Ed Moving On is coming.

[Moving On]

Bob,

Because these underground fires had a limited oxygen supply, the fires did not burn efficiently. Rather, the smoldering nature of the fires produced copious amounts of smoke, partially oxygenated hydrocarbons, and other products of incomplete combustion, all potentially producing adverse human health impacts.

We're trying to account for molten metal here. 2500 degrees.

Russell

 

[bob_kark]

[qimg]http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/focus01.jpg[/qimg]

That's kind of a tiny skyscraper don't you think?

 

[Gravy]

I saw the photos on page 75. Did the collapse start on that side of the building?

How much more clearer can I make this: All of the steel on the top 10 floors of the Windsor building collapsed because of the fire, bringing the floors with it. The portion standing is the concrete core. Got it?

 

[bob_kark]

Bob,



We're trying to account for molten metal here. 2500 degrees.

Russell

Actually we're not. You're making a false assumption again. Do you have any evidence showing that the molten metal was actually steel?

 

[Gravy]

That's kind of a tiny concrete skyscraper that fell because of an earthquake don't you think?

Added a bit, bob.

 

[uk_dave]

Bob,



We're trying to account for molten metal here. 2500 degrees.

Russell

It's surprising the heat a fire can acheive if the conditions are correct.

The fuel supply to the fire was so rich that some of the combustibles were unable to find oxygen inside the tunnel to burn with: they were instead ejected from shafts 8 and 9 as superheated, fuel-rich gases that burst into flame the moment they encountered oxygen in the air outside the tunnel. At the height of the fire, pillars of flame rose from the shaft outlets on the hillside above (Figures 2 and 3: bear in mind that the shafts are 3 metres (10 feet) diameter and that the flames are about 45 m (145 feet) high).

The gases are estimated to have flowed up these shafts at 50 m/s (110 mph). Air at this speed is capable of blowing around fairly heavy items: hot projectiles made from tunnel lining (rather like lava bombs from a volcano) were cast out over the hillside. These set much of the vegetation on fire and caused the closure of the A6033 road. In the clearup operation afterwards, small globules of metal were found on the ground surrounding shaft 9 - these had been melted from the tanker walls, swept up with the exhaust gases, and dropped out onto the grass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_tunnel_fire

Or was it a conspiracy?

muhahahahaha

 

[uk_dave]

Added a bit, bob.

awwwwww don't spoil their fun.

It's a tall building

It's not tall anymore.

It looks just like how the CT enthusiasts imagine the WTC towers should have looked.

Therefore the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition

QED

 

[bob_kark]

It's surprising the heat a fire can acheive if the conditions are correct.



Or was it a conspiracy?

muhahahahaha

Thanks, I was looking for something like that.

Added a bit, bob.

Thanks for that too. I love accuracy.

 

[Kent1]

Bob,



We're trying to account for molten metal here. 2500 degrees.

Russell

Russell, I think the best way for some of this stuff to sink in is to start e-mailing some sources.

You can start with Don Carson from the National Operating Engineers Union. Or J.R. Barnett and Ronald Biederman who worked on the steel samples. Or Thomas Cahill from UC Davis. And don't just google these people.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html

Really e-mail them!

Then tell us what they said. I think you should start with some specific aspects then branch out. I really think it would be an effective approach for you to take.

Also I wish you would take my last post to heart. I think with some research you can figure out that the video you linked to, was very uninformed.

Scott

 

[dirtywick]

We're trying to account for molten metal here. 2500 degrees.

Russell

Russell, you're assuming it's moltel steel.

The buildings had plumbing, which is primarily brass and cast iron, and HVAC which is almost universally galvenized aluminum, and electrical which is almost universally copper, and other metals in smaller amounts. All of those metals' melting points is around 500 degrees lower or more, many of which are well below the FEMA and NIST estimates of temperature. It might not seem like much compared to the amount of steel you'd think would be in those buildings, but it's actually tons and tons of material. That could easily account for the molten metal you see in the pictures.

Also, here's a paper I wrote not long ago about the CD hypothesis. Maybe you don't agree with the outcome, but there's a lot of facts about explosives and the building conditions that are hard to get around. Take a look, it's worth a read.

 

[Gravy]

(All bolding is mine)

You can also watch the collapse and the fire does not survive. Look at those forces. That burning material was snuffed and ejected for 800 feet.

I know you are "protecting" the lurkers but it just isn't so. Did that fire survive the 800 foot fall? Do you want me to link you to the videos of the collapse?

You must be kidding. In addition to the enormous amount of extremely hot and burning material that came from the top, the collapse of the buildings started fires in concourse levels, basements, and parking garages. Do your homework, Russell.

Wildcat,
Yes I have seen the WTC.
Have you ever fought fires or had high rise training?

First of all firefighting operations were ongoing. They believed they could extinguish it or they would not have been in there. Second, they would not have been in there if they assessed ANY possibility of a collapse. That is THE first consideration of an IC. There was NO precedent of this in history. NYFD is the best at this topic.

I'm glad you defer to the FDNY on this topic. I wish you could have been bothered to learn about what they actually did on 9/11, rather than relying on your intuition. Meanwhile, in the real world:

FDNY Chief Peter Hayden
​

So the potential and reality of -- or possibility of a collapse was discussed early on. But we were at a level of commitment. We also received numerous distress calls. We realized we had a lot dying and fire up there. When the civilian staff arrived, then Commissioners Feehan, Fitzpatrick and Commissioner Von Essen, we discussed strategy and tactics.

I specifically remember telling Commissioner Von Essen that we were not attempting to extinguish this fire. It's just strictly a search and rescue operation. We were not trying to put this fire out. We had thousands of people coming down the stairs, and that was our focus, to answer as many distress calls as we could and complete whatever searches we could. That was the focus of our strategy there at the time.

FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Callan

​

Shortly thereafter, we arrived a the World Trade Center. Chief Ganci assigned me to take command of the north tower and he assigned Chief Donald Burns to take command of the south tower. Getting out of my car, putting my gear on, I then went and did a reconnaissance of the exterior of the north tower.

I saw we had numerous floors on the upper levels on fire, approximately eight floors with fire showing. As I was going around the far side of the north tower, I than saw the second plane hit the south tower. I immediately went into the lobby of the north tower to take command of operations. In the lobby of the north tower, in command was Chief Peter Hayden, and Chief Joe Pfeifer

I took command and we started assigning additional units to the upper floors. I gave them instructions that we are not going to be extinguishing fire. What we were going to do is assist in evacuating the building. Numerous units arrived. They were sent up and put to work. Joined at the time – I was in the lobby. We had very little communication via handy talky during the time I was in the lobby with the units on the upper floors, because of the building construction. The elevators were not working, nor were any of the building communication systems. So we had very little control, communication wise, with the units that were on the upper floors.

Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made the decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all the Fire Department units to leave the north tower.

FDNY Firefighter Kevin Murray

​

[FDNY Commissioner] Van Essen came over to the 18 Truck as soon as we got into the building or shortly thereafter and said, "Forget about the fire. Just get the people out."

Notice the dark smoke of an oxygen starved fire as well.

Here are some more photos of fires with dark smoke. Are these fires cool? Remember the heavy steel that buckled in WTC 5 and the collapsed floors? Office fire.

​

NIST:

Q: If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

A: Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

NIST on Molten Steel:

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. http://tinyurl.com/pqrxt

That fire is deceptive in that photo. If you want to learn about it I will tell you. Notice on the left where floors had actually burned out from consuming the fuel load. The fire on the right may look "massive" to the untrained eye but it is only lapping up the side of the building making it look like multiple floors are burning.

Notice for a mostly open office space floor system the rest of the windows are not showing flame on that floor? Imagine that there is a decent sized combustible fire going in there. Notice the wind and smoke direction. The leeward side has a "draw" to it. The fire has moved to the air and is likely only burning to that degree right there. The NYFD firefighters would have gone in there with two 1 3/4" lines and knocked that down in a couple of minutes. Maybe a 2 1/2".

Ask somebody else if you don't trust me.

We did, long before you arrived here. Why? Because we give a crap about getting our facts straight. Since you've arrived, we're certainly going to check your statements out, because every argument you make is based on your personal incredulity.

​

North tower, south side. Just lapping up the side of the building?

North tower, west side

North Tower, east side

***********

You didn't respond to my questions about WTC 7 in this post. Here they are again:

Now, what issue do you have with all the statements from first responders about the building's condition and its expected imminent collapse? I'm not asking your opinion, based on some videos you've seen. I'm not asking you what some news reporters in a studio said. I'm asking you about the reports from the experts who were there.

1) Please summarize what they said about WTC 7's condition.

2) Do you have any reason to believe that the accounts of WTC 7's condition are false?

Which paraphrased statement to PBS makes sense, and which is completely absurd?

A) “We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”

or

B) “We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?

Which do you think Silverstein meant when he was calmly speaking to that documentary crew in 2002? Be honest. A or B? Thank you.
​

 

[Pardalis]

I read for a year or more and went through a painful conversion.

I would say now that nothing would take me back to the official story.

You have lost my respect Russell. Now I know who you are, a "believer". You're not interested in finding out the truth, you want to believe in your "Truth".

The discussion about the LIHOP theory was OK, at least you had some interesting questions. But now with the video you linked, and now that you're talking about controlled demolitions...

So long.

 

[Pardalis]

OK. It seems like there is a logical fallacy here.

You want logical fallacies?

How about your:

argument from ignorance

argument from personal incredulity

Confirmation bias

just to name the most obvious ones.

 

[Kent1]

OK. It seems like there is a logical fallacy here. It is that repetition is some indication of inaccuracy.

I have seen gravity discussed many, many, many times over in my life but every time I drop something it hits the ground.

So far my attempts to ignore it hasn't changed that fact.

Russell, it's because the information within the video has been delt with many times.
For example repackaging information about a pancake (initation) collapse that NIST doesn't support won't make it anymore correct than it was the first few times CT'ers tried this. Such as 911 Mysteries. I've seen it before.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes, the reason I specified SKYSCRAPER, is that as RUSS well knows, the amount of energy required to knock a building over on to its side is directly related to its height. The experts agree that it would have require much more energy to knock the WTCs on their side, than to have then collapse straight down.

TAM

 

[Moving On]

Russell, you're assuming it's moltel steel.

The buildings had plumbing, which is primarily brass and cast iron, and HVAC which is almost universally galvenized aluminum, and electrical which is almost universally copper, and other metals in smaller amounts. All of those metals' melting points is around 500 degrees lower or more, many of which are well below the FEMA and NIST estimates of temperature. It might not seem like much compared to the amount of steel you'd think would be in those buildings, but it's actually tons and tons of material. That could easily account for the molten metal you see in the pictures.

Also, here's a paper I wrote not long ago about the CD hypothesis. Maybe you don't agree with the outcome, but there's a lot of facts about explosives and the building conditions that are hard to get around. Take a look, it's worth a read.

I'll see if I can catch up here. I agree that most quotes refer to it as molten "metal". This of course leads us to speculation on what metal is actually involved.

There are several quotes describing it as molten steel available. I chose the following one because it is, "presented by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center (WTC)" and he seems credible to me to speak on this topic.

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."

It also gives an explanation for why he may have seen evidence that others in general do not have access to.

"All photographs shown on television, shot-on-site were preapproved by the FBI. We were shown photographs that were not released for public view."​

http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf​

There's that pesky FBI again controlling what the world knows about this. That is why I am so thankful for the Internet. The following photo I guess can be argued whether or not it is steel but appears indicative of the temperature conditions which do appear to be hotter than 500 degrees.​

​

Russell​

​

​

 

[Kent1]

I'll see if I can catch up here. I agree that most quotes refer to it as molten "metal". This of course leads us to speculation on what metal is actually involved.

There are several quotes describing it as molten steel available. I chose the following one because it is, "presented by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center (WTC)" and he seems credible to me to speak on this topic.



It also gives an explanation for why he may have seen evidence that others in general do not have access to.

There's that pesky FBI again controlling what the world knows about this. That is why I am so thankful for the Internet. The following photo I guess can be argued whether or not it is steel but appears indicative of the temperature conditions which do appear to be hotter than 500 degrees.​

[qimg]http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/hotSlag.jpg[/qimg]​

Russell​

​

​

Russell I e-mailed Leslie Robertson about his so called quotes and asked James Williams for presentation notes.
Here is the reply.
http://www.911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.html

This is just one example why I suggest you start e-mailing people.

Scott

 

[Moving On]

Yes, the reason I specified SKYSCRAPER, is that as RUSS well knows, the amount of energy required to knock a building over on to its side is directly related to its height. The experts agree that it would have require much more energy to knock the WTCs on their side, than to have then collapse straight down.

TAM

skyscraper

Very tall multistoried building. The term originally applied to buildings of 10–20 stories, but now generally describes high-rises of more than 40–50 stories.

All right you got me on the definition of skyscraper. My real point was the nature of a non symetrical collapse.


Russell

 

[MikeW]

Edited to delete as Kent1 made the same point minutes earlier. D'oh!

 

[Pardalis]

Russell, now you have gone full-fledged MIHOP conspiracist right?

Just to be sure.