Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6: “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” ...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200112/ai_n9015802/

Why post hearsay?

Why doubt his word?

 

[Baylor]

NIST did NOT demonstrate how the towers collapsed after collapse initiation.

 

[Baylor]

Hey Sarns, I just found out you're not qualified enough to make the patriotsquestion911.com all-star cut. That's pretty pathetic considering my cat is on patriotsquestion911.com.

 

[Christopher7]

http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/NIST.jpg

That is speculation. NIST did not do any analysis of the collapse.

 

[Baylor]

That is speculation. NIST did not do any analysis of the collapse.

Others did.

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

 

[Gravy]

UnLoVed, be sure to give attribution for the material you reprint. I know where it's from but many people may not.

 

[Jono]

Why doubt his word?

People tend to use "steel" and "metal" interchangebly, it's an easy mistake from an easy assumption as opposed to forensically note with magic vision if the metal are of varying compounds as opposed to just being steel.
You mixed them up yourself, using quotes that said "metal" in your argument that they ment "steel".

 

[Christopher7]

UnLoVed, be sure to give attribution for the material you reprint. I know where it's from but many people may not.

It does NOT contain any analysis of how the towers collapsed.

 

[Christopher7]

People tend to use "steel" and "metal" interchangebly, it's an easy mistake from an easy assumption as opposed to forensically note with magic vision if the metal are of varying compounds as opposed to just being steel.
You mixed them up yourself, using quotes that said "metal" in your argument that they said "steel".

What part of "[FONT=&quot]I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center[/FONT]" don't you understand?

 

[Baylor]

It does NOT contain any analysis of how the towers collapsed.

Yes IT does. I doubt you've read it. The author cites all sources of the original numbers.

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

 

[kookbreaker]

It does NOT contain any analysis of how the towers collapsed.

How were they supposed to do this? Computer model?

 

[Baylor]

(fair use)

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

 

[Christopher7]

How were they supposed to do this? Computer model?

It would be best to examine the physical evidence but 99% was destroyed.

Since the floor connections were the same on all but a few floors, and the columns changed size at known intervals, it would by possible to make a computer model of a tower. NIST was disingenuous when they said it would be too complicated.

Bottom line, NIST did not explain the collapse of the trade towers.

 

[Baylor]

Bottom line, NIST did not explain the collapse of the trade towers.

For the love of god.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You are not in a position to question their honesty.

So you no longer call it their professional status, instead you call it their honesty?

You try to hand wave Mr. Astaneh's statement by referring to it as "just a quick statement of his observations"
It was a statement of fact [unless you want to call him a liar or an idiot].

I'm not calling him a liar. It's clear from the context of his statement and the context of his continued work that the combination or impact damage and fire led to the collapse of the structure. Astanel's argument is that had the construction followed standard New York building codes of the time many more lives would have been saved. No where in either his statement that you keep parroting or his final conclusions does he state that thermite, explosive, space beams, J00000z hurricanes, DEW, missiles, space aliens, whatever brought the towers down. He's neither stupid nor lying, you simply put his words in a context you made up for your own arguments. The same applies to more than half of the authoritative sources you've cited.

Wrong! [see my last post]

I've posted this link three times already, read it before you post

No one has explained the total collapse. Everything past "global instability" is speculation.

SO we've gone from NIST to "nobody." What does this make Astanel, and other professionals who do not agree with the demolition theories? Accomplices in the biggest crime in history? Incompetents? Shills? Cowards? Let's not limit it just to those choices. Tell you what if you've got a better classification to give then by all means the field is open.

 

[Wolrab]

You can put your bone where the sun don't shine . . . . Thank you.


"I have led a team of more than 11 highly qualified volunteer researchers and engineers and have completed the analyses of the impact of various airplanes on the World Trade Center

Our 5-year analysis primarily focused on finding an answer to the question of:
“What would have happened if instead of the unusual and relatively light bearing wall structural system with no framing, used in the WTC towers, a more traditional system of structural framing used in almost any other structure, was used?"

Abolhassan Astaneh did NOT analyze the collapse of the trade towers nor did he conclude how or why they collapsed.

Whatever... You could ask him about the molten steel considering you are using his quote to strengthen your argument.
Bob forgive you should follow up on teh truth.
Why would I want to keep a bone in the shade?

 

[kookbreaker]

It would be best to examine the physical evidence but 99% was destroyed.

It was examined. So what is the problem?

Since the floor connections were the same on all but a few floors, and the columns changed size at known intervals, it would by possible to make a computer model of a tower. NIST was disingenuous when they said it would be too complicated.

Sounds like you are speaking talking out of your hat. More folks than NIST have mentioned the limits of computer modeling.

Bottom line, NIST did not explain the collapse of the trade towers.

No, they did. You just don't like the answer.

Too bad. Become an engineer and prove they were wrong with math and engineering rather than clinging to a handful of quotes harder than Gollum clings to 'precious'.

 

[Christopher7]

http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/Bazant.jpg
(fair use)

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

In his 2008 followup paper, he admits that his one dimensional model does not explain the collapse of the south tower.

Pg 13
The high tilt seen on the South Tower top (about 25_ after 4 seconds of fall, NIST 2005) would call for a three-dimensional model of progressive collapse. Why does the one dimensional model give nonetheless a reasonably good match? Probably because the crushing front of compacted debris tends to develop a flat front once it becomes thick enough (Fig. 6e). However, to answer this question fully, a three-dimensional analysis would be required.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/p...TC Collapse - What Did & Did Not Cause It.pdf

 

[Christopher7]

I'm not calling him a liar.

He said:
"[FONT=&quot]I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]"

Did he see melting of girders at the WTC?

Either you believe him or you don't.

Which is it?

 

[bje]