DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[Norseman]

For anyone interested in a good reality based explanation of the glowing material flowing from the corner of WTC 2, I highly recommend this article:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Unfortunately I have to change that fickle mind of mine in light if new information. The propane torch used in Jones’ experiment did not reach 1995c after all instead it only reached 925c. Such a temperature (925c) is well within the temperature ranges recorded in the WTC rubble piles hence the nanothermite presumably would have reacted when exposed to temperatures 1500c and above. This in turn would generate heat and help maintain the high temperatures witnessed at the rubble pile.

Such I address the conditions that must be met for these, as if the nano thermite you're proposing was ignitable under the conditions in the debris pile one must ask if there was a sufficient collection of the the material that could generate a reaction? How powerful the thermite reaction could be with Jone's proposed nano-thermite is not the issue, ultimately the visible effects rely on whether or not fuel for thermite reactions is sufficient to sustain it for any measurable period of time. The nano-thermite is little more than small red chips are they not?

Don't forget that the mix has to be homogeneous for the thermite to react properly, and the ingredients are very specific depending on the type it is. The most common type uses copper oxide:

Source - and extra info

Has Jone's tried to ignite samples of his red chips yet, anything documented?

I'm sure if the nano-thermite is a valid claim, he'll have tests running through that, perhaps if/when he releases such experiments we can evaluate from there. But so far according to you, he has not fully tested these.

Not at all. Unlike the unignited thermite randomly dispersed in the rubble pile the preplanted thermite would most likely have a remote fuse e.g. an electrical superthermite “match” could have been used and remotely triggered via radio signal. http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

From the same source as I gave above:
"Thermite is not easy to ignite. Thermite has a very high activation energy required to start the reaction. The two most common ways to ignite thermite are:

• Magnesium Ribbon (Mg)
  Magnesium metal burns in an Oxygen environment (air) in a very bright, exothermic reaction. Magnesium ribbon can burn at several thousand degrees easily igniting thermite. The Magnesium ribbon is useful as it acts like a fuse, calmly burning, allowing a short delay between when the ribbon is lit and when the thermite begins to react. Other forms of Magnesium metal can be substituted for Magnesium ribbon such as metal turnings, powders, or even common sparkers which contain Magnesium.
  
  
• Potassium Permanganate (KMnO4) + Glycerin
  An alternative to using Magnesium ribbon is to use the heat given off by the reaction between Potassium Permanganate and glycerin. Potassium Permanganate is an extremely powerful Oxidizer which spontaneously ignites after coming in contact with glycerin. After adding a few drops of glycerin to Potassium Permanganate powder and a short delay, a violent exothermic oxidation reaction occurs which will ignite a thermite mixture.
  
  
  It is important to mix the thermite ingredients thoroughly in order to create a homogeneous mixture. Unless the thermite is sufficiently mixed, it may be difficult to ignite or sustain the thermite reaction."

Would you mind elaborating exactly how the would have implemented a trigger using a radio signal? And using nanothermite fuses? The nanothermite fuse idea seems counter intuitive, is according to your statements, it not thermite itself?

My pennies worth is the following: a thermite incendary charge was positioned on the northeast corner to cut the outer perimeter (and perhaps some core columns?) in order to assist in the “toppling effect” we all witnessed. The “toppling effect” in my opinion was arranged to create an illusion of an asymetric-natural collapse.

The planes that struck the towers severed a number of perimeter columns, enough to create a 140 ft span between the nearest intact exterior components. How does that one charge compromise the exterior structure enough to be the sole cause of the 'tilt'?

A few things to bear in mind here. We are able to see the floors through the windows further away from the lone set of sparks... if thermite is reacting else where along the perimeter columns then why don't we see them reacting at this point?

If this thermite began its reaction 50 minutes after the plane impact, then why haven't any others become visible all up to the time the collapse initiated? You're argument on the locations seems to be speculative at this point. You can argue that the flow is evidence of thermite but if we assume that it is for arguments' sake it would not appear to be a sufficient amount to compromise the exterior structure.

There is also the possibility that the reaction was premature and was meant to have occured during the collapse and not before?

During the collapse? Now wouldn't that be counter-intuitive? The point of the thermite in your contention is to weaken the structure... It is meaningless if the collapse has already initiated. I know you phrased this as a question, but which was it?

The following links address the queston as to where the thermite charges were positioned. http://www.physics911.net/thermite, http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...er_op=view_page&PAGE_id=16&MMN_position=25:25,

Your link states the 'demolition' as taking three stages.

PHASE 1: PREP. All bomb detonation sequences after and including the first airplane strike the point of "collapse" initiation. Phase 1 , obviously, lasts for a different duration for each building.

There is ample evidence for many different types of attacks during this phase. The attackers used every distraction available to launch different attack sequences to substantially weaken the buildings
during this phase.

It is a time-tested magicians trick to hold the observers attention in one place while secretly acting in another. Among these attacks are

a) Attacking the sublevels in the north tower under the distraction of the first airplane strike.

b) Setting off quite a few bombs in the chaos of evacuation.

c) Setting off a sequence of bombs in the North Tower simultaneously with the airplane strike on the South Tower.

d) Setting off bombs in the north tower while the south tower collapses.

Going by what I bolded:

• 
  A) Just why? Why do they need to weaken to sub levels? They sat off a car bomb in the basement back in 93 and it failed to sufficiently weaken the building.
  the core was built with added lateral bracing, trying to weaken the building at the lowest floors would have been really terrible blundering judgment...
  
  This is what those explosions would have had to destroy:
  
  
  
  That added bracing extended to the 7th floor.
  
  On top of that, collapse of both towers didn't even originate at the lower levels.....
  
  B) Skip because it has nothing to do with pre weakening the structure.
  
  C) ...oooookaaaaayyy... Syncronising these explosives would be another issue... somehow, I can't understand the logic of this... Weren't the planes intended to do the initial weakening?
  
  D) Tell me, do you see any destructive explosions in the other tower from this video:
  
  
  

As I mentioned many times in other essays, most every core box column section seen in the debris and clean-up seemed to be broken at or near the original weld surfaces.

This would be reasonably expected, as the weakest points of the columns would indeed be the connections. How does this prove bombs were used?
This was very common for the exterior perimeter columns that remained intact after the collapse (laying in the debris pile). Again, what about the breaks at the connections supposed to prove?

Therefore, these bombs would be placed at or near the welds of each column, once every 3 floors.

This would make sense if the bombs were actually in-place, however, once the collapse initiated, these would also be common breaking points from the immense stresses exerted on the columns during collapse. The statement seems to assume that the breaks at the connections would be exclusive to detonations. WTC 5, though not quite the same case was found to have suffered connection failures as noted by the ASCE analysis of the situation:

"The partial collapse of WTC 5 was not initiated by debris and is possibly a result of fire-induced connection failures. The collapse of these structures is particularly significant in that, prior to these events,no protected steel-frame structure, the most common form of large commercial construction in the United States, had ever experienced a fire-induced collapse. Thus, these events may highlight new building vulnerabilities, not previously believed to exist...."
Source
Page 7

This way they can break the very strong columns in rows 500 and 1000 along their original welds all the way down the buildings, and at the same time they can sever the entire inside perimeter of the floors of all the open office space entirely from the core, sending it into free fall.

Again... would only need one floor to fail and for the upper separated section to apply a sufficient dynamic load and to cause complete failure. Why do they claim that it's necessary to rig every floor? Again we have issues even with practicality for implementing them....

Murphy's Law
The author believe that one of the highest priorities of the demolition planning crew was to conclusively address the following question:

What is the best and simplest way to do this so that we make sure we don’t screw it up?

I ask the reasonable reader to consider how teams of men, not supermen, could install explosives in 2 110 story buildings in 4 days?

And having such a massive team to accomplish this wouldn't draw attention? None at all?

I set the installation window at 4 days because of the reported removal of bomb sniffing dogs. I could be wrong.

I think it would be more than idle speculation to suggest that the installers of the explosives used the elevator shafts as much as they could.

It would? Again, in for days? Not one person either inside or out noticing the activity?

a) It is most ideal to avoid being seen. There would be no security cameras in the elevator shafts.

And how about traveling TO the elevator shafts? So was the building occupied during this 4-day period or not? How do you avoid looking suspicious getting the materials through there? How do you avoid making this huge team of insiders inconspicuous?

b) Installation is much easier. One man in the elevator pushing the buttons and handing bombs up through the emergency escape hatch on the ceiling of the elevator. Two or three men standing on the roof of the elevator placing bombs along the vital core columns in rows 500, 600, 900 and 1000 at regular intervals.

Speculation

Fact 1: Most every core column section found in the rubble appears to have ends that are broken along their original weld lines or very close. This is extensively discussed throughout the essays.

Again, why is this consistent solely with incendiaries or explosives? The article seems to demonstrate a familiarity with the fact that the connection points are the weakest part of the structure, so why isn't the collapse itself capable of this?

Fact 2: All of the 47 core columns have weld surfaces more or less every 36 to 38 feet all the way up the building.

this is consistent with the design of both the core columns and the exterior perimeter columns. The purpose of which was to increase the load bearing capacity of the individual components.

For thewholesoul, would you like me to demonstrate the principal of this design method for you? To show the difference between using a long spanning column and a short column? I can produce a model which should clearly explain this to you.

Fact 3: All 47 core columns have their weld surfaces at the same discrete elevations. I call these discrete elevations every 36 feet, more or less, up the buildings “weld planes”. This is discussed
some detail in the technical essays.

Fact 4: 36 feet is the same as 3 floors in most of the towers. Please see the essay “weld planes and floor elevations”.

These are standard design specs if the towers structural system, so far these are about the only facts in the article which are confirmed and correct.

Fact 5: There are core box columns seen in the rubble that seemed to have bomb damage. Many can be seen in the essay “Apparent Bomb Damage".

By chance does this refer to the supposed smoking gun that thermite cut the bottom core columns?

And then we get a big, big clue.

Fact 7: When each of the WTC towers “fell”, parts of the structures were witnessed to stand over 50 stories tall well after the rest of the building had fallen.

Yes, these were parts of the core structure that briefly survived the collapse. It would support the idea that at least a large portion of the collapse after initiation was pancaking.

In the case of the North Tower, we can see that columns 701 to 706 and 802 to 805 were at least 50 stories into the air well after the rest of the building had completely “fallen".

[/quote]
And having lost all of their lateral supports, they weere unable to support their own weight and collapsed accordingly.
Interestingly earlier in the article didn't they imply that the bombs were placed ever 3 floors all the way down the towers?? Why then didn't the remnants follow with the rest of the building immediately?


The trouble with this article like all other ius that not only does it speculate where the bombs would 'most logically' be placed. It makes no mention of the fact that the collapse alone was capable of this... the connections are afterall the weakest parts of the overall structure. Many of the parts that failed came apart at the connections... ergo it's failed to prove anything beyond speculation.

How did the charges survive the impact? Presumably the terrorists who planned the event knew which direction the planes would enter the towers.

So by presumably you're not sure? There is no way to corroborate this?

With this information they could have placed the cutter charges on the blind side of the core columns. So columns that the plane did not cut through, the cutter charges would have remained and finished the job off later.

Very very speculative

Electrical matches are very resistant to friction, impact, and heat and would have insured that the ignition of the charges would have been unaffected even after the impact. See p96 http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf Remote ignition is used in demolitions.

Are there any precedents of thermite being used in demolitions of structures (not clean-up)? It's widely known that explosive charges are set off remotely for your average explosive charges in CD's, however, how does this get applied to thermite? These are electric wires are they not? What mechanism in these wires creates the ignition? Jones doesn't seem to explain that in his presentation.

finally this idea with the inward bowing of the outer columns being caused by the sagging trusses connected to the core columns – can you direct me to the page in NIST`s final report where they have conducted representatuve experiments to PROVE this claim?

What are you looking for? Computer models, or physical models? There's photographic evidence from the event that substantiates that the floors in the impact areas were sagging out of place.

NIST computer model (realplayer file)

Flash presentation (NIST)
(The flash presentation contains a computerized model for the sagging floors)

is an experiment to prove that fire and floor sagging was what caused it. Have you? Have you seen inward bowing in a building fire before?

No, I haven't seen this happen before 9/11, no such example provide was the same construction system or the same materials. However, we know the following:

• The exterior perimeter columns provided the lateral support that the core required to remain stable.
  
• The floor slabs were connected to the perimeter columns and bridged the lateral bracing over to the core columns
  
• We know through photographic evidence the portions of the floor systems gradually sagged over time post-impact

Given what we do know about how the lateral bracing system was built, it wouldn't be at all unusual for the bowing to have been caused by the floor systems.

So – puffs of white smoke – pressure pulses – followed by molten metal flow: thermite reaction explains all of these observations. Whats your explanation?
peace

And that explanation is hinged on a single observation, for which there were no other visible signs that day. It's a very frail argument....


I took my time on this just for you
Have fun with it....

 

[applecorped]

Grizzly,

You really need to stop with your curt replies. Please elaborate upon your answers in the future.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Grizzly,

You really need to stop with your curt replies.

EDIT: Can't help myself most of the time... :\
I'm not made for these kind of...'debates' if you want to even call what I'm writing a debate...
As far as the floor trusses in WTC, seems somebody beat me to it...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107267

 

[applecorped]

Blah, Blah, Blah. Logic, Logic, Logic. What are you trying to prove? WTC7 suffered massive damage and eventually collapsed? You can spout your nonsense until the cows come home! Everyone knows Kennedy colluding, loch-ness loving, roswell hoping, bigfoot-jumping, flat-earth spewing, 9/11 lunatics know the troooooooooth!!!!!!! You will not stop us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[thewholesoul]

the molten metal pouring from south tower cannot possibly be molten aluminium but could possibly be molten iron

Why not?

Because molten aluminum has low emissivity and does not glow bright yellow-orange when flowing in daylight. Does that answer your question?

the probabilty of three skyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they recieved all failing on same day is very low

The probability of any event that happens is 1:1

Please explain further because according to FEMA the best hypothesis in relation to the total collapse of building 7 had a “low probability of occurence”.

Never in history has steel skyscrapers totally collapsed from fire. For it to happen on three separate occassions on the same day seems highly improbable to me.

For three steel skyscrapers designed to survive all the damage they recieved totally collapsing on the same day again seems highly improbable to me.

Heres a paper on the low probability on the official explanation: for yet another reason.

But what do you think Rika? Do you think that the TOTAL collapse of three skyscrapers designed to withsatnd ALL the damage they recieved having a (a) very high (b) high (c) low (d) very low probability of occurence?

towers 1+2 were designed for jet impact and survived the impact as seen on television

Yes, but you're neglecting the collateral effects of the impact. Also, it wasn't jet impact at that speeds as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

So your saying that it was desgned for a jet impact but it was designed for the “collateral effects” of that impact. Please specify this “collateral effect” you mention and point out where in the NIST report were this “collateral effect” was proven through experimentation to cause TOTAL collapse or even to cause “collapse initiation”

tower 7 was designed to survive the failure of three core columns and 10 perimeter columns which was the estimated damage made by the falling debris

Citation?

Thewholesoul post #928 JREF forum http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113041&page=24

ALL skyscrapers (go ask grizzly or any architect) – are designed to redistribute their vertical load in the event of core column failure. Of course there is a limit to how many core columns can be compromised before the building collapses.

Now according to NIST specifically figure L-23c titled “possible extent of debris damage” columns 68, 72, 75 were supposedly compromised by the falling debris. Now if WTC 7 was not designed to survive such damage and was not designed to redistribute the vertical load as a result of this damage then we would have observed the building collapsing at 9:59 when south tower exploded debris onto wtc 7.

So because we did not observe this happening we can safely conclude that wtc 7 did, in fact, survive the damage caused by the debris and consequently there is absolutely no need to provide you with a citation for what we have all seen on television and you tube a million times over.

fires were unfought in wtc 1, 2, and 7 and ‘allegedly’ the sprinkler system was not working in wtc 1, 2, and 7; yet the steel in wtc 7 survived for 360 mins as opposed to 56 mins and 102 mins. Was the steel in wtc 7 super strong or was the steel in wtc 1 + 2 super weak? You choose Beachnut

Because it didn't have fireproofing knocked off via impact?

I assumed that the fireproofing was knocked off from the jet impact in wtc 1 and 2. I also assumed that the fireproofing in at least one floor of the wtc 7 was burnt off from fire (you do know that spray-on fireproofing has a limited duration?). Based on these assumptions and the fact that the steel was exposed to fires means that we have two options. Either (a) the wtc 1 + 2 steel was much weaker than that in wtc 7 because the steel in wtc 1 + 2 failed after just one hour. Or the steel in wtc 7 was much stronger than that in wtc 1+2 because the steel at wtc 7 did not fail until several hours after exposure to fire. So I reiterate the choice; (a) or (b) you choose

NIST’s claim that the floor trusses sagged 42+ inches has not been proven by a representative experiment.

There's also empirical evidence.

I assume you are refering to the photographic evidence? If you read my other posts you would realise that I am not disputing this evidence. But I would like to see more. How many floor trusses exactly were seen sagging in the wtc 1 and 2?

What I am claiming however is that NIST has not performed any representative experiment to prove that the floor trusses sagged 42+ inches as in their computer simulations. This is a very important issue because the 42inch sagging is supposedly responsible for causing the “inward bowing” of the outer columns which led to collapse initiation.

But unfortunately it appears that just like beachnut you fail to understand that the only logical counter argument to my claim is to argue that indeed NIST has performed representative experiments wth floor trusses without fireproofing and exposed them to a similar fire for the same amount of time as the floor trusses in the wtc.

Moreover you fail to understand that empirical evidence is not the same thing as an experiment required to prove the explanation put forward in light of that evidence. Below is the scientific method:
(1) Gather observations i.e. empirical evidence
(2) Make hypothesis to explain
(3) Experiments to test hypothesis i.e. data
(4) Refine or reject hypothesis, more experiments
(5) Publish in peer reviewed venues
(6) Repeat above cycle, others joining in
(7) Generate theory/model of reality

Yes NIST has some photographic evidence and yes they have a hypothesis but my point is that they have not made any representative experiment to PROVE that hypothesis. Surely you must understand the point I am making?

NIST’s claim that the fire proofing was widely dislogded has not been proven by a representative experiment

.... Do you really need an experiment to demonstrate the obvious?

if it was so obvious why did NIST attempt to prove it through a ridiculously unrepresentatiave experiment?

but to answer your question: Yes if you believe in the scientifc method then experiments are required to prove ones hypothesis!! do you believe in the scientific method?

Again if you wish to debunk my claim then the only logical counter argument would be to present a represtentative experiment conducted by NIST which proves that the fireproofing was indeed “widely dislodged”. Or argue that shooting 15 rounds of a shot gun into a plywood box is representative of an impacting jetliner.you choose.

Perhaps you can give me just one example in the natural world when 1/5 of an oobject when dropped on the remainder of the same object - crushes it all, and then itself?

When you consider that most office builds are not one continuous mass and uh.. the falling debris weighs tons...

So you cant provide just one example. good that pleases me.

The falling debris no doubt weighed hundreds of thousands of tons but even so it weighed no more than 1/5 of the total weight of the structure. Correct? But it gets even worse than that because the 1/5 upper section visibly disintegrates BEFORE the intact structure below begins to violently explode. Take a look!
So in Truth my request was too generous. Can you provide me just one example in the natural world when 1/5 of a falling object, visibly disintegrates to at least 1/10, before it manages to crush all of the same intact object below, and then itself?

Taken together the official hypothesis and the Total collapse remain unproven 7 years after the event

Uhhuh.

So this is what passes as debunking these days?

NIST admit that they were “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”

NIST admit that they only investigated up to the point when each tower “was poised for collapse”

In sum their final report is a PRE-collapse theory. You have convincingly failed to rebute any of my claims that means that not only is the NIST final report a PRE-collapse theory but that this PRE-collapse theory itself still remains unproven!

Their assumption that the fire proofing was “widely dislogded” – unproven; their assumption that floor trusses sagged 42+ inches – unproven;
their assumption that floor trusses caused the inward bowing – unproven.
(unproven = not proven via representative experimentation)
Now if you think anything I have just said is false or untrue why dont you spell out your reasons why you hold such a view and I will be more than happy to tell why you are wrong.

I will continue to demonstrate and educate through rational dialogue that 911 was an inside job. What are you going to do about that Beachnut?

When you actually have evidence, he might listen. I know I might

the fact that the official hypothesis is UNPROVEN is reason enough to open a new investigation. In any case Steven Jones’s compared the chemical signature of the “red chips” that he found in the WTC dust with commercial thermite, they matched. He sent these “red chip” samples off for independent verification. When the samples are verfied you will have the hilarious position of explaining what the heck thermite was doing in the WTC dust. That should be fun.

peace

 

[applecorped]

so you say........

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Blah, Blah, Blah. Logic, Logic, Logic. What are you trying to prove? WTC7 suffered massive damage and eventually collapsed?

I know, and I like picking apart the conspiracy theory piece by piece regardless of whether it convinces the person or not...

You can spout your nonsense until the cows come home! Everyone knows Kennedy colluding, loch-ness loving, roswell hoping, bigfoot-jumping, flat-earth spewing, 9/11 lunatics know the troooooooooth!!!!!!! You will not stop us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

................???????? uh........????

 

[thewholesoul]

For anyone interested in a good reality based explanation of the glowing material flowing from the corner of WTC 2, I highly recommend this article:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

bolding mine

if you are now endorsing the latest "reality based" explanation mentioned in the above article then you must concede that NIST WAS WRONG to suggest it was molten aluminium. correct?

i do agree however it was certainly a solid explanation but an unproven explanation. if the moten metal pouring from the south tower was indeed what the above article claims then I will beleive it when i see it reproduced under labratory conditons with published photos of the results. in other words to the same high standard of steven jone's experiments.

it doesnt get anymore "reality-based" than experimentation!

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The WTC7 lobby was used as a triage center before the towers collapsed. So there's nothing unusual about injured and dead people being found there.

So they left all those injured and dead people there, in the triage? As they evacuated the building? I'm having trouble with the timeline.

Is there a credible news report about this? I thought WTC7 was EVACUATED. And nobody died there when it collapsed.

 

[thewholesoul]

So NIST have proven the total collapse but they are unable to explain it?

This is a false statement. Please retract it.They explain the progressive collapse in the FAQs

if it were false you would be able to provide your reasons why it was false. correct?

words alone do not prove progressive collapse according to the scientific method.

the reason I said NIST were unabe to explain total collapse is because they said they were "unable to explain total collapse"!

if indeed they are claiming to have proven the total collapse I am confident that you will point me to the computer models and experimentation they have conducted post-collapse-initiation.

your barking up the wrong tree here funk de fino.
peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Thewholesoul:
Your quoting "prison planet". With all due respect I think the new baby isn't letting you get enough sleep. We'll let it slide this time but please get some rest and stop listening to Alex and Co.. (you'll get age lines and start looking like him, He's only 32 you know)

thxs for advice and alex does look beyond his years to put it mildly. but to be honest i dont watch tv anymore. i nearly threw the tv out the window on the lead up to the iraq war - why? because there was no criticism!

i get that at the alex jones radio show in abundance.
you should listen to his show my firend he is right on so many things - but of course not everything.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Hi there, my name is aluminum and here I am glowing in the daylight ---

correct but not bright yellow-orange!
so try again
peace

 

[e^n]

Because molten aluminum has low emissivity and does not glow bright yellow-orange when flowing in daylight. Does that answer your question?

While this is true, this is somewhat irrelevant when you are not talking about pure aluminium. Glass for example will both melt and glow appropriately at this temperature. Lead will melt and does not glow spectacularly, but if contained for a duration will certainly heat up enough to glow. The argument that it could only be molten iron is not convincing, not least because we see no perturbation of the aluminium fascia, nor any degradation in the perimeter column between the two emission windows. I hope that answers your question.

Never in history has steel skyscrapers totally collapsed from fire. For it to happen on three separate occassions on the same day seems highly improbable to me.

For three steel skyscrapers designed to survive all the damage they recieved totally collapsing on the same day again seems highly improbable to me.

We can discuss design all you like, I personally am not convinced they were designed to handle either the speeds involved or the fire resulting. Either way the probability is irrelevant. If you deal out a deck of cards, the odds against the arrangement you deal are astronomical, but yet you dealt it.

So your saying that it was desgned for a jet impact but it was designed for the “collateral effects” of that impact. Please specify this “collateral effect” you mention and point out where in the NIST report were this “collateral effect” was proven through experimentation to cause TOTAL collapse or even to cause “collapse initiation”

The entire NIST report save for some subsections deals with the proof of this. Of course I know what you are requesting by experimentation, but this is irrelevant, you can easily demand even greater levels of experimentation until you reach a full reproduction (which has been requested believe it or not).

Either (a) the wtc 1 + 2 steel was much weaker than that in wtc 7 because the steel in wtc 1 + 2 failed after just one hour. Or the steel in wtc 7 was much stronger than that in wtc 1+2 because the steel at wtc 7 did not fail until several hours after exposure to fire. So I reiterate the choice; (a) or (b) you choose

This is a false dilemma. Steel can fail much more quickly than one hour, but individual elements form part of a composite structure. Not only this but we are as of this point quite unaware of any specific details of fire progression and potential fireproofing damage within WTC7. Your hasty attempt to create only two options is at odds with your previous requirements of rigorous experimental verification.

I assume you are refering to the photographic evidence? If you read my other posts you would realise that I am not disputing this evidence. But I would like to see more. How many floor trusses exactly were seen sagging in the wtc 1 and 2?

Can you define "sagging" more rigorously? If you read NIST NCSTAR 1-6 you will see that various areas of floor sagged through various methods to varying degrees. I doubt I can give you a completely accurate count, but then neither can NIST. Nobody can, as that level of information is unavailable to us.

What I am claiming however is that NIST has not performed any representative experiment to prove that the floor trusses sagged 42+ inches as in their computer simulations. This is a very important issue because the 42inch sagging is supposedly responsible for causing the “inward bowing” of the outer columns which led to collapse initiation.

Firstly, why do you believe NIST should conduct an experiment to back up their hypothetical scenario? Leaving aside the lack of any sort of proper facility to conduct this test, there is nothing surprising that a truss of 60ft in length can sag by under 4 feet surely? Perhaps you would believe a simulation conducted by professionals from another country?

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf

Secondly, the 42 inch sagging is not "supposedly responsible". The sagging is a result of a loss of load bearing ability which results in the upper truss chord hanging in tension. This is what causes the inward bowing shown and as has already been linked, Newtons Bit has shown the maths behind this.

But unfortunately it appears that just like beachnut you fail to understand that the only logical counter argument to my claim is to argue that indeed NIST has performed representative experiments wth floor trusses without fireproofing and exposed them to a similar fire for the same amount of time as the floor trusses in the wtc.

This is a critical lack of thinking, you have failed to consider that the tests you require may not be worthwhile or even needed at all.

Yes NIST has some photographic evidence and yes they have a hypothesis but my point is that they have not made any representative experiment to PROVE that hypothesis. Surely you must understand the point I am making?

I understand the point you are attempting to make, but you seem to assume that truss sagging is some sort of bizarre unknown phenomenon that NIST should carefully dissect. It is not and in fact the trusses are designed to sag a certain amount when in normal use.

if it was so obvious why did NIST attempt to prove it through a ridiculously unrepresentatiave experiment?

They did not, if you are referring to what I expect you to be, please elaborate.

but to answer your question: Yes if you believe in the scientifc method then experiments are required to prove ones hypothesis!! do you believe in the scientific method?

I do, please explain your requirements for an appropriate experiment. This should include:

• Precise steel makeup
• Precise weld strength information
• Precise bolt makeup
• Precise fireproofing condition
• Precise load due to office furnishings and/or debris
• Precise fire distribution and atmospheric temperature
• Precise radiative heat emission

I doubt you can provide these, and NIST cannot provide perfect or precise data for any point. This is the point of FEA modelling, to solve these many variables as simultaneously as possible and as accurately as the data will allow. This type of modelling saves lives and saves a huge amount of money it seems you would misspend on experiments which are simply unable of being representative.

Again if you wish to debunk my claim then the only logical counter argument would be to present a represtentative experiment conducted by NIST which proves that the fireproofing was indeed “widely dislodged”. Or argue that shooting 15 rounds of a shot gun into a plywood box is representative of an impacting jetliner.you choose.

Another false dilemma, did NIST really shoot 15 rounds of a shot gun into a plywood box? Are you misrepresenting their experiments? Why would you do such a thing and yet require such an extreme amount of proof from your opponent? Hardly an even bias I would say.

The falling debris no doubt weighed hundreds of thousands of tons but even so it weighed no more than 1/5 of the total weight of the structure. Correct? But it gets even worse than that because the 1/5 upper section visibly disintegrates BEFORE the intact structure below begins to violently explode.

It does not, this is an illusion as the upper section of WTC 1 rotated to the south as it collapsed. It's true enough that a reasonably large section on the north face did collapse but I don't see that this is incredibly unexpected given the amount of impact damage. This is the only reasonably clear video I know of the north tower from the south:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xR4qOo6XY-Y

So in Truth my request was too generous. Can you provide me just one example in the natural world when 1/5 of a falling object, visibly disintegrates to at least 1/10, before it manages to crush all of the same intact object below, and then itself?

Probably not, nothing as large as WTC 1 or 2 has ever collapsed before to my knowing.

NIST admit that they were “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”

Admit? I think you'll find a better word would be 'explain'. If you quote the relevant sections NIST explain nicely why they are unable. This is not something you can blame on NIST I am afraid.

NIST admit that they only investigated up to the point when each tower “was poised for collapse”

Indeed, perhaps you should read the first pages of the reports. NIST were not investigating to satisfy the requirements of conspiracy theorists. They were investigating to determine what caused the collapse and how to prevent it in future. Once the building has begun collapsing they have failed.

In sum their final report is a PRE-collapse theory. You have convincingly failed to rebute any of my claims that means that not only is the NIST final report a PRE-collapse theory but that this PRE-collapse theory itself still remains unproven!

By your standards of evidence then any theory will remain unproven. NISTs will of course still be the one with the largest amount of modelling, experimentation and evidential verification. I don't see why you think we are somehow going to 'fall back' on the Controlled Demolition theory?

the fact that the official hypothesis is UNPROVEN is reason enough to open a new investigation.

I'm afraid not, it has been accepted by the majority of the international engineering community. Your personal disagreement or the disagreement of a group of people is pretty much irrelevant unless you have some good scientific basis for it.

In any case Steven Jones’s compared the chemical signature of the “red chips” that he found in the WTC dust with commercial thermite, they matched. He sent these “red chip” samples off for independent verification. When the samples are verfied you will have the hilarious position of explaining what the heck thermite was doing in the WTC dust. That should be fun.

I have not read Dr Jones' latest papers, but I am confused by your attitude. Thermite is Iron and Aluminium, with various other elements added in in various different versions. Iron and Aluminium are what the towers were made out of. Of course thermite was in WTC dust.

I hope I have answered your questions. You should spend some time reading the NIST report and building a list of things you do not find convincing. We can then apply that standard of evidence to any of the CD theories you choose and we can decide on a likely theory from there. If you wish in return I will read any document or study you like and give my honest opinion on its failings.

 

[funk de fino]

if it were false you would be able to provide your reasons why it was false. correct?

words alone do not prove progressive collapse according to the scientific method.

the reason I said NIST were unabe to explain total collapse is because they said they were "unable to explain total collapse"!

if indeed they are claiming to have proven the total collapse I am confident that you will point me to the computer models and experimentation they have conducted post-collapse-initiation.

your barking up the wrong tree here funk de fino.
peace

I never said prove it or proved it. I said explained it. You said they had not explained it. They have explained it so you are wrong or you are a liar. Thye explain it in their FAQs.

Stop moving the goalposts and get back to defeending the fantasy with guys travelling on elevators to plant thermnite and the like that grizzly has just demolished. It was very amusing.

PS Were you ever in the Twin Towers? I was. 2 months before the attacks. I had a security check and had my photograph taken. Everyone did who was visiting the top deck. Explain to me how the expert sneaky guys got all the equipment past them. Unless they were employees then they could only use the elevators for the top deck and even if they managed to sneak into the elevators do you have any idea how busy they were.

 

[funk de fino]

thxs for advice and alex does look beyond his years to put it mildly. but to be honest i dont watch tv anymore. i nearly threw the tv out the window on the lead up to the iraq war - why? because there was no criticism!

i get that at the alex jones radio show in abundance.
you should listen to his show my firend he is right on so many things - but of course not everything.

peace

He is a liar.

 

[Dave Rogers]

correct but not bright yellow-orange!

Just out of interest, can you show some pictures of molten iron that's bright yellow-orange?

Dave

 

[TexasJack]

Wow, thermite up the elevators. I've heard some whoppers, but that one is absolute insanity.

 

[Par]

The Whole Soul,

You inform me via private message* that you plan to start a new thread in which you will argue the case for molten steel within the debris pile, etc. Well, you certainly could do; such dialog may prove valuable. But the thing is: I’m not quite sure why you’re telling me this.

Our argument, after all, doesn’t concern the matter of molten steel, but rather the notion that the eutectic reactions occurred specifically while the buildings collapsed. In fact, as I have previously pointed out (in Post #864), the existence of molten steel within the debris pile – even if we assume it proven beyond doubt, which in no way corresponds to my beliefs – goes no way toward telling us specifically when these reactions occurred.

* Incidentally, I’m replying to you here instead of via private message as the subject matter of our conversation has return to that of this thread.

 

[thewholesoul]

I never said prove it or proved it. I said explained it. You said they had not explained it. They have explained it so you are wrong or you are a liar. They explain it in their FAQs.

please refrain from calling me a liar especially when you base your groundless accusation on absurdity!

in NIST's FAQ's they explain why they were unable to explain the total collapse. so my claim (also NIST's claim) that they were in fact unable to explain total collapse is TRUE ACCURATE and CORRECT.

how on gods green earth does explaining why you cannot explain something somehow remove the fact that you were unable to explain that something???? what breed of nonesense are you talking man?????

the TRUTH is NIST - for whatever reason - were unable to explain total collapse (their words not mine) so it IMPOSIIBLE to claim that the total collapse has been proven since it is absurd to claim that total collapse has been proven while at the same time admiting that it cannot be explained.

your logic is redundant and before calling someone else a liar I suggest you be a little more "fino" and lot less "funk".

and how dare you call me a liar when all i did was reiterate the words of NIST.

PS Were you ever in the Twin Towers? I was. 2 months before the attacks.

for a minute there i thought you were inside the twin towers 2 months after the attack? but i get your point because you were there and i wasnt that means your right and im wrong.

I had a security check and had my photograph taken.

good for you you must be a really important person. that means what you say is right and what i say is wrong

Explain to me how the expert sneaky guys got all the equipment past them. Unless they were employees then they could only use the elevators for the top deck and even if they managed to sneak into the elevators do you have any idea how busy they were.

all is required is trust and access.

but i could even entertain you and agree that planting explosives is highly improbable - but its not impossible. the hypothesis you bury your head into is IMPOSSIBLE and I will choose improbable over impossible every single time and so should any rational human being.

peace

p-s- i think this will be my last post to you funk. so take it easy brother.