DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[Grizzly Bear]

so 1/5 becomes 1/5+...eventually it becomes 2/5, then 2/5+... and so on

the problem with you answer it that (a) the pancake theory has been debunked

This is incorrect. NIST eliminated pancake initiation,the progression is a much different story. Supporting this are photos taken during the collapse which show 40 stoies off the south tower's core, and 60 stories of the north tower's core standing following the collapse of the floor slabs.

link 1
Link 2
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/47_spire.jpg

This video shows the cores following the primary collapse


Although they too collapsed shortly after, it was due to the loss of the lateral bracing more than anything else, however the fact that the cores remained standing behind the main collapse supports the pancake collapse progression and renders your assertion moot.

 

[leonAzul]

so 1/5 becomes 1/5+...eventually it becomes 2/5, then 2/5+... and so on

the problem with you answer it that (a) the pancake theroy has been debunked (b) the intact structure below was being pulverised into fine dust.

the official hypothesis is that the falling block remains intact all the way down (crush down) and then after it crushes all the intact building below the ground crushes it (crush up).

peace

And the problem with your response is that you fail to appreciate the dynamics.

Not to mention that this is so far off topic.

The topic is the collapse of WT7.

Please address your remarks accordingly.

 

[thewholesoul]

Now I'm no scientist, but if a house of cards were built of heavy material like concrete or steel or glass, and it was 110 stories high, and the cards were the size of cars, my brain says there's gunna be a whole lotta crushin' goin' on.

like they say seeing is believing.

but lets say the cards were the size of cars and the collapse ensued. these car sized cards will have to be crushed to such an extent that the structure cannot be re-constructed using the same cards.

peace

 

[leonAzul]

like they say seeing is believing.

but lets say the cards were the size of cars and the collapse ensued. these car sized cards will have to be crushed to such an extent that the structure cannot be re-constructed using the same cards.

peace

Ah, a Humpty Dumpty argument. Finally, something I can wrap my brain around--or at least clean up with my spatula.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

like they say seeing is believing.

but lets say the cards were the size of cars and the collapse ensued. these car sized cards will have to be crushed to such an extent that the structure cannot be re-constructed using the same cards.

peace

My impression is to think of the subject more in these terms; where do the failures take place in the cards? Do the cards themselves fail, or do the points at which two or more cards meet (the connections) fail?

However, the model here does not account for a true comparison to the towers, as it's an incredibly simplified model. The simplification does however serve to provide a general analogy for the collapse procession, that the connection points are the weakest points of a structure and will be the parts to break away. Depending on the loading of your deck of cards you may well find yourself dealing with deformations in their structure (IE bowing, floding, etc)...

In other words in some areas the house card model could serve as a moderate analogy for the collapse but of course if you want to use it to ask about the pulverization of materials you need a much less simplified model approach.

 

[thewholesoul]

3. NISTs ability to explain the total collapse

This is an issue raised in responses to both me and others, but you seem to make some very serious mistakes. This is as a result of believing what truther sites tell you (as far as I can see). For example

Originally Posted by thewholesoul
they were unable to explain the total collapse?
Originally Posted by thewholesoul
NIST are unable to explain total collapse
Originally Posted by thewholesoul
elsewhere state we are “unable to explain total collapse”

The problem with this is, this is not what NIST said. What NIST actually said was

Originally Posted by NIST
we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse

Ok, you are saying that i took their comment out of context. I can understand why you think that. But when i make that comment i am refering to the entire comment that NIST made. In any case, i will take your criticism on board and in future try to place the qualifier “full” or “incomplete” in front of “explanation”.

But just how incomplete is their explanation?

Now you may question what exactly that means, but NIST has also answered this in the same response.
Originally Posted by NIST

Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the mangitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution.

Hopefully you can see how you have been taking their statement out of context, you even quoted them inaccurately. This is because you are reading false claims by people with an agenda. NIST did not state they could not explain collapse, only that they could not use their computer models to provide a full explanation of collapse. Much work has been done to model the collapses with as much detail as possible and this work clearly shows that gravitational collapse is expected.

So what your saying is the reason NIST admitted being unable to “fully” explain total collapse is because computer models are simply not sophisticated enough. Fine, I can accept this.

But there is a lot more that NIST has failed to explain post collapse initiation that does not require the use of computer modelling. So there are other reasons why it is true to say NIST were unable to provide a full explanation other than the reason you have just cited.

In the NIST final report “global collapse then ensued” was their explanation for the global collapse. I think we can both agree that this is simply inadequate. In their FAQ’s they provide another explanation but again it is incomplete because In the Journal of Civil Engineering it is pointed out that NIST have failed to explain or provide calculations for the essential freefall speed of the total collapse. This is a rather significant aspect of the collapse, wouldnt you agree? Moreover they simply ignore the Law of Conservation of Momentum as well as other things. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM Moreover no explanation is given as to why the impact of the falling upper section of the building should destroy the intact structure below rather than itself? http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/nt_ne.html

So NIST's explanation of the total collapse is lacking to say the least. they have has not provided an explanation with calculations etc of the essential free fall speed, the symmetricality, the almost complete pulverization of non-metallic materials as well as the extremely hot spots in the rubble and there has been no explanation why the falling upper section will not also be destroyed on impact.

in conclusion, if NIST is either unwilling or unable to fully explain all the observed phenomena then it is time for their hypothesis to step aside and let alternative hypothesis - THAT CAN EXPLAIN ALL OBSERVED PHENOMENA - take its place.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Shifting gears a little I will couple onto the above post the claim that:

•In relation to the official explanation the total collapse remains unproven.

By unproven I mean proven according to the scientific method which requires that the explanation/hypothesis of any given phenomena is subject to testing.

Now first we have the claim: “global collapse then ensued” http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf ;

then we have an explanation “there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers” http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

we know there are no simulations of the total collapse “NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability” http://www.twf.org/News/Y2007/0927-NIST.pdf

much less testing.

So it is a fact, not my opinion, that the above ‘claim’ and ‘explanation’ made by NIST has not been subject to testing hence it is true to say that “In relation to the official explanation the total collapse remains unproven.”

Now when I said have NIST proven there claims? You said

They have

you must have been refering to something other than total collapse because they have not proven total collapse.
When i stated that NIST should prove their claim that “global collapse then ensued”, you said

How?

. But this is clearly inconsistent. You cannot on one hand argue that they have proven total collapse and then on the other hand ask how can they?

When i pointed out this inconsistency you said:

I am asking you the question 'How can they prove it to you?'. I do not inherently claim that your standards are reasonable standards. Obviously my definition of reasonable standards is my own, but there is no logical requirement it must apply to yours.

so how can they prove it to me you ask? in fact i adhere to the same standards of proof as you

to say anything is proven means that it has so far held up to all tests

and since we know that no tests have been conducted in relation to total collapse in the context of the official explanation we therefore know that it remains unproven.

But you make a valid point. How can we prove the official explanation that would satisfy the scientific method? you suggest that i desire

a full reproduction of the towers to prove the collapse theory

but i would not subscribe to such an absurd idea.

But it is important to note that whether the official explanation can be tested or not – does not refute my claim that the total collapse remains unproven!

But i am sure that there could be some way to test the official hypothesis? I mean if humanity can imagine ways to test the Big Bang Theory, Evolution, Atomic Theory, Gravity, Relativity etc there must be some way to test how a sudden, symetrical, freefalling global collapse can occur from the gravity collapse of 1/10th of the upper structure? right? Because if a claim can be neither verified or falsified by testing, then such a claim is nolonger a scientific matter, but a metaphysical one. Are you saying E’M that the claim “global collapsed then ensued” is a metaphysical matter?

You said that it has been proven and can be proven

By reasonable standards

. Now we both agree that

to say anything is proven means that it has so far held up to all tests

so tell me, when you said that total collapse has been proven by NIST what tests are you refering to? And when you say that total collapse can be proven to reasonable standards, do these standards involves tests of any kind?

In conclusion, I welcome anyone in this forum (Grizzly) to take on the following claim
•In relation to the official explanation the total collapse remains unproven

But if you accept this claim i want to know why do you believe this claim to be true (i.e. “global collapse then ensued”) when it has not been proven scientifically? Because i simply dont understand that kind of reasoning.

and for those who say calculations have been provided, claculations are by nature theoretical are not considered proof according to the scientific method since calculations too can be tested. in any case, as has been pointed out in the Journal of Civil Engineering the calculations provided by NIST are incomplete.

Peace.

 

[Par]

my apologese for delay in responding Par

That is quite all right.

So your position is basically that I must prove that the evaported particles were produced during the collapse... But what standard of proof do you require?

I have made my position clear on numberless occasions. It is simply that you need to provide proof – in the everyday sense of the term – of your claim that the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed. I do not particularly mind how you do so. However, yes, proving, for instance, that particles unique to those reactions were formed specifically while – and only while – the buildings collapsed would, I suppose, suffice.

the best [by way of proof] I can do is refer you to the RJ Lee study. they asserted, not I, that the particles in question were produced during the collapse. there is a paper on how they collected the samples and arrived at this conclusion, but I cant for the life of me find it again. in any event they ruled out contamination before and after the collapse.

i believe the most relevant question however is whether or not the evaporated particles were produced during the WTC fires? in the RJ Lee report they do suggest that this could have been the case. unfortunately they never state the temperatures required in order to do so. at the end of the day this is an empirical matter and could be solved by exposing the materials in question to the the same temperatures of an office fire for the same duration as the WTC fires.

The two paragraphs above are confusing. In the first, you say a mislaid RJ Lee paper states that the particles in question must have formed specifically while the buildings collapsed. However, another RJ Lee paper – the one you mention in your second paragraph – openly entertains the possibility that said particles formed during the fires. Thus, even if you have properly understood and accurately remembered the mislaid paper, it is clearly contradicted by one we actually do have. Consequently, neither paper could be straightforwardly considered a compelling authority on the matter. Nevertheless, I would obviously be interested in reading the mislaid paper, if you manage to find it again. I suspect, however, that you have suffered a simple lapse of either memory or understanding.

but the RJ Lee report does seem to contradict NIST which should be apparant from the following statements:

"various metals most notably iron and lead were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles"

"some particles how evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and and silicates, and vescular particels (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation"

NIST: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires”.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

can they both be right?...

Of course. Indeed, NIST point out that in no instance did they report that steel in the World Trade Center towers melted due to the fires. Unless you can adduce an instance of NIST reporting that steel in the World Trade Center towers melted due to the fires, then I will have to assume they are correct: in no instance did they report that steel in the World Trade Center towers melted due to the fires. Clearly, this conclusion is perfectly compatible with the RJ Lee report. In any event, we could, if you like, assume that all of the reports are totally incorrect. Doing so, however, won’t tell us when the eutectic reactions took place.

...it is your contention that office fires can evaporate the materials in question. where is your proof of that?

Please refrain from attempting to shift the burden of proof. It is you and not I making specific claims as to when the eutectic reactions took place. Thus, the burden of proof, as I have explained, is on you.

not a problem, and thank you for yours. i must say I really appreciate the fact that we can discuss these issues without insults, its like a breath of fresh around here.

Thank you.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

By unproven I mean proven according to the scientific method which requires that the explanation/hypothesis of any given phenomena is subject to testing.

Now first we have the claim: “global collapse then ensued” http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf ;

It's interesting how you have deduced the entire gist of NIST's explanation of the collapse down to a single sentence. However once again, as you have done so repeatedly you have vastly over simplified the explanation. "Then the collapse ensued" is not an explanation to explain the collapse, that is what was observed. The only reason why this seems to be a fallacy to you seems to be your nagging lack of comprehension as to how 1/5 of a tower destroys 4/5, or (bolded):

"test how a sudden, symetrical, freefalling global collapse can occur from the gravity collapse of 1/10th of the upper structure"

Let's place the "global collapse ensued" statement in context from the NIST sheet you linked to, after touching bases I'll take on some of your side claims since they affect the accuracy of your claims:

Buckling of South Wall and Collapse Initiation

The inward bowing of the south wall increased as the post-buckling strength of bowed columns continued to reduce. The bowed columns increased the loads on the unbuckled columns on the south wall by shear transfer through the spandrels. Consequently instability progressed horizontally, and when it engulfed the entire south wall, it progressed along the east and west walls. Moreover, the unloading of the south wall resulted in further redistribution of gravity loads on the south wall to the east and west walls and to the thermally weakened core via the hat truss. At 100 min, the north, the east, and the west walls at Floor 98 carried about 7 percent, 35 percent, and 30 percent more gravity loads than the state after impact, and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads, respectively. The section of the building above the impact zone began tilting to the south at least about 8° as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls, as shown in Fig. 9–13. The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued.

I can only assume that you're calling this an incomplete explanation by the fact that they do not detail how the pancaking progressed the collapse (Is this correct?) as opposed to them saying that the floor necessarily pancaked following the collapse initiation.

I provided samples in Post #1101 which shows the exposed core structures of both towers after the perimeter walls and floors yielded and collapsed. Perhaps the easiest way I could put this is that the cores suffered a local failure in the impact zones, but did not themselves fail (farther from the impact zones) until they lost the lateral support structure provided by the external columns and floor structures.

This is where Richard Gages card board box experiment and your assertion of assigning proportional size values to the building sections fails.



Better yet let us look at it from this perspective and from your point of view:
You are arguing that a mixture of bombs and incendiaries were used to demolish the towers.

What kind of explosives send several-ton sections of structure into adjacent structures without causing cosmetic damage to all sides of the adjacent buildings? Remember, more powerful explosives release more energy, and stronger shock waves which would shatter windows on all sides of adjacent buildings, yet most tall structures that suffered damage as a result of debris (this does not include WTC 3, 4,5,6, or 7)

If your theory requires that incendiaries were used to ensure total collapse then why do large sections of the tower's cores remain standing, even if only briefly following the primary collapse?

Your objection to the possibility of global collapse starting from a comparatively 'small' section of tower then seems to require that additional failures must be initiated in order to continue the collapse progression. Some articles you have used in the past even speculate that secondary devices were place on multiple floors to accomplish this. With the cores initially surviving the main collapse, does this not hurt your theory?

then we have an explanation “there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers” http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

NIST here is referring to the floor's load capacity, not the load bearing capacities of the core and perimeter columns. The floor slabs were designed to be able to take a gradually applied load of 12 floors, and roughly 6 floors with a suddenly applied dynamic load. The perimeter columns were largely caused to fail by the lateral forces applied by the contents that were acting on the floors contributing to the pancake progression (these largely failed at the connections). The cores were both compromised closer to where the collapse initiated, however large sections, again, remained standing shortly following the progression of the main collapse which rules out failure through multiple floors of the towers after the initial local failure that happened in the collapse zone.

we know there are no simulations of the total collapse “NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability” http://www.twf.org/News/Y2007/0927-NIST.pdf

much less testing.

So it is a fact, not my opinion, that the above ‘claim’ and ‘explanation’ made by NIST has not been subject to testing hence it is true to say that “In relation to the official explanation the total collapse remains unproven.”

I'm rather curious how you propose they run a truly representative test. Running physical tests at one to one scale to simulate the kind of loads that the structure was bearing on it in addition to the fires, is nearly impossible to accomplish, and the only one to one scale example is the towers themselves, which quite obviously, we are trying to analyze already. There are both physical, and computer modeling limitations to what they can do to experiment with this. Smashing cinder blocks against each other and using card board box models as your favorite physicist and architects like to use to discredit NIST's findings isn't any way to go about it.

Needless to say, I'm sure somebody out there has a reasonable proposition, I'm far from genius level... but there are numerous complications in trying to model every grain of detail in the global collapse of the towers.

But i am sure that there could be some way to test the official hypothesis? I mean if humanity can imagine ways to test the Big Bang Theory, Evolution, Atomic Theory, Gravity, Relativity etc there must be some way to test how a sudden, symetrical, freefalling global collapse can occur from the gravity collapse of 1/10th of the upper structure? right?

There is a fundamental matter to keep in mind with this case, The Big Bang theory is based on observations of residual effects in space, such as radiation dispersion, the outward expansion of the universe, among many other things, which are deduced through careful observation and in many other cases mathematics.

The same is true for evolution, scientists observe the adaptations which species have made, and in some case where adaptations are disappearing. For example snakes have adapted in such a fashion that they no longer require extremities (arms and legs), yet certain species of snakes, have remnant features which indicate that they once had limbs. Crude example perhaps, however the theory of evolution is based on such observations.

Your other examples are generally the same, they have been validated through mathematics and observations.

And the World trade centers have been studied extensively from observations, mathematics, engineering, and computer simulation modeling.


I left the remainder for last since it's a bit more of a side matter but important nevertheless:

But i am sure that there could be some way to test the official hypothesis? I mean if humanity can imagine ways to test the Big Bang Theory, Evolution, Atomic Theory, Gravity, Relativity etc there must be some way to test how a sudden, symetrical, freefalling global collapse can occur from the gravity collapse of 1/10th of the upper structure? right? Because if a claim can be neither verified or falsified by testing, then such a claim is nolonger a scientific matter, but a metaphysical one. Are you saying E’M that the claim “global collapsed then ensued” is a metaphysical matter?

Freefall collapse
I'd like to start with the 'essential free fall speed canard. Despite the rather 'quick' collapse is there really a rule that defines 'essential', or 'near' free fall? Ever since the free fall issue has been debunked Jones and company have called it 'near' or 'essentially' free fall to apparently keep emphasis on the matter. Does this some how mean that a fall time of 80 to 100% longer than free fall is 'essentially' free fall? Falling is simply how gravity exerts itself on objects... I'm not sure how 15-20 seconds of collapse time defines anything close to free fall speed, I'm not even sure why this is still an issue here....

Sudden Collapse:
When the building's structure fails catastrophically, it comes down, and especially at the scale of the twin towers. This is a straw man to begin with, you've already seen the inward and outward flexing of the perimeter columns in both towers, And most visibly during the collapse initiation. You and ae911 truth continue to claim that the collapse was sudden, when it most obviously wasn't.

When structural members of a building show signs of distress that is a warning that damage is increasingly becoming a concern:

The last few seconds of the south tower
The above link shows two time stamps which were recorded within 5 seconds, but the same distortion of the columns started as soon as 20 minutes after the planes impacted, and helicopter crews reported that the tower was leaning several minutes before the collapse.

Are you still claiming that there were no warning signs of collapse?


Side items, but one which needed to be addressed

 

[thewholesoul]

4. NISTs fireproofing tests

Again you get things quite seriously wrong despite even pointing to a valid source of information on the subject
Originally Posted by thewholesoul
Yes that was the experiment they conducted in order to prove that the fireproofing was “widely dislodged” (i.e. that ALL the [upgraded] fireproofing was removed on 5 floors). They fired 15 rounds into a plywood box containing flat steel plates. This is not representative because (a) there is no evidence that a jet turns into bullets on impact and (b) the fireproofing was removed from floor trusses and columns not a flate steel plate (c) et cetera.
If this were truly the case, then how is it I can show you these pictures?

Those are pictures of a representative steel bar and representative debris. NIST fired representative samples at a representative structure at reasonable energies. Now I am not trying to say that their testing was beyond criticism and R Mackey among others has brought up several things they could have improved, but again you are criticising incorrectly. NIST did what you requested and even when linking to the paper you can't seem to see this?

What I requested was that NIST conduct ‘representative’ experiments to ‘prove’ their own claims.

The removal of fireproofing was essential and a necessary condition for the collapse initiation to occur.

“The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.”

Source: “Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers” page 4. In other words, if the fireproofing was not “widely dislodged”, going by their own words, collapse initiation would not have occured. And by “widely dislodged” NIST means that ALL the fireproofing from 5 floors of the towers was removed. http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

Now, you are saying that the straight bar in the photos you provided was a representatve sample of a floor assembly. I disagree. Here is a link to what a floor assemblies looks like http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/04/10/truss-assembly.jpg such an assembly could have been coated with fireproofing and tested. It wasnt. The following is why Kevin Ryan contends that the straight bar is not a representative sample.

But straight bars are not “floor trusses”, and do not accurately represent the floor assemblies used in the WTC. The joists from the WTC floor
assemblies, both primary and bridging, were assemblies of steel rods, curving into and around top and bottom steel chord frames. The few
shotgun blasts to establish fireproofing loss from these straight bars, shot directly at them from a distance of six meters, could have at least been aimed
at representative WTC floor assemblies, if not from a more realistic angle and distance. If NIST had performed the test in that slightly more realistic
manner, at least Mackey’s speculative ricochets could have been evaluated for their own ability to go “above and beyond.”

Furthermore you argue that NIST has conducted representative tests to prove how the fireproofing was dislodged. If this was true then you could have provided photos of core columns being tested on. Becuase NIST claim that the fireproofing was widely dislodged not just from the floor assemblies but also from the core columns. A “flat steel plate” is not a representative sample of an I-beam core column.

As stated above “widely dislodged” means that ALL the fireproofing was removed from five floors. The jet impact did not impact ALL core columns and floor trusses. Assuming a jetliner does become a blast from a shotgun, then their tests actually DISPROVE their own claim. They disprove their own claim because as seen in the photos you kindly provided the fireproofing is ONLY knocked off the area of the straight bar that has been shot. Therefore any area of the core columns, or floor trusses, not impacted by flying debirs will remain and will NOT be dislodged.

Only one out of nine of the simulations produced by NIST managed to produced buckling of the outer columns. This simulation, among other tweaked parameters, was achieved by stripping off all the fireproofing. But we know that all the fireproofing could not have possibly been removed. http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html

in conclusion, if they did representative tests of core columns and floor assemblies you could have shown me photos of representative samples that were tested.

the tests they did conduct prove that the fireproofing could not have been widely dislodged. it looks as if NIST has shot the fireproofing off their own foot!

peace

 

[Grizzly Bear]

4. NISTs fireproofing tests
Becuase NIST claim that the fireproofing was widely dislodged not just from the floor assemblies but also from the core columns. A “flat steel plate” is not a representative sample of an I-beam core column.

<Snip>

The jet impact did not impact ALL core columns and floor trusses. Assuming a jetliner does become a blast from a shotgun, then their tests actually DISPROVE their own claim. They disprove their own claim because as seen in the photos you kindly provided the fireproofing is ONLY knocked off the area of the straight bar that has been shot. Therefore any area of the core columns, or floor trusses, not impacted by flying debris will remain and will NOT be dislodged.

It is worthy of note that the core columns were protected by gypsum wall board, or a combination of SFRM and gypsum wallboard, whereas the floors were protected by spray-on fireproofing almost exclusively. If the planes severed several core columns, then the drywall would have been severely compromised. The details of core fireproofing can be found here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf

Pages 58 and 59

This is taken from pg 59 of NIST's analysis:

Types of Fireproofing on Core Columns in Fire-Affected Floors

Nearly half of the core columns in WTC 1 and over half in WTC 2 within the impact zones used a combination of wall board and SFRM.

Gypsum wall board is typically fixed to the columns, and would be more vulnerable to dislodgment than spray-on. The north tower was hit head on...

 

[thewholesoul]

It is worthy of note that the core columns were protected by gypsum wall board, or a combination of SFRM and gypsum wallboard, whereas the floors were protected by spray-on fireproofing almost exclusively. If the planes severed several core columns, then the drywall would have been severely compromised. The details of core fireproofing can be found here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf

Pages 58 and 59

This is taken from pg 59 of NIST's analysis:

Types of Fireproofing on Core Columns in Fire-Affected Floors

[qimg]http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/5900/nistng5.jpg[/qimg]

Nearly half of the core columns in WTC 1 and over half in WTC 2 within the impact zones used a combination of wall board and SFRM.

Gypsum wall board is typically fixed to the columns, and would be more vulnerable to dislodgment than spray-on. The north tower was hit head on...

now point out the experiment when NIST shot the core columns coated with gysum.

less core columns were severed in the north tower than the south tower - eventhough the collosion was straight on. go figure? not all core columns were severed or significantly damaged. how was the fireproofing removed from these columns grizzly, and what tests have NIST doen to prove that fireproofing was dislodged from such columns?

if you can answer that question you will debunk my point.

peace

 

[Grizzly Bear]

less core columns were severed in the north tower than the south tower - eventhough the collosion was straight on. go figure? not all core columns were severed or significantly damaged. how was the fireproofing removed from these columns grizzly, and what tests have NIST doen to prove that fireproofing was dislodged from such columns?

if you can answer that question you will debunk my point.

peace

In the case of gypsum wallboard I'm trying to think of the best analogy to describe why it's more vulnerable than SRFM. SFRM is uniformly 'attached' to the trusses, that is... if it is impacted directly it would dislodge, but not globally. Gypsum wall board is applied differently. It is typically attached to the columns:
source

One-Hour Wall Membrane
(Based on UL Design U 301) The membrane consists of two layers of 5/8” (15.9 mm) type X gypsum board directly applied to framing or furring. The base layer of gypsum board is applied either parallel or at right angles to wall or partition framing 16” (406 mm) o.c. and attached with 1” (25 mm) Type S or S-12 drywall screws (for steel framing) or 1-7/8” (48 mm) nails or 1-1/4” (32 mm) Type W or S drywall screws (for wood framing) spaced 6” (150 mm) o.c. The face layer of gypsum board is applied either parallel or at right angles to the framing and attached with 1-5/8” (41 mm) Type S or S-12 drywall screws (for steel framing) or 2-3/8” (60 mm) nails or 1-7/8” (48 mm) Type W or S drywall screws (for wood framing) spaced 8” (203 mm) o.c. Joints of the face layer are offset 24” (610 mm) from the joints in the base layer. Face layer joints and fasteners are finished to Level 1 as specified in GA-214, Levels of Gypsum Board Finish.

I emphasize in posting this that I am strictly referring to the method in which they are attached and to make the case in point. The thickness of the drywall application varies with fire rating needs, and other factors, but the method of attaching it to the structural members is fairly consistent. If vibration damage fractures or compromises the gypsum board it could come off the connection components that keep it applied the the structural members. The impacting planes are no exception.

less core columns were severed in the north tower than the south tower - eventhough the collosion was straight on. go figure?
....
not all core columns were severed or significantly damaged. how was the fireproofing removed from these columns

Damage to the columns themselves seems to be less relevant here since the dry wall is far more susceptible than the steel to failing from the torsional movements induced by the initial plane impacts.

The point is that the subsequent movements of the towers resulting from the impacts would have resulted in at least some of the loss of protection to the core in both towers.

Witness accounts described a fair amount of cosmetic damage to the interior finishings of the towers (EG doors jammed, partially knocked out, mechanical systems in the ceilings dislodge, jagged fracturing of marble walls, ect)

This one account describes the sheet rock being dislodged despite being a few floors down from the impact region....

You can of course find the full account this is taken from here: Link

Mr. McQuaid was on the 91st floor of the north tower when the first plane hit. This put him just below the impact zone, which was the 94th floor to the 98 floor.

<SNIP>

The first thing I noticed was that no one was coming down the stairs. I also noticed the Sheetrock on the interior of the stairwell on his floor had been knocked off the walls so thoroughly that the steel behind it was showing. The walls are made of four or five sheets of 5/8 inch Sheetrock, which I think is quite strong. The stairwell was dark black and it looked like it was blocked above me, although I can't see much because of the dark.

 

[thewholesoul]

I have made my position clear on numberless occasions. It is simply that you need to provide proof – in the everyday sense of the term – of your claim that the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed. I do not particularly mind how you do so. However, yes, proving, for instance, that particles unique to those reactions were formed specifically while – and only while – the buildings collapsed would, I suppose, suffice.

I dont think I can. The best I can do is quote RJ lee study who state “extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize”, and “extremely high temperatures during collapse” (both quotations found in jones paper) but unfortunately these were the same quotes that cannot be located in the RJ Lee summary report.

I too have questions as to how they could have ‘proven’ the vaporization to occur during collapse?

The two paragraphs above are confusing. In the first, you say a mislaid RJ Lee paper states that the particles in question must have formed specifically while the buildings collapsed. However, another RJ Lee paper – the one you mention in your second paragraph – openly entertains the possibility that said particles formed during the fires. Thus, even if you have properly understood and accurately remembered the mislaid paper, it is clearly contradicted by one we actually do have. Consequently, neither paper could be straightforwardly considered a compelling authority on the matter. Nevertheless, I would obviously be interested in reading the mislaid paper, if you manage to find it again. I suspect, however, that you have suffered a simple lapse of either memory or understanding.

The RJ Lee report said that vaporization of materials occured during the fire, and during the collapse. I understand why it seems confusing. But because they suggest that vaporization occured during the collapse and during the fire does not mean that the entire study should be disregarded. As for the lapse of memory, the mislaid paper goes into more detail, but even in the summary report the discuss how they compared the WTC samples to controls and it was concluded that
Quote:

Detailed charcaterization of WTC Dust revealed that it possessed a unique set of characteristics by which it could be identified and differentiated to a reasonable degree of scientfiic certainity from dust that had other origin

I think it is safe to say that RJ lee study proves that the WTC dust was not contaminated prior to and after the collapse. We cant prove however that the evaporation occured specifically and only during the collapse. But we can say for certain that evaporation occured during the WTC event (fire+collapse).

The only way we could establish that the evaporation occured during the collapse is by eliminating the possibility that the “swiss cheese effect” could have occured in the WTC fires. You see I was led to believe that such an effect is the result of a slow exothermic reaction – as cited as the explanation for the steel piece recovered from WTC 7. This is where my lack of chemistry shows. Can an office fire burning for approximately one hour boil and evaporate alumino-silicates? at the end of the day this is an empirical matter and could be solved by exposing the materials in question to the the same temperatures of an office fire for the same duration as the WTC fires.

We know that extreme temperatures can produce this effect thus this possibility is established. This is where your burden comes into play, can you prove the WTC fires were hot enough to evaporate alumino-silicates in one hour? If you can do this, then we have ourselves a stale mate because we have established two possibilities.

Of course. Indeed, NIST point out that in no instance did they report that steel in the World Trade Center towers melted due to the fires. Unless you can adduce an instance of NIST reporting that steel in the World Trade Center towers melted due to the fires, then I will have to assume they are correct: in no instance did they report that steel in the World Trade Center towers melted due to the fires. Clearly, this conclusion is perfectly compatible with the RJ Lee report. In any event, we could, if you like, assume that all of the reports are totally incorrect. Doing so, however, won’t tell us when the eutectic reactions took place.

Of course they can both be right?

Obviously there is a contradiction my friend. RJ Lee report suggests that various metals (e.g. iron) were melted during the WTC fire, and the NIST report says that in no instance did steel melt in the WTC fire. Now if temperatures were sufficient to melt iron then they were sufficient to melt steel. they cant both be right. Either temperatures were sufficient to melt steel, or they were not. p does not = not p.

Please refrain from attempting to shift the burden of proof. It is you and not I making specific claims as to when the eutectic reactions took place. Thus, the burden of proof, as I have explained, is on you.

Ok, the evaporation occured during the WTC event. Do you accept that this has been proven “to a reasonable degree of scientfiic certainity”?

It is an established fact that extreme temperatures can produce the “swiss cheese effect”, it is also an established fact that such an effect can result from a slow exothermic reaction. The question is did the WTC fires generate enough temperature to evaporate certain materials. The author of the RJ Lee report seems to suggest that it is possible but he never provides the temperature requirements. Also if evaporated alumino silicates are a common occurence during an office fire it would be great if some studies could be provided for comparative purposes. i tired to find some but my research skills are in short supply

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

In the case of gypsum wallboard I'm trying to think of the best analogy to describe why it's more vulnerable than SRFM. SFRM is uniformly 'attached' to the trusses, that is... if it is impacted directly it would dislodge, but not globally. Gypsum wall board is applied differently. It is typically attached to the columns:
source



I emphasize in posting this that I am strictly referring to the method in which they are attached and to make the case in point. The thickness of the drywall application varies with fire rating needs, and other factors, but the method of attaching it to the structural members is fairly consistent. If vibration damage fractures or compromises the gypsum board it could come off the connection components that keep it applied the the structural members. The impacting planes are no exception.



Damage to the columns themselves seems to be less relevant here since the dry wall is far more susceptible than the steel to failing from the torsional movements induced by the initial plane impacts.

The point is that the subsequent movements of the towers resulting from the impacts would have resulted in at least some of the loss of protection to the core in both towers.

Witness accounts described a fair amount of cosmetic damage to the interior finishings of the towers (EG doors jammed, partially knocked out, mechanical systems in the ceilings dislodge, jagged fracturing of marble walls, ect)

This one account describes the sheet rock being dislodged despite being a few floors down from the impact region....

You can of course find the full account this is taken from here: Link

i appreciate your efforts in trying to establish the 'possibility' that all the gypsum wall board was knocked off the core columns but my point is simply that NIST has not conducted any representative test to prove that this was so. firing 15 rounds of a shotgun at a flat steel plate in a plywood box is not a representative experiment. would you agree?

peace

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Ok, the evaporation occured during the WTC event. Do you accept that this has been proven “to a reasonable degree of scientfiic certainity”?

It is an established fact that extreme temperatures can produce the “swiss cheese effect”, it is also an established fact that such an effect can result from a slow exothermic reaction. The question is did the WTC fires generate enough temperature to evaporate certain materials. The author of the RJ Lee report seems to suggest that it is possible but he never provides the temperature requirements.

peace

I covered this topic in another thread but I think it could apply here: LINK

Just a short summary of the post, high temperatures serve as catalyst in speeding up the chemical reactions involved, temperature however is not the main driving force in high temperature corrosion. You can find links to information regarding this in the post I linked to

I'll allow you time to get to the other responses before I add anything further, I do understand you're still catching up due to the fairly large number of responses...

 

[Grizzly Bear]

i appreciate your efforts in trying to establish the 'possibility' that all the gypsum wall board was knocked off the core columns but my point is simply that NIST has not conducted any representative test to prove that this was so. firing 15 rounds of a shotgun at a flat steel plate in a plywood box is not a representative experiment. would you agree?

peace

I'll put it bluntly that it's a part of the NIST report that I have not read in detail. I'll have to take some time to actually do it, to really offer my opinion on the extent of their testing, although granted, based on what I understand of the properties of SFRM and gypsum fire proofing I was merely offering my impression of the circumstances.

SFRM for lack of better wording, is 'constantly attached' to the floor trusses, so I'd expect most of the fire proofing removal at those points to be primarily from direct impact.

The gypsum on the other hand is simple bolted to the columns, so if the connections which hold the wallboard to the columns is compromised the damage is more easily 'global'...

Again however, this is my interpretation... if you're looking for an opinion on their testing methods you'll have to wait a couple of days for me to research it further

 

[thewholesoul]

hey grizzly

How could the buildings have fallen at near free-fall speed, indicating very little resistance, and yet produce tremendous pulverization of concrete, which indicates great resistance?

peace

 

[funk de fino]

hey grizzly

How could the buildings have fallen at near free-fall speed, indicating very little resistance, and yet produce tremendous pulverization of concrete, which indicates great resistance?

peace

Easy

They didn't

 

[Par]

I dont think I can. The best I can do is quote RJ lee study who state “extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize”, and “extremely high temperatures during collapse” (both quotations found in jones paper) but unfortunately these were the same quotes that cannot be located in the RJ Lee summary report. I too have questions as to how they could have ‘proven’ the vaporization to occur during collapse?

I rather suspect that by “during the collapse” they are referring to the incident as a whole, as opposed to specifically while the buildings collapsed. You quote, moreover, the term “during collapse”. This indeed sounds more specific than general. The problem, however, is that the term “during collapse” does not appear even in Jones’ conspiracy paper, let alone in the RJ Lee report. Nevertheless, as you say, without a copy of either the full report or the mislaid paper it will not be possible to know quite what they mean or why they mean it.

The RJ Lee report said that vaporization of materials occured during the fire, and during the collapse. I understand why it seems confusing. But because they suggest that vaporization occured during the collapse and during the fire does not mean that the entire study should be disregarded.

I did not claim that the entire study should be disregarded. I pointed out that if the study firstly claims that the particles in question must have formed during the collapses and secondly openly entertains the possibility that they formed during the fires, then it has contradicted itself and thus cannot be straightforwardly considered a compelling authority on that particular matter. In any event, as I say, I do not imagine that the study actually does contain said contradiction; rather, I suspect that, when it comes to the mislaid paper, you have suffered a simple lapse of either memory or understanding.

As for the lapse of memory, the mislaid paper goes into more detail, but even in the summary report the discuss how they compared the WTC samples to controls and it was concluded that “Detailed charcaterization of WTC Dust revealed that it possessed a unique set of characteristics by which it could be identified and differentiated to a reasonable degree of scientfiic certainity from dust that had other origin” I think it is safe to say that RJ lee study proves that the WTC dust was not contaminated prior to and after the collapse.

The paper from which you have quoted above – one we have already discussed – merely explains that World Trade Center Dust is distinctive. I understand that it is distinctive. The problem, however, is that – as alluded to in that same paper – World Trade Center Dust is composed, in part, of particles that formed both before (for instance, during the building fires) and after (for instance, during the debris piles fires) the buildings collapsed.

We cant prove however that the evaporation occured specifically and only during the collapse. But we can say for certain that evaporation occured during the WTC event (fire+collapse). The only way we could establish that the evaporation occured during the collapse is by eliminating the possibility that the “swiss cheese effect” could have occured in the WTC fires. You see I was led to believe that such an effect is the result of a slow exothermic reaction – as cited as the explanation for the steel piece recovered from WTC 7. This is where my lack of chemistry shows. Can an office fire burning for approximately one hour boil and evaporate alumino-silicates? at the end of the day this is an empirical matter and could be solved by exposing the materials in question to the the same temperatures of an office fire for the same duration as the WTC fires. We know that extreme temperatures can produce this effect thus this possibility is established.

You seem to be potentially relying upon the following argument:

• Alumino-silicate particles were found in the World Trade Center Dust.
• Hour-long building fires cannot boil and evaporate alumino-silicates.
• Therefore, the alumino-silicate particles were formed specifically while the buildings collapsed.
• Therefore, the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed.

Unfortunately, however, it is a non sequitur.

This is where your burden comes into play, can you prove the WTC fires were hot enough to evaporate alumino-silicates in one hour? If you can do this, then we have ourselves a stale mate because we have established two possibilities.

Please refrain from attempting to shift the burden of proof. It is you and not I making specific claims as to when the eutectic reactions took place. Thus, the burden of proof, as I have explained, is on you.

[“In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.”] Of course they can both be right? Obviously there is a contradiction my friend. RJ Lee report suggests that various metals (e.g. iron) were melted during the WTC fire, and the NIST report says that in no instance did steel melt in the WTC fire. Now if temperatures were sufficient to melt iron then they were sufficient to melt steel. they cant both be right. Either temperatures were sufficient to melt steel, or they were not. p does not = not p.

You are mistaken. The NIST FAQ does not state that “in no instance did steel melt in the WTC fires”. Rather, it states that in no instance did NIST report that “steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires”. In any event, we could, as I say, assume that all of the reports are totally incorrect. Doing so, however, won’t tell us when the eutectic reactions took place.

Ok, the evaporation occured during the WTC event. Do you accept that this has been proven “to a reasonable degree of scientfiic certainity”?

I do not know. The particles in question could have, for all I know, formed before – possibly long before – September 11^th 2001, and merely been rendered airborne by the events of that day. When it comes to the eutectic reactions themselves, on the other hand, yes, I would imagine it is fairly certain they took place during the building fires or building collapses or debris piles fires or a combination thereof.




In Summary:

You have now conceded that you cannot prove that particles unique to the eutectic reactions were formed specifically while – and only while – the buildings collapsed. In light of this (and of a number of other factors), the following two facts are becoming increasingly clear: firstly, you are currently unable to provide proof of your claim that the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed; secondly, you will – notwithstanding this mislaid paper riding to the rescue or another kind of evidence altogether presenting itself – continue to be unable to provide proof of your claim that the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed. Is this a fair assessment of the situation?