DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[R.Mackey]

i know this presentation and think to remember, that in the core was much less heat that on the floors...

how could the steel heat up so quickly, that it was glowing red after 15 Minutes? According to NIST the fire was under 500 Celsius after 15 Minutes. Why didnt the towers fall, when the fire was hottest?

You aren't reading NIST or my posts. Please pay attention. You will find my replies much more useful if you do.

The helicopter crews were not reporting a red glow 15 minutes after the fire started. It was much later. We do not know whether any steel was red hot after 15 minutes for certain.

As for how long it takes steel to heat up, it's actually not very long if there's no fireproofing left. Please turn to NCSTAR1-5B, Appendix G for a summary of tests on representative pieces of steel. 15 minutes is on the short side for large bits of structure, but just barely -- these tests show that, for instance, a 3 MW fire can raise unprotected column sections to 300^oC, and truss sections to 600^oC, in only seven minutes.

I already explained why "500 Celsius after 15 Minutes" is misleading. Many parts of the structure were exposed to heat the whole time. The fact that the actual source of the fire gradually swept across the structure over time doesn't make much difference. Wherever the fire was at any particular time, it heated the air in the structure. Again, see NCSTAR1-5G for an estimate of the heating as a function of time, and this estimate is consistent with the ~20 minute burnout time of individual workstations found by experiment (in NCSTAR1-5E).

There's no particular reason the structure had to collapse when the fire was hottest. The structure has thermal inertia (figures like G-16 ff. in NCSTAR1-5B illustrate this perfectly). Also, even after the structure starts to cool, you are still not safe. Once the structure passes a certain temperature or starts sagging, it doesn't get much strength back after it cools. Cooling can also cause thermal contraction, and given the mechanism of the floor trusses pulling the outer columns, I and other researchers suspect that the thermal contraction issue may have been the final straw.

Again, there's nothing inconsistent here at all. You cannot select a lone statement made by NIST and, ignorant of the rest of the report, claim it means the NIST hypothesis is impossible. You simply don't understand what it contains.

 

[thewholesoul]

Now we have the design for the planes. How many planes have struck the world trade center before 9/11 Thewholesoul? How many precedents are there that match the specifications of the world trade center? How many cities actually enforce a design that requires a building to resist a plane impact? They did mathematical calculations thewholesoul, but they had no accurate precedent to match up. They designed it as a specialized request from the clientele managing the towers because they had precedents of several near misses, and an impact to the empire state building by a smaller plane. The design never called for a plane strike as a direct result of a terrorist attack or intentional impact.

Grizzly, it is a fact that the towers survived the impact of the jets. You admitted this in your last post. That means that their calculations were correct despite the fact that they had no precedent. That means the building design did exactly what it was supposed to do.

But let me try to establish were we are at this point and try bring a head to it.

• I stated that 911 was the first time in history that skyscrapers fell from fire
• In an attempt to undermine how unsual 911 was you countered claiming that I am ignoring the unique circumstances of that day and those buildings
• Then I responded that WTC 1,2,7 were designed for the damage they received
• You countered saying that they couldnt predict everything because they had no previous example to draw on e.g. jet hitting building; debris from skyscraper hitting building
• But we know WTC 1+2 survived the jet impact and WTC was designed to survive the failure of several core columns (which was the actual effect of the damage inflicted by the falling debris)

So to wrap up this part of the debate with a simple question: Do you consider three skyscrapers designed for the damage they recieved failing on the same day having a (a) very high (b) high (c) low (d) very low probability of occurance?

why did the towers survive with virtually unscathed structural integrity? After all this was a steel building and the fire failed to cause collapse.

What we know about the fire:
• Nearly half of the 11th floor was engulfed. Irrelevant to the point I was making. But I would appreciate if you could source that “nearly half” claim because I read the fire spread 65% of the 11th floor at this link http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html
• The fires spread to other floors through the core where it ignited the phone cable insulation form the 9th to 19th floor. Irrelevant to the point I was making
• fires on other floors were extinguished almost immediately. I agree but the main fire was on the 11th floor. In the south tower the 77th to the 85th were the imapct zone this is where the main fire was was located. Here is testimony from fighfighters who reached the 78th floor “Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines”. Here is what the firefighters said about the 11th floor “It was like fighting a blow torch". So it appears to me that the fire on the 11th floor was intense as flames were seen “pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building” http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html
• Fire proofing insulated the steel from excessive heat exposure from the fires. “The two major factors in the collapse itself were the fires and the lack of fire proofing around the trusses and some columns. With fire proofing, the steel was rated for 2 hours of continuous fire. Without it, that time is cut dramatically” http://debunking911.com/fires.htm. In 1975 the fires lasted for 3 hours which means that the columns and trusses were exposed to fire for an hour. But the trusses did not fail and begin to pull the outer columns inwards? They werent even replaced?
• There was no structural damage to the tower. Irrelevant to the point I was making

Now for the comparison:

Three things stick out here that bear importance, no make that 4. Aren't all the examples you provide me exposed to fires that burned for 12, 15, 24 hours? Let's not forget that many of those examples barely qualify as steel construction because the majority of many of them were chiefly built of reinforced concrete, (and what about the ones that werent reinforced concrete?) or had a much different frame system than the trade centers.

The 1975 fire was nothing NEAR the size of the fires ignited by the plane impacts 26 years later. The intensity and duration of the fire is the most relevant aspect in relation to failure of steel not the SIZE of the fire. And a jet plane never hit building 7 yet normal office fires there caused structural failure. And the jet fuel burnt off fairly rapidly.
• There was ZERO I REPEAT ZERO structural damage from an impact. Let alone any fireproofing REMOVED. structural damage is irrelavant. The fire proofing was removed because it only lasts two hours. “With fire proofing, the steel was rated for 2 hours of continuous fire.” http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm “A fire rating of two hours was determined from the Aug. 19 test with the “as-installed” (19 millimeters) fireproofing thickness. This matches the 1968 New York City building code rating for floor systems” http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_fire_resistance_data.htm
• The fire started in ONE AREA and propagated across the 11th floor, and it eventually spread from the 9th to 19th floor via the core. MOST OF THE DAMAGE BEING CONCENTRATED TO THE 11TH FLOOR. agreed• The fires in the September 11th attacks by contrast were ignited and burned on SEVERAL FLOORS. Agreed.
• The location of the fire: The 1975 fire was only 11 floors up, compared to the 75+ floors for the fires on 9/11. making it much easier to fight, whereas the fires 75+ floors up were virtually free to burn uninhibited. Agreed.

The simple point I wish to make is that the trusses in 1975 did not sag and if they did they did not pull the outer columns inwards even after being exposed to fire for a longer period of time than the trusses in the south tower on 2001. This is what NIST tells us happened in 2001 and the event in 1975 appears to contradict their collapse INITIATION hypothesis.

Unfortunately NIST have avoided conducting a representative experiment on the trusses by exposing them to fire without their fireproofing. This after all is what they claim were the conditions in the impact zone which lead to collapse initiation. So why didnt they test trusses without fireproofing and do other tests soley on the fireproofing? Makes no sense to me. Maybe because if thye did they would encounter the same results as the REAL-LIFE experiments below?

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

And so lovely that you use the design of the buildings as an excuse to say that they should not have collapsed. You continue to ignore the fact that although true that they were designed to withstand an impact it was not required in the local building codes at the time.

Whether it was or was not required in local building code is irrelevant because the whole world saw how the towers survived the impact of these planes. That means that the design lived up to its expectations! And yes i am going to use their design as a “reason” why they should not have fallen since you’re trying to use their design as a reason they did fall.

the design for the plane impacts failed to account for the copious amounts of jet fuel

so the designers designed the buildings for a jet impact but forgot that jets carry fuel?
As for the COPIOUS amount of jet fuel read the following link p5 [/quote]. The actual volume of jet fuel was inconsequential to the size of the buildings.

If 900 cubic feet of fuel was spread evenly over just one 40,000 feet floor of a tower, it would result in a film 0.27 inches thick...if 900 cubic feet of fuel was spread over all 110 floors of one tower, it would result in a film 0.00245 inches thick”

Moreover the building was designed for the outbreak of a fire especially after its experience in 1975 hence it had a sprinkler system, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing, and remarkably enough the impacted floors, prior to 911, were even “upgraded” with double fireproofing! http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/070108coincidence.htm

(The design of the building failed to account for) ANY amount of the foam insulation to be removed.

You can source this claim?

As for the removal of fireproofing, anyone can claim that it was “widely dislodged” (i.e. removing all the fireproofing on 5 floors!) but such a claim must be proven. Firing 15 rounds of a shotgun into a plywood box does not prove that fireproofing was “widely dislodged” and I think our exchange below says it all

Q: yes or no? Does shooting 15 rounds with a shotgun represent the impact of a jet liner?

You are asking the wrong person... I'll concede I don't have enough background knowledge on the matter to respond to that.

your concession is not accepted because you dont need a background in physics to have a background in common sense – obviously the answer is NO - firing 15 rounds of a shotgun into a box does not represent the impact of a jet liner and it certainly does not prove that all the fireproofing was removed from 5 floors. But I understand why you wish to completely avoid answering a straightforward question after all according to NIST

“the WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had only been minmally dislodged by aircraft impact”

So what NIST are saying is that their collapse-initiation-hypothesis is essentially a removal-of-fireproofing hypothesis. a hypothesis that remains unlikely as well as unproven.

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

Individually yes. Together... subject to question.

Before we continue beating a dead horse perhaps we can reach some conclusion on this part of the debate: Do you consider three shyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they recieved failing on the same day as having a (a) very high (b) high (c) low (d) very low probability of ocurance?
They designed the buidlings for the impact of a jet with a combustible fuel load – not without fuel. Have you ever heard of a jet flying at cruz speed without fuel? Now we know that the building survived the jet impact and there is no proof that the fireproofing was widely dislodged and there is no proof that the floor trusses sagged 42 inches

I have argued with you ad nauseum about what it means to separate the damage from the fire and the damage resulting from the planes. Please enlighten me as to why you continue to separate them?

because they can be separated. But you can put them back together if you like it makes no odds since the towers were designed for the impact of planes with combustible fuel loads.

The conditions that existed for the towers in 1975 were nothing like the conditions experienced on 9/11 yet you continually ignore this fact.

I agree with a lot of the differences you mentioned between 1975 and 2001: but the point I wish to stress is (a) fire, fireproofing, trusses, effect (1975); (b) fire, fireproofing, trusses, effect (NIST 2004); (c) fire, fireproofing, trusses, effect (2001). (a) + (b) survived (c) did not survive? I find this curious.

peace

 

[twinstead]

Hmmm. I don't need a background in physics if I have common sense. Well, thewholesoul, my common sense is telling me you are full of crap. I suppose I can't prove it, but it IS all about common sense, right?

 

[thewholesoul]

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

Exactly why you've decided to use thermite as a comparing tools is beyond me.

Check again amigo – I said termite not thermite. The former are a breed of insect known for eating through wood “like a hot knife would cut through butter” . But I think you misunderstood the point I was making, namely: building 7 was designed to survive the failure of several core columns and it does not make a blind bit of difference if the core columns failed due to falling debris, metal eating termites, or the incredible hulk. I made this response to counter your claim that wtc was not designed for the impact of falling debris. But the effect of this falling debris caused the failure of only 3 core columns (69, 72, 75) and 10 outer columns. And Wtc 7 was designed to survive such relatively minor damage. Was it not?

Particularly if you're assuming that the same number of columns you're supposing were cut by thermite were severed from the plane impact.

we are talking about wtc 7 now, no planes involved.

Is this some kind of bait trap inside this debate?

no, but you still managed to trip over your shoe laces.
But anyways lets just reach some conclusion on this part of the debate: Do you consider three shyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they recieved failing in the same day as having a (a) very high (b) high (c) low (d) very low probability of ocurance? Once you anser this we can hopefully abandon this area of debate.

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

I only wish you would apply such critical thinking to the comparison between 15 rounds of a shotgun and an impacting jetliner

I agree with your objections however concerning the comparison I made. I could have made a better one but this part of our debate is ultimately over probability. So I will save time and await your response.

Are you remotely familiar with the design of WTC 7?

Yes. Just like the plane impact on wtc 1+2, we know wtc 7 survived the debris impact because it stood for hours after this event took place.

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

ugh seriously, why? This is virtually the same as asking why the collapse didn't stop with just the top of the towers, as if they are solid blocks.

Instead of entering another talk fest, its more efficient if i just state my argument: the collapse of 4/5 of an intact building should have been explained by NIST. But it was not. Therefore there is no official or PROVEN explanation of the TOTAL collapse of the twin towers. Now the only logical counter argument would go as follows: NIST did explain post-collapse initiation and they proved their explanation with computer models and experimentation. If you do not provide such a counter argument then my claim that there is no official or proven explanation of the TOTAL collapse stands uncontested.

Whats with this solid block accusation? In NIST’s final report . Bazants paper was included and it works under the assumption that the upper section will remain intact, thats a lot like a solid block would behave!

These towers (WTC 1&2) were 90% 'air'... with floor slabs spaced 12 ft apart, in other words each time a slab would offer any form of resistance to the falling mass & fail, the mass would fall another 12 ft, and so on and so on... nothing to dampen the accumulating momentum. Any that it does lose is regained is a successive 12 ft drop... until the collapse is completed.

Nothing to dampen the accumulating momentum!!! How about 4/5 of an intact structure below with 47 steel box columns progressively strengthening towards the base of the building? The official “pile driver” hypothesis is visibaly disproven since the upper block/section/90% air is visibly destroyed before the intact structure below begins violently exploding http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154 that means there is no upper block/section/ 90% air crushing downwards!!! Whats more is that we are expected to believe that this NON EXISTENT piledriver crushes 4/5 of the intact structure below in essentially FREEFALL speed. NIST “the building section above came down essentially in freefall”. Why did the intact structure below provide the same level of resistence as a vacuum Grizzly?

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

- steel columns i will grudingly concede were not dustified! But hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete was.
- the steel columns that destroyed the wtc 4 ad 5 did not fall on steel box columns but on concrete floors, so there is an important difference. If the steel beams feel on similar steel beams i would expect a different outcome
- why do you assume that all the dynamic load will be directed exclusively to the next floor and not the entire building? The flea on the pin head hypothesis! a flea jumps on top of a pin and because it has enough dynamic load to crush the first atom this process will continue all the way down the pin until there is no pin left!
- can you provide just one real life example when 1/5 of a falling object crushes the remainding 4/5 of the same object, and then itself?

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

Fine I dont actually need an answer to the why they failed to provide an explanation. The fact they did not is sufficient to establish that there is still no proven hypothesis of the TOTAL collapse. And this fact alone should “initiate” another investigation.

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

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

So you object when i say “block” and you object when i say “empty card board box” (eventhough you describe the towers as 90% air). So how about i just describe the upper section as 1/5 of a tube-in-tube design structure collapsing ontop of the remaining intact tube-in-tube struture below that is roughly 4 times greater in mass and stronger than the falling upper section: i sincerely doubt the official hypothesis is true because i have seen no other example in the real world where 1/5 of any object crushes to smithereens the remainder of the intact object below, and then itself, all in freefall speed, with a non existent piledriver supposedly doing the crushing down!!

What's shocking to me is you don't seem to care about that and this guy is practically a bible for information for you.

Even if i conceded that jones was wrong to include bogus squibs in his paper i fail to see how that invalidates his experiments in any way.

Either produce an experiment with photos or video like JONES DID – or concede the point that aluminium does not flow bright yellow orange in daylight.

I said, like NIST that the most likely source was aluminum, given the location of the plane remnants and the region it was originating from however, I don't recall hearing of anyone who decided the run up to the dripping pile of molten metal to get a direct sample.

Regardless of the case the mix available wasn't homogeneous, and without samples, any claim, coming either from myself, NIST, you, or Jones, that is was aluminum, or for the matter purely made up of any single type of metal is nothing but speculation. Experimentation done thus far doesn't tell us whether the metal pouring out was purely aluminum, aluminum at all, or a mix of different metallic compositions.

So you like NIST cannot produce a real life experiment with photos in support of the aluminium or aluminium mixed with organics explanation – great i will take that as another concession because jones DID do real life experiments and they disprove the official explanation.

Jones illustrated experiments prove that what poured from the south tower could not possibly be aluminium or aluminium mixed with organics. Dont believe me go see the photos in his paper once again! http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf
your counter is that because no sample was taken of the substance that it is nothing more than speculation to rule out the molten aluminium explanation and to rule -in the molten iron explanation. But visual identification is not speculation: i have an uncle who is a pirate, he has a patch on one eye, a hook hand and a peg leg. I dont need a dna sample to prove that he is my uncle because i can visually identify his distinctive and unique features.

Speculation: reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speculation
it is a fact that molten metal poured from the south tower
it is a fact that it appeared bright yellow orange in daylight
it is a fact that molten aluminium (or aluminium mixed with organics) does not appear bright yellow orange in daylight
it is a fact that molten iron produced from a thermite does appear bright yellow orange
all of these facts have been verified via television footage or through experimentations with published photos of the results. In the absense of video footage or experimentation with published photos of the results that may contest the above facts, these facts are conclusive evidence that the molten metal was not aluminium. They are not however conclusive evidence that the molten metal was molten iron. That said in the absence of counter footage and experimentation the molten iron explanation remains the front runner.

The truth is my friend that unlike my position, which is based on experimentation and published photos, YOUR position is the one based on speculation evident from the fact that you have no evidence of aluminium appearing bright yellow orange in daylight when poured; and you have no counter evidence contesting the fact that a thermite reaction produces bright yellow orange molten iron.
peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Hmmm. I don't need a background in physics if I have common sense. Well, thewholesoul, my common sense is telling me you are full of crap. I suppose I can't prove it, but it IS all about common sense, right?

so you think firing 15 rounds of a shotgun into a plywood box is representative of a jetliner impacting a building?

so lets have it twinstead, your in a forum - im full of crap and you have all the answers - so why dont you just outline your reasons why you hold this position....

whats the matter, cat got your tongue?

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

... Wow, debumking one's self at it's finest... I saw at least two pictures there that showed smoke coming from WTC 7... Did you even look at this image I gave a few days back?

i am looking at it right now grizzly and the expression there is “no smoke without fire” comes to mind. So why dont you go back and look at the image you sent me and tell me where’s the fire? I urge you take a closer look at the article i sent you especially the part when fighfighters are spraying water on wtc 5 which is belching out smoke. http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007/200307building7.htm

[

WTC 5 & 6 are in front of WTC 7, and the smoke in that picture is blowing in the direction of where WTC 5,6, 1 & 2 once stood. How exactly is the smoke coming from WTC 5 & 6 then? Not to mention none of the other photos show WTC 7 as a reference to show where the smoke is blowing...

no smoke without fire grizzly. Show me where the fre is in the image you posted.

[

I'd appreciate it if you stopped lying about that... really, I would...

lol, sure why would i need to lie when i got the truth on my side grizzly?

logical fallacy at its finest, you're making a very broad assumption. The energy exerted on individual columns is dependent on where in the falling mass they were and other factors.

i think your right here

And none of the experts who examined the I-beam suggested that the horseshoe was created by the collapse.

Likewise they said nothing about secondary devices as a cause... as far as the video goes, there's not much either of us can draw from it.

i will draw the high temperatures required to deform the 8 ton I-beam that cannot be explained by a hydrocarbon fire burning 1 hour thank you very much.

Nothing like getting slammed by a mass of liquid jet fuel either whilst it ignites

i’m open to new experiences

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

In other words, you think the top section of tower should have toppled over like a tree?

yes, havent you seen the footage of the south tower...the upper section is toppling over until it starts exploding into fine dust for some unknown reason.

I'm honestly stumped by your response there...

sometimes truth has that effect on people

peace

p.s. i will get to your objections to thermite soon grizzly then i want to addres the post by Par.

 

[thewholesoul]

just a quick summary of post 902 904 906
the following are the claims i wish to establish before moving onto greener pasture. it would perhaps save time if you could either counter or concede to these points:

• the molten metal pouring from south tower cannot possibly be molten aluminium but could possibly be molten iron
  
• the probabilty of three skyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they recieved all failing on same day is very low
  
• NIST’s claim that the floor trusses sagged 42+ inches has not been proven by a representative experiment.
  
• NIST’s claim that the fire proofing was widly dislogded has not been proven by a representative experiment
  
• NIST admits that it was unable to explain the destruction of 4/5 intact structure below the imapct zone, so
  
• Taken together the official hypothesis and the Total collapse remain unproven 7 years after the event

if you consider any of the above false please provide your reasons
peace

 

[twinstead]

just a quick summary of post 902 904 906
the following are the claims i wish to establish before moving to greener pasture. it would perhaps save time if you just countered these?

• the molten metal pouring from south tower cannot possibly be molten aluminium but could possibly be molten iron
• the probabilty of three skyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they recieved all failing on same day is very low
• NIST’s claim that the floor trusses sagged 42+ inches has not been proven by a representative experiment.
• NIST’s claim that the fire proofing was widly dislogded has not been proven by a representative experiment
• NIST admits that it was unable to explain the destruction of 4/5 intact structure below the imapct zone, so
• Taken together the official hypothesis and the Total collapse remain unproven 7 years after the event

if you consider any of the above false please provide your reasons
peace

For crying out loud, it is YOU who are making the claim that the 'official story' of 911 is wrong and certain parts have 'not been proven'. Stop playing games and present your narrative of events that makes more sense when ALL the evidence is taken into account.

 

[Jwheelz]

OK, thewholesoul, you do realize that after each of the towers was hit by a 767 and remained standing, they didn't just regenerate themselves into perfect shape and THEN take on the fire??

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Grizzly, it is a fact that the towers survived the impact of the jets. You admitted this in your last post. That means that their calculations were correct despite the fact that they had no precedent. That means the building design did exactly what it was supposed to do.

Yes it did, many structural engineering sites I read cite the redundancy of the steel structure as the reason for their initial survival, however columns were likely loaded to near their structural load capacity. Steel is funny like that, you can ram a plane into a tower and in the case of the WTC the towers survived the impacts. However when you remove the fire proofing it loses that redundancy when exposed to intense heat.

So to wrap up this part of the debate with a simple question: Do you consider three skyscrapers designed for the damage they recieved failing on the same day having a (a) very high (b) high (c) low (d) very low probability of occurance?

The simple point I wish to make is that the trusses in 1975 did not sag and if they did they did not pull the outer columns inwards even after being exposed to fire for a longer period of time than the trusses in the south tower on 2001. This is what NIST tells us happened in 2001 and the event in 1975 appears to contradict their collapse INITIATION hypothesis.

Bolded: I've emphasized this already, the 1975 had none of the same characteristics as the case in 2001. What I mean, and I've made you painfully aware of is that there was no impact damage to begin with, ergo none of the fire proofing was removed, and it was able to provide the required protection to prevent catastrophic failure. This was not the case the case in 2001, where not only did planes strike both towers, but as well (and to be conservative) some of the protective fire proofing was removed. It's also extremely important to note that the fires were ignited on 6 to 8 floors at the same time, the 1975 fire started on 1 floor and so the damage was confined to it.

I think this article might be of interest to you:

Source

"The NIST report concludes that, “The WTC towers would likely have not collapsed under the combined effects of the aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September 11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged.”

So how do we know that asbestos fireproofing likely would have performed better than the non-asbestos fireproofing?

Post-Sept. 11 testing by NIST indicates that the original testing of the non-asbestos fireproofing was wildly inaccurate. In simulations by NIST, the non-asbestos fireproofing was far inferior to asbestos in terms of melting points and ability to keep fire from spreading.

“Some of the non-asbestos fireproofing probably just burned off,” writes Berlau.

When the non-asbestos fireproofing was attached to a steel pushrod to simulate the steel columns at the WTC and exposed to fire, NIST found that as the temperatures increased, all the non-asbestos fireproofing shrank and lost contact with the pushrod before reaching maximum test temperature. Another set of tests indicated that the thermal conductivity of non-asbestos fireproofing was much higher than asbestos “spreading heat to the vulnerable steel,” Berlau reports.

NIST was not able to test the original asbestos fireproofing because it is no longer available, “but we know – from more than a century of fire tests – that asbestos almost certainly would have performed better,” writes Berlau. Part of that knowledge, of course, comes from the 1975 WTC fire which appears largely to have been contained by asbestos."

Unfortunately NIST have avoided conducting a representative experiment on the trusses by exposing them to fire without their fireproofing. This after all is what they claim were the conditions in the impact zone which lead to collapse initiation. So why didnt they test trusses without fireproofing and do other tests soley on the fireproofing? Makes no sense to me. Maybe because if thye did they would encounter the same results as the REAL-LIFE experiments below?
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

It's not a difficult concept, the effects of fire on steel with ZERO fireproofing is well established. Why do you think building codes world wide require some form of fire protection for steel structures? It's because it is a known fact that unprotected steel structural components weaken significantly when exposed to heat. Part of NIST's objective was to assess the performance of the fire proofing as well, and they compared it with the known performance of the old passive asbestos fireproofing.

You can find more detail on the spray-on protection as well as other fireproofing methods here for your reference:
Link

The link you gave me seems to only detail a model for the fire caused by the jet fuel, but jet fuel was only an ignitor. We've established this quite well already, even NIST has stated that the fuel fires weren't significantly hot, however, given that it burned off in the first few minutes following the impacts the fires would have increased in temperature from other combustible material (IE plastics, woods, papers, furnishings, ect.). So in the broader scheme the 911research model doesn't sufficiently address the problem.

so the designers designed the buildings for a jet impact but forgot that jets carry fuel?
As for the COPIOUS amount of jet fuel read the following link p5

. The actual volume of jet fuel was inconsequential to the size of the buildings.[/quote]
Sorry, I tend not to word myself in the best of manners. More relevant to the subject the designers didn't consider the amount of fuel that would be in the planes, but it's not as relevant to the fire other than ignition as much as it relates to:
-- Added floor loads
-- and serving as a medium to ignite the building's contents

The jet fuel wasn't considered as a component to any kind of plane crash, however, as you point out, and NIST has as well, as far as combustion, other than being an ignitor it's effects were negligent compared with the other factors.

Moreover the building was designed for the outbreak of a fire especially after its experience in 1975 hence it had a sprinkler system, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing, and remarkably enough the impacted floors, prior to 911, were even “upgraded” with double fireproofing! http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/070108coincidence.htm
----------------------
You can source this claim?

So, what is your... rather, prison planet's point?

• The plane impacts rendered all the plumbing from the impact region and up useless. The sprinkler system was subject to catastrophic failure when the plane impacts severed them, ergo it was impossible for the sprinkler system to inhibit the spread of the fires.
  
• Much of the fire proofing both the new and the existing was never tested for full-scale performance. Your prison planet article doesn't bother to include those details, nor does it bother to include that fire proof rating is measured by floor assemblies and not by individual components, etc. etc. Instead it attempts to speculate how the work of installing the upgraded fireproof allowed access to critical areas to place incendiaries and explosives. TWS, I don't want an article that mentions the facts just to use to carry forth speculation, you've asked me to provide academic sources to my research, prison planet is not an academic source.
  
  
  
• [URL="http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/09/twin-towers-never-fire-tested.html"]Source

• 
  "As recently as 2000, officials were still redoing the fireproofing, noting in one property assessment that some areas could withstand only one hour in a fire.
  
  By 11 September 2001, the NIST report found, fireproofing had been upgraded on 29 floors in the areas of the towers where the hijacked planes struck.
  
  Glenn Corbett, a US fire science expert, was quoted by AP saying that the upgraded system should have been tested."
  
  
• There is also evidence that some parts of the towers had vulnerabilities BEFORE the planes hit, other areas were reported as having only a one hour rating for resistance to fire.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Source
  "Alan Reiss, a Port Authority official since 1984 who rose to director of
  the department in charge of day-to- day operations at the trade towers,
  said engineers had long been aware of difficulties in keeping some of
  the fireproofing, in the core of the building around the elevator shafts,
  on the large structural columns there.
  
  Large areas of fireproofing are missing from the core columns in some
  of the photographs, and the architect who took them, Roger G. Morse, a
  consultant in Troy, N.Y., said his work had shown that the fireproofing
  did not stick properly.
  
  But Mr. Reiss said the problems were caused by the swaying of the
  buildings in the wind and the impact of elevator cables against the
  beams. "It was an ongoing maintenance headache," he said. Although
  measures were repeatedly taken to prevent the problem, he said, "every
  March and April when you had these windstorms and the building
  rocked back and forth, you would still knock some of the fireproofing
  down."
  
  
  
  

  Before we continue beating a dead horse perhaps we can reach some conclusion on this part of the debate: Do you consider three shyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they recieved failing on the same day as having a (a) very high (b) high (c) low (d) very low probability of ocurance?

  We leave this open to the subject of the debate.
  
  
  

  They designed the buidlings for the impact of a jet with a combustible fuel load – not without fuel. Have you ever heard of a jet flying at cruz speed without fuel? Now we know that the building survived the jet impact and there is no proof that the fireproofing was widely dislodged and there is no proof that the floor trusses sagged 42 inches

  I addressed the fireproofing just above, as for the floor sagging,
  Bolded:
  
  
  
  That doesn't look like 41 inches to you? I'm not as familiar with NISTS' floor tests as you might be, but photographic evidence of the towers shows the floors sagging, as well as the exterior perimeter columns. Those play a significant role in the columns load bearing capacity.
  
  Besides the point, if in NIST's tests the assemblies stayed intact it only serves to SUPPORT the NIST hypothesis that the trusses pulled the exterior columns in later contributing to the collapse of the towers
  
  
  
  

  because they can be separated. But you can put them back together if you like it makes no odds since the towers were designed for the impact of planes with combustible fuel loads.

  You can separate the two all you want but they both happened simultaneously and both contributed to the eventual collapse of the towers. Separating them only shows your lack of understanding in the matter or a willful ignorance to the factors leading to the towers' collapse.
  
  

  I agree with a lot of the differences you mentioned between 1975 and 2001: but the point I wish to stress is (a) fire, fireproofing, trusses, effect (1975); (b) fire, fireproofing, trusses, effect (NIST 2004); (c) fire, fireproofing, trusses, effect (2001). (a) + (b) survived (c) did not survive? I find this curious.

  I'm not sure why you find this curious though, the differences were stark
  
  1975:
  • Fire started in a single location
  • Fire was primarily confined to the 11th floor
  • Asbestos fireproofing prevented further spread of the fire
  • There was no initial impact damage affecting the floor systems or the fireproofing.
  • There was no sprinkler system, however firefighters were able to douse water onto it because of the fire's low elevation.
  
  2001
• Experiences both impact damage from the plane, building performs as per design, however the loads increase on in-tact columns
• fires ignited on multiple floors
• fires were larger than the 1975 counterpart, (and something most people seem to forget is the scale of the floors of the towers, a fire engulfing one quadrant of any given floor could be the size of a medium sized supermarket)
• The fires did not confine themselves to just the impact zones
• Fireproofing was removed in certain areas of the impacts zones
• Sprinkler lines were severed by the impacts, thus leaving nothing to inhibit the progress of the fires.
• The fires were over 70 stories high, meaning conventional firefighting was impossible

The differences are rather striking, yes the towers survived the plane impacts but the impacts made the situation worse.

Check again amigo – I said termite not thermite.

Whoops, that be my error, I'll hide in my box at the corner:

i am looking at it right now grizzly and the expression there is “no smoke without fire” comes to mind. So why dont you go back and look at the image you sent me and tell me where’s the fire?

Thewholesoul this is most unlike you. You've strained my analytical abilities to the limits in certain areas, just why are you putting forth such a strawman here? This is exactly the same reaction I got from Stundie a few weeks back whilst I debated this subject with him.

I think you should be examining the picture I provided more closely. The smoke you seen is emerging from the south facade of tower 7. To put things into perspective WTC 5 and six in that picture are to the right (closer to where towers' 1 & 2 were. The wind is clearly blowing the smoke away from building 7.

Why is there such a clear boundary between where we see the smoke on the south side and none on the west side facing us in the picture? If the smoke is coming fro WTC 5 or 6 the smoke would be flowing into & around the visible face of WTC 7. Do you see where I'm going with this?

As for the no smoke w/out fire you know full well that WTC 7 was on fire, and like with WTC 1 & 2 you're trying to use exterior appearances to justify the scale of the fires. when the fires aren't all burning on the exterior. Contrary to the argument you're making.

Let's outline a few things, one issue of importance comes into mind with these:

• fires were observed in 7 World Trade Center on the south side of the building, at floors 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 19
  
• Water mains were severed as a result of WTC1's collapse, disabling the internal sprinkler system that WTC 7 was equipped with
  
• The loss of water pressure rendered fire fighting efforts useless, the tower burned uncontrolled for 7 hours
  
  [*]Most importantly, fire proofing, your right, the building like all steel buildings was protected by fireproofing. None of your sources cite the fact that absent working sprinklers and firefighting efforts. The fireproofing is designed to protect building structural elements for a certain, limited amount of time while firefighting is done. Such a building is generally designed to resist heat buildup for three hours.
  
  Eventually fireproofing yields, something you have sadly failed to account for in your theories.

Here's a nice source for you, that includes other pictures of WTC 7 as a reference and they all show the smoke originating from there:
Source

I urge you take a closer look at the article i sent you especially the part when fighfighters are spraying water on wtc 5 which is belching out smoke. http://www.infowars.net/articles/mar...7building7.htm

1st off your link is messed up a bit, but I've seen the pictures. Yes it's billowing smoke. I see the fires, but like WTC 7 we don't have a full impression of how big the fire is. More relevant to our discussion however it doesn't provide WTC 7 as a reference. This definitely tells us it was pumping smoke, but it doesn't show anything of Building 7.

lol, sure why would i need to lie when i got the truth on my side grizzly?

Sorry but this will be one of the few statements in which I'm going to say you're full of crap. Your analysis of the smoke from WTC 7 is seriously flawed. Pictures aren't much more obvious than the one I gave you as to the original of the smoke. There are multiple picture verifying this and that indicate the direction in which the smoke is going.

steel columns i will grudingly concede were not dustified! But hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete was.

I agree that a good portion of the concrete was. As per the ratio compared with the total building composition, I'll avoid speculation on that one. But as concrete is concerned for the building as a whole, there was comparatively 'little' when compared with the amount of steel used.

- why do you assume that all the dynamic load will be directed exclusively to the next floor and not the entire building?

Obviously not all of the falling mass fell into one area, likewise there was sufficient material still falling on each floor to continue the collapse. The question here is, would it really require all of the falling debris in the collapse to provide the needed dynamic loads to continue the collapse?

- can you provide just one real life example when 1/5 of a falling object crushes the remainding 4/5 of the same object, and then itself?

Unfortunately I'm drawing blanks, besides the WTC's themselves there's been no precedent to compare them too. If I am going to provide any models I'd like them to be accurate rather than BS the details to you...

yes, havent you seen the footage of the south tower...the upper section is toppling over until it starts exploding into fine dust for some unknown reason.

The toppling tree analogy can't be applied to the towers, yes they did 'topple' however as they tilted the lower portion of the top section was crushing against the lower section, providing resistance to rotation, and the other end is at the fulcrum where the intact structure falls under extreme levels of tension. With an entire side having given way, the other at the fulcrum could not support against the forces applied. The moment the fulcrum failed, everything was gravity driven...

Unfortunately I'm not the best person to explain this to you....

p.s. i will get to your objections to thermite soon grizzly then i want to addres the post by Par.

Take your time, no rush

 

[beachnut]

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

False, you can read about it! Please prove it was not Al. But did you know lead was in the building? Guess what temperature Pb is liquid at?? Also, it does not matter if it was steel, but the only way steel cold melt is with extra heat. I am sure there were oxygen generators in the WTC due to the aircraft; maybe they could melt the steel, but what steal? More likely the cheap metal our computers are made of, or battery backup (lead acid batteries) was the metal flowing out the side. If you want thermite, you need to go to fantasy land of trutherville and spend time with the person who made it up without evidence.

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

probability, You have no idea what probability theory says about this. WTC7 burned all day, buildings that are on fire can collapse, and buildings on fire without firefighting usually do collapse. You can try this out by burning your house, and not fighting the fire. See!

WTC 1 and 2, had large impacts 7 to 11 times greater than the aircraft impact design done by the chief structural engineer. You are wrong on a few counts here. The fires in WTC 1 and 2 were no fought, and the systems to fight them were destroyed in the impact! Sorry, but steel gets weak quick in fire, that is why they have insulation to keep the building standing for 2 to 3 hours to let you escape!

So far two points, and you are wrong.

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

Darn, I could see a floor fallen in the hole of the WTC. Seems like you pick a lot of things you got wrong out of the box. No, you lost this point too! You did not even try to get this one right.

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

Oops. Yes it was! You missed the photo showing a lot of insulation dislodged. Widely dislodged, it was, but yes it was not widly.

Dislodged. !

• NIST admits that it was unable to explain the destruction of 4/5 intact structure below the imapct zone, so

No, they said it would fail after the top floor fell on the structure below. Sounds like you lack training in physics. You can go to school and catch up on this. You are also taking what NIST did and perverting it with your opinion and false ideas. Not too cool. Wrong again, trying to mislead others. Bad.

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

It has not been 7 years, it is the 7th year after, but only over 6 years. You seem challenges on the small points, maybe if you got some small points correct, you could shoot for getting a the big points less than totally wrong.

Sorry, the collapse is proven. I have a video of it. Sad you have no evidence to go with your failed interpretation of NIST and what really happen on 9/11.

You failed to get anything right. I suggest going to a 4 year college and taking engineering. If you are deficient in the subject areas needed to get into an Engineering school, run don't walk to the nearest junior college and get the needed subject out of the way now!

It has been over 6 years, and you have nothing to show for it but failed ideas on 9/11. What will you do now?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

At some point in time I need to go in-depth about the examples I'm always led to... to prove that fire can't collapse a steel structure... I intended to go into that a bit in my response... Oh well spent 3 hours on that I don't feel like typing for another 2 hours tonight Xd

 

[bio]

Hmmm. I don't need a background in physics if I have common sense. Well, thewholesoul, my common sense is telling me you are full of crap. I suppose I can't prove it, but it IS all about common sense, right?

Do insults like "you are full of crap" belong to the standard equipment of "Debunkers"? I had to read here, too, that the truth-movement is "evil, brain-dead".

 

[applecorped]

Do insults like "you are full of crap" belong to the standard equipment of "Debunkers"? I had to read here, too, that the truth-movement is "evil, brain-dead".

No, you chose to. Taking one person's opinion and extrapolating it out to include others is disingenuous. You know better, don't you? The TM isn't evil or brain-dead but they are ignorant and willing to play upon the fears of others for financial gain. Call that what you will but one should not associate themselves with questionable individuals and causes unless one wants to be assumed guilty by association.

 

[bio]

No, you chose to. Taking one person's opinion and extrapolating it out to include others is disingenuous. You know better, don't you? The TM isn't evil or brain-dead but they are ignorant and willing to play upon the fears of others for financial gain. Call that what you will but one should not associate themselves with questionable individuals and causes unless one wants to be assumed guilty by association.

You folks are the experts in this field. In the future I will quoto you.

Have you already thought about, which persons and groups do benefit from the "war on terror"? Then - compare this immense amount, with the financial gain of truthers by selling books.

 

[Jwheelz]

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

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

http://driveslag.eecue.com/

 

[pomeroo]

You folks are the experts in this field. In the future I will quoto you.

Have you already thought about, which persons and groups do benefit from the "war on terror"? Then - compare this immense amount, with the financial gain of truthers by selling books.

A vast, mathematically-impossible conspiracy engineered a trillion-dollar hit on the U.S. economy so that certain defense-related industries could profit?
The airline industry and the Boeing Corporation were complicit in a mass murder that nearly bankrupted them--for what???

Yes, the fantasy movement is brain-dead and evil.

 

[bio]

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

[qimg]http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa213/j4m3zz/MoltenAl2.jpg[/qimg]

http://driveslag.eecue.com/

where was the aluminum-boiler in the WTC, which heated the aluminium up to 1200 Celsius?

 

[bio]

A vast, mathematically-impossible conspiracy engineered a trillion-dollar hit on the U.S. economy so that certain defense-related industries could profit?
The airline industry and the Boeing Corporation were complicit in a mass murder that nearly bankrupted them--for what???

Yes, the fantasy movement is brain-dead and evil.

Yes - the defense-related industries profit - you are on the right track.

 

[bio]

No, you chose to. Taking one person's opinion and extrapolating it out to include others is disingenuous. You know better, don't you? The TM isn't evil or brain-dead but they are ignorant and willing to play upon the fears of others for financial gain. Call that what you will but one should not associate themselves with questionable individuals and causes unless one wants to be assumed guilty by association.

"Taking one person's opinion and extrapolating it out to include others is disingenuous"
BUT
"one should not associate themselves with questionable individuals and causes unless one wants to be assumed guilty by association."