How 9/11 was done

[Quad4_72]

Would make sense if you could prove to me that the core was weakened.

Intense office fires. This was explained to you.

Vague site about wood with remarks like "Average building fire temperatures range from approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC, retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."

Can't you find a more credible source?

That is actually a fact. Why would you need another source for that? It seems you have a very very vague understanding of not only 9/11 but simple concepts as well.

 

[9/11-investigator]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/columns.html

Here is a picture of what happened to the south tower; the core was not hit by the fuselage.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Intense office fires. This was explained to you.

That is actually a fact. Why would you need another source for that? It seems you have a very very vague understanding of not only 9/11 but simple concepts as well.

I was only asking for a more credible source than 'softwood', that's all. Here is one: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html

It says basically the same (about the strength):

At temperatures above 800° C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. 1 Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7. Why couldn't such dramatic reductions in the strength of the steel precipitate such total collapse events?

Read the rest.

Even if we would assume (I do not) that 'all the Columns Suddenly Become as Wet Noodles' somewhere half way the 2nd tower, than the remaining 2 parts of the core should remain rigid and would topple over but would not completely disintegrate.

And again, I do reject the Wet Noodle theory my opponents seem to have because there has never been a steel framed high rise building that ever 'noodled' or 'pancaked' or suffered any other culinary catastrophe.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Vague site about wood with remarks like "Average building fire temperatures range from approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC, retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."

Can't you find a more credible source?

The intention of posting the webpage was for you to look at the difference between how fire affected the glulam wood, and what it did to the steel beam on the right side.

Principally these: image one & image two

The information provided regarding the loss of strength which steel members undergo under high temperature conditions is also valid and can be researched via the AISC Steel specications.

These are additional images which illustrate the vulnerability structural steel has with fire, fairly recent among which was the Universal studios fire:
link1 Link two

Correction: Windsor did not have a concrete core, it had a steel-reinforced concrete core.

The steel reinforcement however is to enhance tensile strength of the concrete, the concrete however was the primary structural component for compressive loads. In the overall scheme of the subject however, the end result is still different than comparisons to a structure entirely composed of a steel frame.

They prefer other examples of fires in high rise buildings with a steel frame that did not collapse.

This better?

This brings me to the second point that needs to be made. Even amongst same construction materials there's another component of steel framed buildings which ultimately affects their performance in fire.

In the examples that 911 research offers there are several things that must be addressed;First and foremost that none of those examples suffered any direct impact damage at the moment the fires were ignited. In both WTC 1 & 2, the planes severed load bearing members, we'll ignore for a second the specifics, and treat this generally. Not one prior example of the same size had suffered this level of damage before, that's one issue to consider

• Secondly how similar are each of the examples in terms of structural design? As I alluded to before, design affects performance. In simple terms a structure built with a traditional frame will perform differently than the trade centers did. Case studies of the designs of each of those examples should assist in understanding the differences.
  
• thirdly, How many of those examples were ignited on several floors simultaneously with any kind of accelerant? Examples like the Venezuela tower were ignited in one area and the fire gradually spread to other areas within a period of several hours. The windsor tower, if you will, also had to burn for a considerable period of time before it was significantly engulfed.
  
• Fourth, How many of these examples had their fire protection compromised by an impact event? This applies to both the passive (gypsum wall board, spray on, etc fireproofing) and active (sprinkler systems, etc) disabled or incapacitated? Most examples had some kind of protection available that was intact during the duration of the fires.

There are numerous considerations that have to be made, these are just a few.

 

[A W Smith]

a plane flew into the towers, NOT a javelin.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/columns.html

Here is a picture of what happened to the south tower; the core was not hit by the fuselage.

The most substantial and heaviest single components were the engines. were they located inside the fuselage 9/11 investigator?

 

[R.Mackey]

The most substantial and heaviest single components were the engines. were they located inside the fuselage 9/11 investigator?

I despair of teaching our latest anti-semite anything, but since other posters are confused, let me simply point out that the fuselage of UA 175 did hit the core. A more accurate picture is found in NCSTAR1-2B, Figure 7-13, also reprinted on page 276 of my whitepaper to address a similar lie told by Jim Hoffman.

While the fuselage hit the corner of the WTC 2 core rather than the center, it nonetheless was positioned to take out roughly eight columns, including the more massive and important corner column, and the asymmetry of this hit as compared to WTC 1 makes it a more devastating impact.

Wake me if 9/11-investigator ever gets anything right, otherwise I'm out.

 

[9/11-investigator]

The most substantial and heaviest single components were the engines. were they located inside the fuselage 9/11 investigator?

1 engine against a 4 feet (or how much was it) wide column. Maybe, just maybe it knocked out 1 column. 46 more to go. Buildings are over overengineered with several factors.

Besides the engine was probably already smashed by the outer columns.

An engine BTW weighs 5 tons as compared to the entire plane of 130 tons (wide variety possible depending on type, fuel, load), so a rel. small fraction.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The second plane did hit the core only with it's ultra thin wing, see attached pic.

A bullet no larger than your pinky can take down a bull moose.

"Ultra thin wing." My my.

The core was not weakened by the mechanical impact and still it went down first.

This was already addressed by Grizzly Bear in post 877.

So everything comes down to the mysterious power of a few local office fires with a max. temp of 650 C, just enough to bake an egg and mostly dying out after half an hour or so.

No. You're astoundingly incorrect. With almost every word you write.

And was there a fire 'raging' in the core/elevator area ?
What was there to burn? Window curtains? Stationary? Early christmas trees?

Human beings, too. But go ahead and continue to reveal your true colors.

There was a fire raging on many floors in Windsor building for 19 hours; it's damage was nothing compared to the total collapse of the twin towers.

Again, already covered.

 

[dtugg]

1 engine against a 4 feet (or how much was it) wide column. Maybe, just maybe it knocked out 1 column. 46 more to go. Buildings are over overengineered with several factors.

Besides the engine was probably already smashed by the outer columns.

An engine BTW weighs 5 tons as compared to the entire plane of 130 tons (wide variety possible depending on type, fuel, load), so a rel. small fraction.

Actually the core columns used in the area of the impact were relatively small I-beams, around around a foot or so wide. Here is an example:

You are wrong yet again. How is it possible for one person to get so much stuff wrong?

 

[9/11-investigator]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

Here is a brand new video from 911blogger.

Hold the video at 2:37-2:38

The clearest view on the core to date; it looks like a bunch spaghetti stalks falling apart.

 

[A W Smith]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/columns.html

Here is a picture of what happened to the south tower; the core was not hit by the fuselage.

The fuselage clearly hit the core columns

1 engine against a 4 feet (or how much was it) wide column

At that level they were H columns and slender Tube

 

[9/11-investigator]

Actually the core columns used in the area of the impact were relatively small I-beams, around around a foot or so wide. Here is an example:

[qimg]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1162/1011341226_9127f2f65d_t.jpg[/qimg]


You are wrong yet again. How is it possible for one person to get so much stuff wrong?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
Some of the core columns apparently had outside dimensions of 36 inches by 16 inches. Others had larger dimensions, measuring 52 inches by 22 inches.

The outermost rows of core columns were apparently considerably larger, measuring 54 inches wide.

We are talking about the outermost column, so you are wrong, I was right.

That in itself is not a problem, the problem is the incessant additional slander. You are a hateful person who is not going to change his behavior.

You're the first on the ignore list, hopefully the last. Bye-bye.

 

[9/11-investigator]

The fuselage clearly hit the core columns

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/southtowerimpact.jpg[/qimg]



At that level they were H columns and slender Tube


[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/southtowercolumndamage.jpg[/qimg]

What is your source for the diagram, AWS?

 

[A W Smith]

What is your source for the diagram, AWS?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2BChap1-8Draft.pdf


more as far as the core column profiles

(cough, screen grab cough)This from your favorite 911 "research" site. The columns taken out or heavily damaged are within this group. Except for the northern most column taken out which is just to the right out of frame past the center right column.. This is the 80th floor, don't confuse the column cross section with the gypsum enclosures surrounding them. the profiles are the darker lines.

 

[dtugg]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
Some of the core columns apparently had outside dimensions of 36 inches by 16 inches. Others had larger dimensions, measuring 52 inches by 22 inches.

The outermost rows of core columns were apparently considerably larger, measuring 54 inches wide.

We are talking about the outermost column, so you are wrong, I was right.

That in itself is not a problem, the problem is the incessant additional slander. You are a hateful person who is not going to change his behavior.

You're the first on the ignore list, hopefully the last. Bye-bye.

Since I am on ignore, somebody please explain to our friend that he is indeed wrong and those measurements are for columns that were at the base. That they got smaller as the height increased as they didn't need to carry as much load. Thanks.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I despair of teaching our latest anti-semite anything

No welcome ceremony here...

Who is this guy? googledegoogledegoogle...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

Mr. Mackey refers to himself as a US government scientist, whose work includes the production of "strike aircraft weapon systems".

I see, our friend 'enriches' the world with ever more killing systems and is a direct beneficiary of the 'war on terror'. And paid by the government. Hmmm. Not really an objective observer. This guy is what Eisenhower was warning against during his farewell address.

No wonder he does not like me and goes direct for the attempted verbal kill... 'anti-semite'.

Question: is there any Griffin like character of any stature who is on the side of the debunkers and is not on the governments pay role?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

No welcome ceremony here...

Who is this guy? googledegoogledegoogle...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

Mr. Mackey refers to himself as a US government scientist, whose work includes the production of "strike aircraft weapon systems".

I see, our friend 'enriches' the world with ever more killing systems and is a direct beneficiary of the 'war on terror'. And paid by the government. Hmmm. Not really an objective observer. This guy is what Eisenhower was warning against during his farewell address.

No wonder he does not like me and goes direct for the attempted verbal kill... 'anti-semite'.

Question: is there any Griffin like character of any stature who is on the side of the debunkers and is not on the governments pay role?

If you cannot address the fundamental details of the post that Mackey wrote, then do not engage in ad-hominem. Ignoring the blatant insult to his line of work, the facts he presents do not depend who states them for their validity; rather, they reflect what actually occurred on 9/11, and do so regardless of who presents it at any given time.

Mackey has pointed out that you are utterly incorrect about your assertion regarding the columns. The jet did in fact damage some of them. Care to correct your mistake?

 

[A W Smith]

No welcome ceremony here...

Who is this guy? googledegoogledegoogle...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

Mr. Mackey refers to himself as a US government scientist, whose work includes the production of "strike aircraft weapon systems".

I see, our friend 'enriches' the world with ever more killing systems and is a direct beneficiary of the 'war on terror'. And paid by the government. Hmmm. Not really an objective observer. This guy is what Eisenhower was warning against during his farewell address.

No wonder he does not like me and goes direct for the attempted verbal kill... 'anti-semite'.

Question: is there any Griffin like character of any stature who is on the side of the debunkers and is not on the governments pay role?

\

if you were any kind of 'researcher" you would know that it a lie
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3214760&postcount=3

ad hom and poising the well logical fallacy noted.

Exposition:


To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an argumentative opponent. As with regular ad hominems, the well may be poisoned in either an abusive or circumstantial way. For instance:

1. "Only an ignoramus would disagree with fluoridating water." (Abusive)
2. "My opponent is a dentist, so of course he will oppose the fluoridating of water, since he will lose business." (Circumstantial)

Anyone bold enough to enter a debate which begins with a well-poisoning either steps into an insult, or an attack upon one's personal integrity. As with standard ad hominems, the debate is likely to cease to be about its nominal topic and become a debate about the arguer. However, what sets Poisoning the Well apart from the standard Ad Hominem is the fact that the poisoning is done before the opponent has a chance to make a case.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

While the fuselage hit the corner of the WTC 2 core rather than the center, it nonetheless was positioned to take out roughly eight columns, including the more massive and important corner column, and the asymmetry of this hit as compared to WTC 1 makes it a more devastating impact.

Just as a clarification to others: NIST's NCSTAR 1-2, table 7-6, p. 228 summarizes the core damage to WTC 2:

And they say this about the damage:

Core Structural Damage

The core had significant damage in the region close to the impact point, in particular the southeast corner of the core. The columns in line with the aircraft fuselage failed on the impact side, and several of the core beams were also severely damaged or failed in the impact zone. In some cases, failure of the column splices located on floors 77, 80, and 83 contributed significantly to the failures of the core columns. This was particularly true of the heavy column number 1001 at the southeast corner of the core that failed at the three splice locations.

A more detailed analysis can be found in NCSTAR1-2B. As can be seen in the table, NIST's analysis holds that 10 columns received damage, several of them across multiple floors with 5 of them being completely severed. This stands in stark contradiction to other claims that the core was not damaged. An explanation of how 9/11 truth researchers came to that conclusion would be welcome.

 

[tfk]

...
Segalovitz is a likely candidate considering his credentials. But I do not really care if it was him or somebody other Israeli.

Presumably, you meant to say "... some other Israeli."

Thank you for a refreshing bit of candor.

"... just as long as it was a Joo."

tk