Fireproofing key to Twin Towers' collapse

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
I only post stuff that other people can look up. Then they can have the same choice as me - to decide what to make of the sources, and info.

Then presumably you'll be able to tell us what to enter in the Record group search engine to confirm the "remote control" stories you mention? (www.northjersey.com...)

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
I only post stuff that other people can look up. Then they can have the same choice as me - to decide what to make of the sources, and info.

Then presumably you'll be able to tell us what to enter in the Record group search engine to confirm the "remote control" stories you mention? (www.northjersey.com...)

- You have to become a member to look at their archives. It costs $$$. I don't know how much. A friend of mine showed me the article 6 months after 9/11, that's when it got more of my attention.
- Or visit their Bergen Record HQ in Hackensack, NJ (on River Road, near the Hackensack River) to look at their archives.

The police chase happened on the day of 9/11. So it should be in the paper between 9/12 and at most 9/19 (especially in the editorial, and letters pages.)

I plan to visit their HQ a few weeks from now, make copies of their microfilm archives, then scan it, and let everyone see the original, non-watered down (I hope, I mean, hey, the goverment months, years later could go in and ... *sniff*) article.

[edit on 11-4-2005 by OpenSecret2012]

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
- You have to become a member to look at their archives. It costs $$$.

You can search for free, but of course you need to know some keywords that are included in the story. I've tried phrases like "remote control" with no luck yet. So, back to you: what can we search for at that link to pull up the story you're talking about?

[edit on 11-4-2005 by ashmok]

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
- You have to become a member to look at their archives. It costs $$$.

You can search for free, but of course you need to know some keywords that are included in the story. I've tried phrases like "remote control" with no luck yet. So, back to you: what can we search for at that link to pull up the story you're talking about?

[edit on 11-4-2005 by ashmok]

Those are just teasers. Try clicking on any of the links, and it'll steer you to a screen that says input your account info. If you click on "new user" then it'll ask you for Credit Card info.
I personally don't use my CC over the internet. (Somewhat cuz of big brother. But more cuz of tooo many CC companies losing cutomer information. Sometimes not finding out for months that their data bases've been hacked. Identity theft's never been so easy for those nutty thieves. )

Yes, I know they're "just teasers", but you can still search the body of the story, so should be able to retrieve the entry for the article(s) you're talking about. However, none of the searches I've tried (even down to just "police") pull up anything that looks like your description, which is why I'm asking you if you remember a phrase from the story we could use to pull it up.

The comments of this post were deemed by me to be more appropriately made via a u2u and have been moved to one. Disregard.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by Djarums]

Even without fireproofing, the temperature at which conventional jet fuel burns, is in NO WAY a significant enough heat source to cause even untreated structural steel to fail. These "articles" are written by magazines that are influence by people of power.

New Scientist : controlled by Reed-Elsevier, CEO of Reed-Elsevier PLC is Crispin Davis, who is also on the board of Glaxo-Smith-Kline. So..hmm..the ceo of the company who controls the "new scientist" is also on the board of a perscription drug company? wow, notice any possiblity of a influential conflict of interest? I wonder how much money GSK gives to the US government each year? probably quite a bit. Its all BS.

Originally posted by afterdark
Even without fireproofing, the temperature at which conventional jet fuel burns, is in NO WAY a significant enough heat source to cause even untreated structural steel to fail.

So, the logical continuation of that theory is that there is no real need to insulate steel with fire proofing. Therefore, the whole concept of applying fireproofing to strutural steel is a multi-million dollar a year consumer fraud!

Is that what you are implying?

Why would they even bother to apply the fireproofing if it was not needed?

I think the fires in the two towers were beyond a doubt hot enough to cause the collapse.

Think back to the days immediately after 9/11. Remember all the pleas from the Red Cross to send boots, not blood? The rubble was so hot it was melting the boots of the rescue workers for days after the collapse. The wreckage smoldered for what, a month after the collapse?

I spent six years in the Navy as a Fire Controlman. A Fire Controlman is responsible for the ship's weapon systems. The Navy calls fire fighting damage control. However, everyone on the ship has to be DC certified. I have been to many, many fire fighting schools and spent countless hours performing fire fighting drills. Here is some of what I have learned as both an FC and performing DC training and drills:

1. In the Falkand Islands War, an Exocet missile struck the HMS Sheffield. The Exocet failed to detonate but the engine burning caught the ship on fire and it sank later that day.

2. A JP-5 fuel leak and fire on a Navy ship will burn hot enough to ignite the steel hull of the ship.

3. Once metal begins to burn, there is nothing to extinguish it. The navy calls burning metal a 'Class Delta' fire and the only method of fighting it was to attempt to jettison the burnig material over the side of the ship.

4. Fires burn with black smoke. When the fire is out any hot spots remaining will smolder with white smoke.


The impact of an aircraft that size on the towers would have caused tremendous stress on the supporting columns of the towers. The expolsions would greatly multiply that stress. The fires from the fuel burning was the final death blow to the towers. I'm surprised they stood as long as they did.

In the 1993 WTC bombing Ramsi Yousef packed a truck with 1500 pound urea-nitrate bomb. His intent was to park the truck along side the central support column of one tower and cause the tower to collapse into the second tower, toppling both. The bomb was more than strong enough to do this. He failed only because he mis-judged how hard it was to find a parking spot in Manhattan and couldn't get the truck into the parking spot he needed.

If his truck bomb was enough to topple the towers, certainly a plane of that size with that much fuel on board (remember the airliners hijacked were either cross-country or international flights so they would have their fuel tanks full) would destroy the towers as well.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, people read something on the internet and immediately believe it.

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime

1. In the Falkand Islands War, an Exocet missile struck the HMS Sheffield. The Exocet failed to detonate but the engine burning caught the ship on fire and it sank later that day.

2. A JP-5 fuel leak and fire on a Navy ship will burn hot enough to ignite the steel hull of the ship.

I think you are talking about aluminum, not steel. The sheffield fire was an aluminum fire.

Actually that is a distinct possibility. While there is no evidence that the aluminum from the airplane caught fire and burned before the collapse, it was hot enought to mel the aluminum. It was certainly possible that enough heat was generated by the collapse, or even perhaps an electric arc short circuit from the molten aluminum to have started it burning.

In addition, the EPA recovered over 1800 presurized gas tanks from ground zero. these ranged from cuting torch rigs, to the air bottles used by the fire men. most of these were intact, but if even 1/2 of one percent ruptured, that would be nine air tanks blowing into the debris pile. If one of those tanks was an oxygen tank . . .

Yeah it is speculation, but it is a lot more plausible then some secret polt to plant thousands of thermite charges.

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
Ready for the irrefutable point that crushes your irrefutable point? After the impact of the 2 planes, there were live people standing in, and around the point of impact. Kinda hard to do if it's 1,500 to 2,500 degrees!

I've only seen one picture, of one person.


Was she standing there from right after the impact to right before the collapse?

If not, then you have no point, since you can not prove that the heat did not build up to the point past survivability.

The sudden colapse does point toward a structural design flaw. IF the columns were undersized, any weakening from heat and inadequate fireproofing would cause such a colapse. Many things happen in construction, could even be a "bad" batch of steel like the titanic.

Everyone has been "assuming" the original structure was 100% sound. It may have actually been borderline to begin with. It wouldn't be the first building that was "marginal".

Originally posted by Aelita
There is an argument that the black smoke was an indication that the flames were oxygen-starved (I believe that), therefore the temperature was moderate and the steel didn't reach the critical point.

flames can create black smoke even with plenty of oxygen. diesel engines, propane torches, etc. the only time you get a good flame with a dual gas torch is when you add a LOT of oxygen, more than would exist in a natural environment. the black smoke is probably more due to the type of fuel being burned in the first place or the objects it is burning, such as carpet, plastic (desk veneers, chairs, computers, PVC pipe, airplane seats), paints (filing cabinets, chairs, walls), or other materials (sheetrock, human bodies, airplane tires, etc.).

Originally posted by afterdark
Even without fireproofing, the temperature at which conventional jet fuel burns, is in NO WAY a significant enough heat source to cause even untreated structural steel to fail. These "articles" are written by magazines that are influence by people of power.

New Scientist : controlled by Reed-Elsevier, CEO of Reed-Elsevier PLC is Crispin Davis, who is also on the board of Glaxo-Smith-Kline. So..hmm..the ceo of the company who controls the "new scientist" is also on the board of a perscription drug company? wow, notice any possiblity of a influential conflict of interest? I wonder how much money GSK gives to the US government each year? probably quite a bit. Its all BS.

In addition, everyone on both sides who keep talking 'bout the fire melting the steel frame, all keep forgettting that right after impact, live, living, people were stading inside the point of impact.

As far as I know, no live human can stand inside or anywhere near temperatures higher than 200 degrees. Since steel weakens at 1,500 degrees and melts at 2,500 degrees everyone use their common sense to see where it all leads.....

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
Ready for the irrefutable point that crushes your irrefutable point? After the impact of the 2 planes, there were live people standing in, and around the point of impact. Kinda hard to do if it's 1,500 to 2,500 degrees!

I've only seen one picture, of one person.

In the new video (it's in another thread) that got released recently (1 week ago?) it shows multiple people standing in, and around the point of impact (in the crator, and/or above and below the floors surrounding the crator.)

But even if just 1 person was standing inside the point of impact, that's more than enough to confirm the fire wasn't intense enough to melt steel.

Was she standing there from right after the impact to right before the collapse?

If not, then you have no point, since you can not prove that the heat did not build up to the point past survivability.

The building she was in fell 1-2 hours after impact. Of course she wasn't there during impact.

I will say I don't know when she was first sighted standing there. You, me, everyone else here, have to now make the most through effort we all can to research, and dig, for when she was first sighted standing right inside the crator where the plane hit. (The crator would be "ground zero of the fire". The hottest area, the "flashpoint", since that's where the fire started.)

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
In the new video (it's in another thread) that got released recently (1 week ago?) it shows multiple people standing in, and around the point of impact (in the crator, and/or above and below the floors surrounding the crator.)

If you say so. it doesn't really matter that much, since it still doesn't prove anything.

But even if just 1 person was standing inside the point of impact, that's more than enough to confirm the fire wasn't intense enough to melt steel.

Hoo boy. Where do I start. Shall I point out the obvious, that the steel on the impact floors would have failed long before it reached the melting point? In fact, no one has ever claimed that the fire melted the steel on the impact floors. read through the NIST reports. find me where it is claimed that the steel was melted on the impact floors.

How about the fact that the floors of the WTC were 200 feet on a side. It would have been entirely possible to have stood by the impact hole with the fire burning on the other side of the building.

The crator would be "ground zero of the fire". The hottest area, the "flashpoint", since that's where the fire started.

Actually no it wouldn't have. The impact of the plane pushed all of the office furnishings, to the other side of the floor. That is where the hottest part of the fire was.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
In the new video (it's in another thread) that got released recently (1 week ago?) it shows multiple people standing in, and around the point of impact (in the crator, and/or above and below the floors surrounding the crator.)

If you say so. it doesn't really matter that much, since it still doesn't prove anything.

It proves 100% there were live people in the area of the "intense heat" from the fire.
Now we all just have to find how soon after the impact those people got there.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

But even if just 1 person was standing inside the point of impact, that's more than enough to confirm the fire wasn't intense enough to melt steel.

Hoo boy. Where do I start. Shall I point out the obvious, that the steel on the impact floors would have failed long before it reached the melting point? In fact, no one has ever claimed that the fire melted the steel on the impact floors. read through the NIST reports. find me where it is claimed that the steel was melted on the impact floors.

In another thread the NIST has been 100% debunked.
The NIST is a goverment agency. It's like saying the Bush Admenistration is suspected of a coverup, then asking members of the Bush Admenistration if they're covering things up. And they say "No we're not covering anything up!".
BTW, one of the leaders of the NIST has Nepotism going for him. He has other family members involved in some if the highest levels of the US goverment. He was caught lying saying he has no other family involved in the Federal Goverment.

I almost forgot to add that Bush's youngest brother was in charge of security for the WTC. And in charge of security for the airport where the plane got "highjacked". Marvelous .... Marvin Bush is loved at the Bush dinner table at the Bush ranch.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
How about the fact that the floors of the WTC were 200 feet on a side. It would have been entirely possible to have stood by the impact hole with the fire burning on the other side of the building.

Steel starts to weaken at 1,500 degrees. If there were a 1,500 degree fire burning 100 to 200 feet away (150 feet - 100 feet, since no way the fire was only on the opposing wall on the other side of the building LOL!) the heat may or .... may not.... still be tooo intense for anyone to stand 150 feet to 100 feet away.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

The crator would be "ground zero of the fire". The hottest area, the "flashpoint", since that's where the fire started.

Actually no it wouldn't have. The impact of the plane pushed all of the office furnishings, to the other side of the floor. That is where the hottest part of the fire was.

Look at the pictures. There's fire burning, and coming out of the initial point of impact long after the plane impacted and disentigrated.

In further addition, the guy who made and designed the WTC, Minoura Yamasaki is on record saying each tower was built to withstand multiple hits from airplanes. How much fuel does multiple airplanes carry? A lot more than 1 single plane hitting each tower.

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
In further addition, the guy who made and designed the WTC, Minoura Yamasaki is on record saying each tower was built to withstand multiple hits from airplanes. How much fuel does multiple airplanes carry? A lot more than 1 single plane hitting each tower.

The tower could withstand the impact of the weight of a 707 not a 767, and they didn't anticiapte the thousands of pounds of burning jet fuel on the inadequate steel fireproofing. So please get your BS straight......

ask any metal-worker, it doesn't take much heat to creat a point at wich steel can be manipulated. i am a part-time welder and mechanic, i have used small amounts of heat to manipulate even hardened steel, heat-treatd steel, and other materials. if the vertical beams were heated somewhat and manipulated, by the weight above them, they would easily fold, bringing the building down. fire proofing can't stop steel from collecting heat, even if it were in tip-top shape. the heat would have transferred directly through the material, maybe even burned it off.

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
In further addition, the guy who made and designed the WTC, Minoura Yamasaki is on record saying each tower was built to withstand multiple hits from airplanes. How much fuel does multiple airplanes carry? A lot more than 1 single plane hitting each tower.

The tower could withstand the impact of the weight of a 707 not a 767, and they didn't anticiapte the thousands of pounds of burning jet fuel on the inadequate steel fireproofing. So please get your BS straight......

No, what they didn't anticipate was Bush's younger brother Marvin Bush being incharge of security for the WTC and in charge of security of the airport where the planes were "highjacked".
As head of security for the WTC, Marvin Bush could've easily *ahem* made pre-arranged preperations for the building to come down whenever he wanted it to.
So it in the end doesn't matter if the steel in the WTC was uber-fire proof, or 0% fire proof. The WTC was ment to come down, was going to come down, no matter what. Marvin Bush was there to ensure it all at the WTC and at the airport.

The same way WTC 7 was brought down on purpose when demolition for a skyscraper takes longer to set up than a few hours.