did not read into. It lasted over three hours. Fireproofing supposedly can only last for two hours. So the uninsulated steel was exposed to a fire for an hour. There was no buckling or bowing. And the fire was on the 11th floor which means there was a greater load on top. There was no sprinkler system either. “And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out”.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10613
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/history/fire.html

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?

Here we go again. What context?
This is what YOU said grizzly

Their job was to assess why the collapse started.

Despite what you may think the above statement is not Shakespearian English and despite what you may think i can read and undertsand what your saying. Your saying that their job/thing-to-do/aim/objective was not to assess total collapse but rather just assess how the collapse started.
In response I posted what NIST actually said http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf

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"

Where does it say their job/thing-to-do/aim/objective was to explain how and why the collapse started? Let me tell you where...nowhere!

Your telling me that how and why 4/5 of an intact structure below the impact zone collapsed symetrically and simultaneously is not part of their job, what I am saying is that IT FRIGGIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN. The fact that they even admit they cannot explain the total collapse is PROOF that the total collapse of the twin towers remains to this day UNPROVEN. Moreover we are still waiting for the explanation of building 7, nearly 7 years after the fact.

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.

Instead of simply conceding that the total collapse of the twin towers remains unproven since NIST provided no calculations, computer models, and most importantly experiments, and moreover admit that “we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” – you ask me to try an absurd unrepresentative experiment (maybe you have a future at NIST?).

Instead of dropping a brick on my forhead, why not drop it one brick four times larger and made of the same material. Yes the dynamic load is greater than a static load but it will not, never, and did I say never, turn the intact structure below into dust. Even if you dropped it 110 floors.

And if NIST was aware of these “forces” then tell me why DIDNT they present them in their explanation of how and why the WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed? Tell me why NIST admit they were “unable to provide a full explanation”? Why did they not provide any calculations of these “forces” you mention? Why did they not use your “brick falling on the head experiment”?

I note in your post 867 you cite an “explanation” by NIST to the failure of the intact structure below. Now maybe you can point me to their calculations, computer models and experiments, you know, that part that proves their “speculation/explanation”

And no I dont think that the towers were blocks. Imagine you have 2 card board boxes and you drop the upper box on the box below which is 4 times larger than the upper box – it is not, never, and did I say never, going to crush the box below and then itself. I admit that my example/analogy is really really basic but no less basic than your “brick on head” suggestions.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

I argued that unignited nanothermite dispersed randomly would increase the temperature of a smoldering pile. You made the following counter arguments

- (a) what fuel is there for the nanothermite reaction,
- (b) whether the nanothermite was aggregated,
- (c) how long will nanothermite react,
- (d) what ignition is there for unignited nanothermite

Of the four arguments (d) appears insurmountable. In Jones’s paper I overlooked an experiment with thermite and a propane torch http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf. It is very unlikely that a smoldering pile could generate the temperatures of a propane torch (1995c) . So the unignited nanothermite is unlikely to have ignited even if it survived the collapse. However it would have provided a source of oxygen which would have prolonged the underground combustion. But that said in light of this information I am forced to concede that nanothermites that survived the collapse are unlikely to have ignited in the smoldering rubble pile.

But given that you accept that a thermite reaction can produce temperatures sufficient to melt steel

We are not disputing what thermite is capable of doing to steel

and

I agree that thermite can melt steel

it is a natural consequence that if thermite was used to demolish the towers then we would expect to find molten steel immediately after the rubble pile.

At the end of the day neither myself nor the truth movement is wedded to thermite. But because thermite can melt steel it can never be completely ruled out as a possibile cause for the molten steel found within the rubble piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7. But in this post I wish to put the spotlight on YOUR position i wish to argue that YOUR explanation is not a possible cause of either (a) the high temepratures and (b) the production of molten steel in the WTC 1, 2 and 7 rubble piles.

What produced the high temperatures in the rubble pile?
(a)

Have you ever considered the possibility of heat generating corrosion reactions?

(b)

a chemical reaction generates heat

(c)

I keep talking about corrosion being a slow exothermic reaction

(d)

an extremely slow exothermic reaction

(e) From a website you cited in support of your position http://www.howstuffworks.com/mre4.htm

"When iron turns to rust, the oxidation process generates heat

(f)

Chemical reactions can generate a hell of a lot of heat, haven't you ever had those self-heating cappuccino containers

(g)

The heat sources were insulated by the debris, thus the heat produced could not be easily disbursed. Recall that 'fire' is an oxidation reaction, and steel oxidizes it releases heat.

(h)

Rust is a by-product of an extremely slow exothermic reaction which under ordinary circumstances disperses the heat energy

#1 So what produced the high temperatures in the rubble pile? Answer according to Grizzly: corrosion and oxidation of steel.

Is this a fast or a slow process?
(a) You cited this link in support of your position: http://www.howstuffworks.com/mre4.htm

"Everyone has seen iron rust. Rust is a natural process in which iron atoms combine with oxygen atoms to create reddish, crumbly iron oxide. The process is normally very slow, but we all know that wet iron rusts faster."

(b)

the heat disburses not only because of how slow the reaction is

(c)

Extended periods of steel oxidation can lead to a result that as well would imitate 'evaporated steel’. Given the length of time all that steel had to undergo the process, it cannot be ruled out.

(d)

I keep talking about corrosion being a slow exothermic reaction, but goish darn you seem to have ignored it, or discredited it

(e)

Adding water does not stop corrosion because water contains oxygen... haven't you ever seen a rusty fence? Rust is a by-product of an extremely slow exothermic reaction(f)

it'd be interesting to see the result of this same process taking place under a debris pile over the course of several weeks whilst unventilated.

#2 So was the corrosive and oxadizing of steel a fast or a slow process in the rubble pile? Answer according to Grizzly: it was a slow process.

When was the molten steel produced?
(a)

I agree that thermite can melt steel, however, in the post-collapse conditions the requirements for the molten metal found weeks after

(b)

it's unlikely that there would initially be molten steel and oxidation, jump started or not, would require time to manifest enough heat to produce the end result

(c)

TWS, TWS, you're missing the point...The molten steel was found several weeks AFTER the collapse was it not?

(d)

It's a stated fact that thermite produces molten metal. But the conditions required to produce it several weeks out.

(e)

Because molten 'metal' 7 to 10 weeks after a collapse falls beyond the reaction duration of thermite.

#3 So when was the molten steel produced? Answer according to Grizzly: several weeks after collapse.

To sum up your position:
(1) the high temperatures were generated by corrosion and oxidation of steel in the rubble pile
(2) this was a slow exothermic process
(3) and this is why the molten metal was produced several weeks later

When asked: what is the maximum temperature generated by the chemical reactions you mention? Your answered:

Unfortunately it's not as simple as finding a 'maximum temperature'

I have found no specific sources stating a maximum attainable temperature for iron corrosion

I posted a paper on “smoldering combustion” http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02074.pdf and within this paper the maximum temperatures, even under ideal conditions, are not sufficient to melt steel. I then later asked whether or not you considered the rubble pile at WTC as a “smoldering” pile. You avoided to answer my question.

I dont want to know how soon and how hot a cappuccino machine can get

haven't you ever had those self-heating cappuccino containers, they reach 140 degrees F in a matter of minutes

I want to know how soon and how hot a smoldering pile can get and I want you to support such a claim with an academic source just like I did.

If you cannot find a source then concede the point. If you do not acknowledge that the WTC was a “smoldering” pile then please state what category of combustion you think it was.

You contradict your own position. On one hand you try to explain the unusually high temperatures recorded at the WTC rubble pile with slow exothermic reactions then on the other hand you post the following:

haven't you ever seen a rusty fence? Rust is a by-product of an extremely slow exothermic reaction which under ordinary circumstances disperses the heat energy off far too quickly to be noticeable to human touch

From a website you cited in support of your position http://www.howstuffworks.com/mre4.htm

"When iron turns to rust, the oxidation process generates heat. But rust forms so slowly that the heat generated is unnoticeable."

So how can slow exothermic reactions - undectable to human touch - generate redhot spots recorded by USGS (16th and 23rd of sept) that actually melted the boots off the rescue workers? If the corrosion and oxidation of steel is so effective in generating heat, then why do people put coal, wood and other carbonacious material ontop of their steel fire grates? Why dont they just splash a little water over the steel fire grate and break out the marshmellows?

YOUR explanation that slow exothermic reactions produced molten steel several weeks later is not supported by the available evidence.
[testimony] you are correct to say that molten steel was located weeks later. Indeed the latest sighting of molten steel was 5 months later in February 2002 by firefighter Joe O’Toole who saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.” You are incorrect however to claim that the first molten steel was sighted several weeks later. The first sighting was on september 12th by Ron Burger “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s”

The main point to be taken from the presence of molten steel on sept 12th is that it debunks your notion that slow exothermic reactions produced molten steel several weeks after the collapse. Does it not?

[satellite thermal images] red hotspots were observed just two hours after the collapse where WTC 1 and 2 once stood. How can a slow exothermic reaction explain this Grizzly? http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP05-screen.pdf

Red hotspots were estimated by USGS to have surface temperatures ranging between 427 and 747c that means that the temperatures below the surface were even hotter. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

The wtc fires 20 mins after impact were estimated by NIST to have temperatures of “500c and below” [S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. “Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NIST NCSTAR. Gaithersburg”, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, September 2005] and given people were seen standing in the impact zone and given that firefighters reached the core area of the imapct zone we can begin to release just how much "below" 500c the temperatures in the south tower were.

in any event this means that temperatures at WTC 1 and 2 actually increased following their collapse! Normally when buildings collapse they do not create red hot spots seen in thermal images from space. Even the rubble pile of a conventional demolition will not produce red hotspots seen 2 hours later from satellite images. But this is what happened on 911 on three separate occassions.

It is also worth noting that molten steel was presumably observed at a thermal hotspot on the 12th of sept. There was a thermal hotspot just 2 hours after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. It is not unreasonable therefore to assume that molten steel was present in the rubble pile just two hours after the collapse on sept 11th. And i would bet a shiney penny that if the satellite took images 2 minutes or 2 seconds after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 they would have observed similar if not stronger hotspots.

Again the point to be taken is that your noton of slow exothermic reactions as the explanation behind the temperatures generated at the WTC rubble piles is debunked by the satellite imagry. Is is not?

I am looking forward to your next reply when your concede that slow exothermic reactions were not responsible for generating the sudden high temperatures or producing the molten steel observed at the WTC.

I expect you will run to debunking sites and invoke the argument that “iron burns” by Mark R Ferran. When you post this argument i will debunk that in turn.

peace

 

[Grizzly Bear]

When somone designs a building for a class 5 earthquake they do not need the real life scenario to occur. Do they grizzly?

• 
  Key difference that you keep ignoring. UNLIKE the twin towers there had been many many occasions where design methods and models could be used to perfect these designs. Earthquake prone areas have these design requirements accounted for in the local building codes. Why do you think the designs have improved over the decades TheWholeSoul?
  
  [*] The concept of earthquake resistant design and it being made part of the building code was the result of real-life past experience and design flaws documented over the years:
  Start reading the concept: Introduction: Earthquake resistant design
  
  "The public has taken a greater interest in earthquake resistant design than ever. Several factors have contributed to this, including:
  
  Damage to Teacher's Hostel, 1999 Taiwan EQ
  [1]
  
  
  * Personal experiences with Loma Prieta, Northridge, Whittier, Landers, and other earthquakes
  * Tremendous economic impact of recent earthquakes
  * Evidence of potential for large loss of life provided by Turkey, Taiwan, Kobe and Mexico City
  
  More concerns about seismic hazards are being shown by owners and public officials. Overall, there is a demand for a safer environment.
  
  Engineering capabilities are advancing to meet the needs of the public and private sectors. Computers capable of advanced dynamic response simulations are available in most engineering offices, and advanced analyses are becoming more common in structural engineering practice. Most practicing engineers in California now have educational backgrounds including structural dynamics. Many high-tech products and devices available to improve seismic performance. Building codes now incorporate structural dynamics and other advanced concepts.
  
  But the problems are becoming more complex. Expected ground motions more severe and complex than previously assumed. Near-source, soft soil, and long duration motions as well as "the big one" are cause for concern. The apparent increase in the frequency of damaging earthquakes has lessened public's tolerance for damage. Earthquakes are no longer considered a rare act of God, but as a recurrent natural phenomenon whose disastrous effects can and should be mitigated. Insurance companies have had to pay huge sums in claims after recent earthquakes such as Northridge and are concerned with probable maximum loss (PML).
  
  Therefore, engineers must design accordingly. Owners want little disruption or damage, but they generally do not know how to explain what they want nor do they want to pay significantly more for improved performance."
  
  
  
  [*] Why do you think the World Trade Centers, like every other skyscraper designed such as to reduce swaying from wind loads thewholesoul? Because before steel construction became a standard in design most skyscrapers were built out of reinforced concrete construction. Do you understand the concept so far? Concrete is much heavier than steel construction. Concrete is a often formed into a monolithic material, and it is extremely rigid.
  
  What do you think happened to one of the first major steel skyscrapers thewholesoul? I've shown you this before and you know it:
  
  John Hancock tower
  
  "...To Falling Glass
  
  Bostonians are familiar with one of the most famous examples: the John Hancock Tower, which was clad in more than an acre of plywood after its mirror-glass windows began to fracture in 1972 and 1973.
  
  A "gag order" imposed on the parties to the resulting legal dispute prevented the release of the facts regarding the cause of the breakage, giving rise to many theories and myths, some of which exist to this day.
  
  Initially, many design professionals thought the reason for the breakage lay in the fact that the tower swayed excessively in the wind. Although it was indeed swaying substantially, this was not the reason for the glass breakage.
  
  Another hypothesis was that wind forces at "hot spots," which resulted from the rhomboid shape of the tower, caused overstressing of the glass. Substantial "hot spots" did exist, but only a small percentage of the glass was subject to anything near the load for which it had been designed.
  
  Still another myth was that the windows broke because of the stress they endured from the settlement of the tower's foundation. "
  
  
  [*] Now we have the design for the planes. How many planes have struck the world trade center before 9/11 Thewholesoul? How many precedents are there that match the specifications of the world trade center? How many cities actually enforce a design that requires a building to resist a plane impact?
  [/quote]
  
  They did mathematical calculations thewholesoul, but they had no accurate precedent to match up. They designed it as a specialized request from the clientele managing the towers because they had precedents of several near misses, and an impact to the empire state building by a smaller plane. The design never called for a plane strike as a direct result of a terrorist attack or intentional impact.
  
  

  The buildings were designed to withstand an office fire and guess what 1975 the north tower did just that.
  
  --------------------------
  I was wondering when you were going to take the bait.
  
  I was refering to the north tower in 1975. a fact you cited earlier but obviously did not read into. It lasted over three hours. Fireproofing supposedly can only last for two hours. So the uninsulated steel was exposed to a fire for an hour. There was no buckling or bowing. And the fire was on the 11th floor which means there was a greater load on top. There was no sprinkler system either. “And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out”.
  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html
  http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10613
  http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/history/fire.html

  
  The Wholesoul, you know I am far from perfect. I don't always recall specific events. I was aware of the 1975 fire, since in your view I am apparently oblivious at times to historic precedent please specifify better next time what you are referring to.
  
  As per my answer gee, why did the towers survived with virtually unscathed structural integrity? After all this was a steel building and the fire failed to cause collapse.
  
  What we know about the fire:
  
  • Nearly half of the 11th floor was engulfed
    
  • The fires spread to other floors through the core where it ignited the phone cable insulation form the 9th to 19th floor
    
  • fires on other floors were extinguished almost immediately
    
  • Fire proofing insulated the steel from excessive heat exposure from the fires
    
  • There was no structural damage to the tower
  
  Now for the comparison:
  
  Three things stick out here that bear importance, no make that 4. Aren't all the examples you provide me exposed to fires that burned for 12, 15, 24 hours? Let's not forget that many of those examples barely qualify as steel construction because the majority of many of them were chiefly built of reinforced concrete, or had a much different frame system than the trade centers. Ignoring differences in construction the 1975 fire was nothing NEAR the size of the fires ignited by the plane impacts 26 years later
  
  • There was ZERO I REPEAT ZERO structural damage from an impact. Let alone any fireproofing REMOVED
    
  • The fire started in ONE AREA and propagated across the 11th floor, and it eventually spread from the 9th to 19th floor via the core. MOST OF THE DAMAGE BEING CONCENTRATED TO THE 11TH FLOOR
    
  • The fires in the September 11th attacks by contrast were ignited and burned on SEVERAL FLOORS
    
    
  • The location of the fire: The 1975 fire was only 11 floors up, compared to the 75+ floors for the fires on 9/11. making it much easier to fight, whereas the fires 75+ floors up were virtually free to burn uninhibited
    Firefighters typically carry at least 50 pounds of equipment (sometimes up to 100 pounds, with special gear that may be needed). With elevators out of service, firefighters need to haul themselves and their gear up the stairs which takes time, and even for firefighters that are in good shape, it is very exhausting and difficult
  
  The 1975 fire was a pretty standard office fire, and comparatively minimal when you look at the severity of the fires in the WTC after the impacts in 2001 and despite your horribly inaccurate comparison you like to make to the Trade center like the Windsor tower.
  
  
  And so lovely that you use the design of the buildings as an excuse to say that they should not have collapsed. You continue to ignore the fact that although true that they were designed to withstand an impact it was not required in the local building codes at the time. The building codes are very thorough about it's requirements, and as such it requires every condition to be considered, however, the building was not bound to make specific considerations and the design for the plane impacts failed to account for the copious amounts of jet fuel, as well as ANY amount of the foam insulation to be removed. Congratulations, you don't even bother to look equally at the considerations in that aspect of the design that were not made.
  
  
  
  

  the buildings were designed for jet impact and fires, period.

  
  Individually yes. Together... subject to question.
  
  
  • In a normal office fire you generally don't expect your main sprinkler system to be severed by a 100-ton projectile.
    
  • In a normal fire you generally don't expect ignition to take place on 6 to 10 floors all at one time.
    
  • In normal office fires you generally don't expect to have a 100-foot gaping hole in the structure and impact debris damage crossing the floor plan.
    
  • Likewise in the plane impact design they primarily made considerations for the impact damage, not the secondary effects of the impact damage (IE foam insult being removed, the atomizing jet fuel, as well as the copious amounts of fuel remaining to sustain the fires once the jet fuel burned off
  
  I have argued with you ad nauseum about what it means to separate the damage from the fire and the damage resulting from the planes. Please enlighten me as to why you continue to separate them? The conditions that existed for the towers in 1975 were nothing like the conditions experienced on 9/11 yet you continually ignore this fact.
  
  

  and they would have survived if explosives werent planted.

  Don't change the subject, where do you think the collapse initiated? in the area that was impacted by the planes
  Exactly how does one stream of molten metal absolutely prove thermite? Please explain this to me I'd like an answer.
  
  • Was the thermite charge that we supposedly see in that video 'dislodged' from where ever it was placed, and we just so happened to see it?
    
  • or was it cutting the intended column?
    
  • If the 1st is the case, then why do we see only one set of 'sparks' or charges? Clearly that shouldn't be the only one dislodged if that is the case. What claims can you make regarding other thermite charges?
    
  • If the second is the case, and the thermite is cutting the intended column, then why do we see only one discharging? Clearly cutting a single exterior perimeter column does virtually nothing to violate the structural integrity. Why don't we see thousands of these going off?
  
  
  

  but what in heavens name has that got to do with the buildings structural integrity?

  It deals with escape routes for the occupants, something that wasn't considered in the design. The stair wells were not particulalry designed for heavy traffic, especially dealing with large scale evacuation. Had the towers been fully occupied at the time, it would have taken upwards of 4 hours to evacuate the towers. It is a life safety issue more than anything else, but architecurally it was a non-considered flaw.
  
  
  
  

  You do know that building 7 was not designed for metal eating termites either but if metal eating termites ate through 10-15% of the core columns and outer perimeter then yes they were designed for such an event.

  
  Exactly why you've decided to use thermite as a comparing tools is beyond me. Particularly if you're assuming that the same number of columns you're supposing were cut by thermite were severed from the plane impact.
  
  Is this some kind of bait trap inside this debate?
  
  
  

  The point is (and being a student of archetecture you know this all too well) that every single skyscrapers is designed to redistribute their loads if and when there is core column failure.

  However load redistribution and the ability of intact columns to carry the added loads is highly dependent on the load capacity of those columns, and any factor that reduces it.
  
  

  I can design a crash helmet against receiving head injuries from motorcycle accidents but the crash helmet works just as well if someone hits me over the head with a baseball bat, eventhough it was not specifically designed for that.

  That is an odd comparison... rather in reverse... A motorcycle helmet is specifically designed for reducing the severity of injuries, but using the example of a bat hit, to compare to you hitting the pavement with is not the best approach. A bat is an instant impact with only so much force, whereas a motorcycle accident at 65 mph, is going to exert much more force. It might be more relevant if you were attaching yourself to a rocket to see if the helmet over performs, but the way you set up your comparison makes it bear little relevance to 911...
  
  
  

  They did consider the failure of core columns and that is precisely what happened when the debris fell on the building.

  Are you remotely familiar with the design of WTC 7?
  
  • each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.
    
    NIST report
  
  Given that information, I'm not so sure that initial damage to the core structure was as much the problem as the load transferring columns were.
  Take a few moments to read this:
  http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
  
  
  In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.[3][39]
  
  
  
  

  The intensity and duration of fire is more relevant in relation to structural failure.

  Again, separating the combination...
  
  
  

  Here we go again. What context?
  This is what YOU said grizzly
  Despite what you may think the above statement is not Shakespearian English and despite what you may think i can read and undertsand what your saying. Your saying that their job/thing-to-do/aim/objective was not to assess total collapse but rather just assess how the collapse started.
  In response I posted what NIST actually said http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf
  
  Where does it say their job/thing-to-do/aim/objective was to explain how and why the collapse started? Let me tell you where...nowhere!

  
  

  The specific objectives were:
  1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
  
  2. Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location,
  including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and
  emergency response; and
  
  3. Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

  
  ...and I point out where my 'context' is. The cause, that is, the 'why' leads up to collapse initiation. I don't stating that was their only objective hoever, it was amongst them. Comparing my statement to NIST better would have told you that....
  
  

  Your telling me that how and why 4/5 of an intact structure below the impact zone collapsed symetrically and simultaneously is not part of their job, what I am saying is that IT FRIGGIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

  ugh seriously, why? This is virtually the same as asking why the collapse didn't stop with just the top of the towers, as if they are solid blocks. These towers (WTC 1&2) were 90% 'air'... with floor slabs spaced 12 ft apart, in other words each time a slab would offer any form of resistance to the falling mass & fail, the mass would fall another 12 ft, and so on and so on... nothing to dampen the accumulating momentum. Any that it does lose is regained is a successive 12 ft drop... until the collapse is completed.
  
  

  you ask me to try an absurd unrepresentative experiment

  Well if you understood things better we wouldn't have to go there now would we?
  
  

  (maybe you have a future at NIST?).

  Perhaps you'd be a better candidate since you claim to have all the evidence you need to suggest that the collapse occurred differently than what they say. I'm sure you can make the report a sparkling success with your research...
  
  
  

  Yes the dynamic load is greater than a static load but it will not, never, and did I say never, turn the intact structure below into dust.

  
  Mind you that the structure was composed mostly of steel columns...
  Apparently this 'dust' was enough to open a new skylight into WTC 6 and remodel WTC from a 22-story building to 4-stories. Seems like this dust also served for remodeling WTC 4...
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  That dynamic load was enough to cause each successive floor to fail as the collpse wave reached them.
  
  

  And if NIST was aware of these “forces” then tell me why DIDNT they present them in their explanation of how and why the WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed? Tell me why NIST admit they were “unable to provide a full explanation”? Why did they not provide any calculations of these “forces” you mention? Why did they not use your “brick falling on the head experiment”?

  
  Why don't you ask NIST? I can't answer on their behalf on those questions.
  
  

  Imagine you have 2 card board boxes and you drop the upper box on the box below which is 4 times larger than the upper box – it is not, never, and did I say never, going to crush the box below and then itself.

  And your model is too simple. a carboard box is a monolithic piece, it is not an assembly of thousands of parts working as a system. This is exact;y why your interpretation of the collapse is flawed
  
  

  I admit that my example/analogy is really really basic but no less basic than your “brick on head” suggestions.

  
  The brick suggestion is a simple but relevant reference because it deals with only ONE factor. and it exemplifies my point reasonably in the context of comparing static and dynamic loads... certainly doesn't qualify to analyzing structure, but it conveys that one issue.
  
  
  It's late now so I'll continue to your other post tomorrow as well as with anything I left out in this response...