WTC Challenge

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Spoken like someone who has never worked construction in a large high-rise.

I take that you have work hi-rise?
Construction for how many years?

Admit it you are just pulling this out of your but and you have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

Why are you so crass to so those you do not agree with? TSOM did not say this IS how it happened, it was pure conjecture:

"...I've always thought..."
"...I don't think..."
"...I wouldn't be surprised..."
"...i think it was..."

Hardly something to get your cackles up about.

This whole thread you've had yourself on a pedastle, maybe you should pop a Quaalude or 13 and talk TO others instead of AT them.

Misfit

Originally posted by Jeremiah_John
Roark, you can't even answer questions directed to you in a civil manner in a thread you started. You flat out ignore all the ones that are interesting. Then you just run around screaming insults. That NIST link you posted doesn't even open. Then you call the person chicken when he says it can't even download.

You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The point is, I started this thread to solicit comments on the NIST report.

So far I have been insulted, and maligned, There have been a number of attempts to sidetrack the thread into tangents, but no one has come up with any reasonable objections to the NIST report.

Yes 49 mb is a big file to download, but it is not impossible.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
Jeff King, MIT Engineer / Research Scientist, believes that the WTC towers could not have come down spontaniously.

Take a look at what he has to say about the WTC towers;
Jeff King *.mov 67.3mb

[edit on 5/7/05 by Hunting Veritas]

well, I'm sure that as an electrical engineer, Jeff King can tell us the details of the power distribution in the building before it collapsed, but as a structural engineer, I think his credentials are somewat weak.

ahhh but your missing the point, he has valid points. Other wise as an American why would he point out the use of controlled demolition surely why would he want to point these little gems out?

What about the beginning of the video where there known to be 4 distinct explosions BEFORE the towers collapse. Please explain away.......

And I quote the CNN live feed that have REPORTS of a "fourth explosion at the world trade centre". You just keep feeding the BS but know this.

You are wrong. The people who were there know what they heard, saw and felt. Firefighters mention that there were explosions of secondary devices. Also it is noted that the firefighters at the site of impact said they could knock it down with 2 lines, this is coming from experienced people who were there. Inside a 47 core column building with "possible" fireproofing removed which "may" have contrubuted to the collapse. I very much doubt it did as the explosions started from the top?? not from where the plane was. So if the gas, electricity and a not so intense heat due to lack of oxygen as the columns were designed not to act as a chimney effect. did not cause the explosion from the top, how do explain the explosion, Simple fact you cannot. There were secondary devices planted in 1, 2, 6 & 7.

"And just prior to that huge explosion just before the building collapse".......This coming from a Fox live feed. I think according to the "loose change" documentary the huge explosion took place approx 9 sec. BEFORE the collapse.

peace

[edit on 6/7/05 by Hunting Veritas]

Originally posted by Misfit

I take that you have work hi-rise?
Construction for how many years?

I have worked in a number of high rise buildings, in various cities, on various types of projects.

I don’t claim to know all about the workings of every high rise building, and certainly the WTC complex was unique in its way, but all buildings share a number of consistent traits.

1) it is impossible for any construction work of any kind to be done without man people knowing about it and knowing exactly what type of work is being done. This includes the engineers, the property management and tenants themselves. Especially if those tenants are involved in any kind of financial work.
2) The engineers know everything that is going on in a building.
3) There was only one freight elevator per building so any use of that elevator has to be carefully scheduled.

The idea that someone could sneak in, or conduct work under false pretenses to install explosive charges is insulting to the intelligence of those killed on 9/11.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So far I have been insulted, and maligned,

On the contrary, Howard, you have baited, insulted and mocked since the very beginning of this thread, and as a reward for your childish behaviour, you were actively defended by a moderator. In addition, you continue to make double, triple and quadruple posts and never receive an admonishment. Your cries of "poor me" ring hollow, my friend.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The point is, I started this thread to solicit comments on the NIST report. There have been a number of attempts to sidetrack the thread into tangents, but no one has come up with any reasonable objections to the NIST report.

Reams of information have been presented by members in this thread that directly contradict the NIST report findings, but you conveniently ignore those because you are using a tried and true disinformation tactic and you are sticking to it. Why should people play into your game of trying to debunk a report that is thousands pf pages long, is based on a preconceived conclusion, and is produced by a government agency and thus STENCHFULLY biased?

The evidence of natural collapse in WTC1, 2 and 7 is virtually zero. The evidence of controlled demolition in those buildings is OVERWHELMING. And so, the ball is not in our court to disprove the NIST report, rather the onus is on you, your handlers, and the criminal government to disprove the fact that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

Why won't you debunk these claims? Why won't you debunk the testimony from engineers and physicists that the towers were demolished deliberately? Why won't you debunk the testimony of countless witnesses that testify to explosions in the towers before the collapse? Why won't you debunk the fact that the term "pull it" has never been used to withdraw a fire crew in the history of firefighting? Why won't you quote large sections of the NIST report yourself and show us how they disprove the controlled demo claims? Is it because...*gasp*...you can't?? Or is it because you are...

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Scared? Chicken Bluck, Bluck, Bluck.

[edit on 2005/7/6 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
1) it is impossible for any construction work of any kind to be done without man people knowing about it and knowing exactly what type of work is being done. This includes the engineers, the property management and tenants themselves. Especially if those tenants are involved in any kind of financial work.
2) The engineers know everything that is going on in a building.
3) There was only one freight elevator per building so any use of that elevator has to be carefully scheduled.

Heads up, folks! HR is actively attempting to debunk a hypothesis that was mentioned only once, in passing, a few pages back. That being the case, I think we're onto something with the C4 in the concrete.

The idea that someone could sneak in, or conduct work under false pretenses to install explosive charges is insulting to the intelligence of those killed on 9/11.

No, Howard, the idea that someone could not want to find the truth of the matter, or will go out of there way to defend the murderers of 3000+ innocent people, is akin to spitting on the graves of those who were slaughtered.

And the truth shall set you free.

[edit on 2005/7/6 by wecomeinpeace]

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander telling me they were not sure they could contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such a terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision to pull it. Then we watched the building collapse."

Larry Silverstein
LeaseHolder, World Trade Center

That my friends is proof enough that WTC 7 had demolition charges throughout it before 9-11 as it takes too long for them to have placed them on the day of 9-11.
And that means one thing, controlled demolition of WTC7.

That, at least, is FACT.

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas

Take a look at what he has to say about the WTC towers;
Jeff King *.mov 67.3mb

Funny how in this video, Jeff King is actualy using the NIST report to prove that the building didn't collapse by itself XD

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
The second plane hit the tower at around the 78th floor. Being generous, that's about 285m being the absolute highest point from where the steel beams were ejected, even though the ejection of steel beams became much more pronounced further down the collapse. To reach a distance of 76.2m (250ft) makes for 9.99m/s. The crucial thing here is not the distance, it is the impulse required to accelerate an 440Kg (880lbs) object to the speed required (9.99m/s) to reach that distance. Non-elastic collisions are generally assumed to be 10 milliseconds (10^-3s). Therefore a beam is accelerated to 9.99m/s in 10^-3 seconds, which gives an acceleration value of 9990m/s^2. F = m*a. Therefore, the force applied to a beam to accelerate it to 9.99m/s is 4,395,600 Newtons (kgm/s^2).

Just checking through my calculations here again, and I noticed that I missed a zero in that 10 milliseconds is 10^-2s, and that 880lbs is 400Kg, which changes the final result to 399,6000 Newtons. Again, collision from another falling steel beam can not provide such an enourmous amount of energy required for such an impulse. Falling one floor and the resulting bounce off a solid object below can not provide the energy required for such an impulse. And the concrete was PULVERIZED into powder so falling concrete cannot be the source of the energy. So where did this energy come from??? *BOOM*

[edit on 2005/7/6 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by Kainen

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander telling me they were not sure they could contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such a terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision to pull it. Then we watched the building collapse."

Larry Silverstein
LeaseHolder, World Trade Center

That my friends is proof enough that WTC 7 had demolition charges throughout it before 9-11 as it takes too long for them to have placed them on the day of 9-11.
And that means one thing, controlled demolition of WTC7.

That, at least, is FACT.

A fact? not it is pre speculation on your part.

So, the fire department knew about these charges and was responsible for demolishing them?

If SIlverstein set charges in his own building, why would he wait for the fire departent to call him and tell them they were going to set them off?

The logic here is so fuzzy you could knit a 1000 fleece sweaters from it.

Hehe.. I've been watching this post from the sideline, all I have to say for now is good job Wecominepeace. The last couple of posts from Wecominpeace, notice how HR just glosses over them? amazing.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So far I have been insulted, and maligned,

On the contrary, Howard, you have baited, insulted and mocked since the very beginning of this thread, and as a reward for your childish behaviour, you were actively defended by a moderator. In addition, you continue to make double, triple and quadruple posts and never receive an admonishment. Your cries of "poor me" ring hollow, my friend.

I have asked for comments on the NIST report, and have been insulted in almost every single post that has been made on this thread, including yours.

Reams of information have been presented by members in this thread that directly contradict the NIST report findings, but you conveniently ignore those because you are using a tried and true disinformation tactic and you are sticking to it. Why should people play into your game of trying to debunk a report that is thousands pf pages long, is based on a preconceived conclusion, and is produced by a government agency and thus STENCHFULLY biased?

No, reams of speculation and bad science have been presented.

If you have a single, verifiable piece of information that directly contradicts the NIST report, then present it. Some of the “evidence” that has been presented, like the Kevin Ryan U.L. letter is fatally flawed.

Most of what has been presented is not based in fact or science but rather the opinions of those making the case for demolition.

The evidence of natural collapse in WTC1, 2 and 7 is virtually zero. The evidence of controlled demolition in those buildings is OVERWHELMING.

Well pardon me if I believe that it is the other way around. There is substantial evidence that the towers collapsed trough the normal progression of the fires and as a result of the structural damage caused by the impact.

This includes clear evidence of severe inward bowing of the exterior columns in the minutes before the collapse. Clear indications that the structure was starting to shift and move well before the global collapse started.

And so, the ball is not in our court to disprove the NIST report, rather the onus is on you, your handlers, and the criminal government to disprove the fact that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

Are you asking me to prove a negative? Nice try.

Why won't you debunk these claims? Why won't you debunk the testimony from engineers and physicists that the towers were demolished deliberately?

I have. If you want, present them again and I will debunk them again.

Originally posted by thematrix

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas

Take a look at what he has to say about the WTC towers;
Jeff King *.mov 67.3mb

Funny how in this video, Jeff King is actualy using the NIST report to prove that the building didn't collapse by itself XD

He only stated that NIST out of 200,000+ tons of steel from entire WTC complex managed to salvage just 200 pieces. How can you make a solid justification on such little evidence. Why was the evidence allowed to be shipped and recycled without 1 justifiable investigation taking place.

David vonkleist
This is the host of 911 in plane site.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I have asked for comments on the NIST report, and have been insulted in almost every single post that has been made on this thread, including yours.

Please show me where I have insulted you. If I have, I will apologize.

No, reams of speculation and bad science have been presented.

To quote your own words, "that is simply your opinion."

If you have a single, verifiable piece of information that directly contradicts the NIST report, then present it.

Read the replies in your own thread for once.

There is substantial evidence that the towers collapsed trough the normal progression of the fires and as a result of the structural damage caused by the impact.

This includes clear evidence of severe inward bowing of the exterior columns in the minutes before the collapse. Clear indications that the structure was starting to shift and move well before the global collapse started.

Where is the evidence of "severe inward bowing", where is the evidence of severe fires, and more importantly, where is the evidence of damage to the concrete and steel core, ESPECIALLY in the South tower that was hit across the corner? You government defenders amaze me how you can claim that a 757 can be vaporized in a collision with the Pentagon leaving only a 14 foot hole (and four identifiable pieces of debris that are suspicious at best), yet simultaneously claim that the planes that hit the towers could cause major structural damage to the core, and that a few fires could destroy an entire 47-story building.

Are you asking me to prove a negative? Nice try.

No, you are asking us to do so. "Prove that the moon is made of cheese" is asking to prove a positve. "NIST says the moon is made of cheese. Prove that it is not." is asking to prove a negative. "NIST says the towers were brought down by fire. Prove that they were not.", is asking to prove a negative, and is your challenge herein.

[edit on 2005/7/6 by wecomeinpeace]

Well that was the whole point of this thread. If you have a comment to the NIST report, then let's see them.

Too bad it's taking so long, but then ahain, Webtv sucks don't it.

So what are you saying that you have made up your mind and any facts or data that contradict your point of view is B.S. and you won't even look at it?


Why won't you read it?

Scared?

Chicken


Bluck, Bluck, Bluck.

If anyone's a chicken it's you, I'm afraid. I posted evidence that contradicted the NIST report, and you're refusing to debate me by repeatedly telling me to read a 392-page report.

As you say, what's a matta? Scared? Chicken? cluck cluck (never been outside of the city, I see)?

Just for the sake of argument, I did read the report. That's right. I read the whole damned thing.

Now you can get on to explaining to me what was wrong with what I posted. Go ahead and critique it now, because I've read the report and what I have stated directly contradicts the report and proves that it's flawed. You can't just resort to name-calling now, Howard, because I'm telling you I've read it and I'm contradicting it. So now you have to prove me wrong.

Can't resort to simply calling me names now, can you?

Here's the info, if you wanna recap:

There's a lot of information in this thread to cover, and this is my first post, so for convenience I'll just post a couple things I found interesting with the collapses, and we'll go from there.

First of all I'd like to ask those who buy the official story how the 'pancake collapse' itself started. The official explanation of the cause of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 were that fires and knocked-out columns provided such a weakening of support that those floors gave out and the buildings then began falling in on themselves, correct?

My first problem with this is, that I would like to have explained to me, is why the buildings collapsed when they did. It's no secret that jet fuel burns very quickly. I believe it's been estimated that the jet fuel in either building had burned up completely between 10 and 20 minutes or so after each of their impacts. At any rate, the fires lost an immense amount of intensity around those times. Afterwards, the fires went on to feed off of office fires; off of furnishings and flammable parts of the building itself, no longer feeding off the jet fuel. It's also no secret that office furnishings burn more weakly than jet fuel, giving off less heat.

If you watch video coverage, the initial clouds are huge, and gray. The smoke is billowing out. That's because the fires are being fed by jet fuel, and we are told they are burning very intensely, which is evident by the amount of smoke and it's color.

Around the times that the jet fuel burns away, there is less smoke coming from the building, and it's much darker. Again, you can look at video for this if you want proof of it, or photographs. Dark smoke, especially when the volume is also decreasing, is a clear indication of weakening fire. At the point of lessening smoke, and it turning black, the fires are losing much of their intensity and of course burning more cooly. It would not make sense for the fires to be hotter at this time, because, to recap once more, the smoke had turned black (indicating an unhealthy burn), there was less smoke, and the fire's initial fuel source had apparently by this time depleted. No surprise; jet fuel burns very quickly.

And then I go on....

So the clouds suggest a weakening, dying fire. So what?

Well, which are hotter: healthier, more intense fires fed by jet fuel and puffing big light clouds, or unhealthy, less intense fires fed by office furnishings that cause only smaller, dark clouds? I think it's obvious that a healthy, better-fed fire, will be hotter. It simply doesn't make sense the other way around.

The conclusion we can come to is that the fires were initially hotter than they would be later. That makes sense, right? Well why didn't the towers then collapse while the fires were hotter, at their peak of temperature? Instead, they fall (rather suspiciously reminiscent of demolition) at a time when the fires were cooling off.

Let me make this a little clearer still. Which will be hotter: steel submitted to hotter fire, or steel submitted to cooler fire? Obviously, the steel submitted to the hotter fire would be hotter. If steel was exposed to a fire that was weakening and cooling off, the steel would similarly cool off. It would not make sense for the fire to cool, but the steel to continue heating. That just utterly defies logic and science. And similarly, cooler steel is stronger than hotter steel. It would not make sense for cooler steel to be able to hold more weight than hotter, more malleable steel.

So, again, why did the buildings collapse while the steel was cooling off and not while it was at its hottest? There was no added weight to further stress the steel beams, so added stress was not the problem. It doesn't make sense for steel to continue heating while the heat source itself weakens, and steel closer to normal temperatures holds more weight. So what then? What events specifically trigged the collapse? I've just shown that it is not logical to assume the steel was at its hottest, weakest state, and neither had any further stress been added since the initial impact of the planes.

So why didn't the buildings collapse when the steel was at its hottest, but rather after it had cooled for some time? It seems to me that the effect of heat on the steel had little if anything at all to due with the collapse, or else the buildings would have fallen when the steel was at its hottest. So that's the first problem I'd like to have explained to me.

The second one is why the building did not fall sideways, like a tree with notches cut into its side. After all, the planes did not go all the way through either building. One plane went through diagonally, and the other simply rammed straight into its building, and there's no evidence it even made it past the core columns. The perimeter columns had been knocked out of particular sides on each building, and yet rather than having either building fall sideways into the lack of resistance to gravity provided by the lack of support columns, both buildings fall straight down as if all perimeter columns were simultaneously knocked out. There was no reason for all columns on the damaged floors to all give out simultaneously, especially taking into account what I've just discussed about the steel not even being sufficiently heated. It cannot be argued that the buildings did fall sideways, because they simply did not. Admittedly, there was slight tilting during the first couple of seconds, but the buildings still fell down and in on themselves, as any video of the collapse or photo of Ground Zero after collapse will show.

There must be some reason for why the building did not fall sideways, and further why the tilting mysteriously stopped after the first few seconds of collapse.

The third problem is the temperatures of the fires. We were told the temperatures were extremely high; enough to sufficiently weaken the steel, enough to cause a collapse. Industrial steel, such as used in skyscrapers, can hold several times it own weight (the exact number of times in the case of the WTC is not available as far as I know, but if it is, feel free to inform me).

No skyscrapers have ever fallen as a result of fires, which I'm sure you've already discussed here. There have been fires that have been testably more intense than those at the WTC, and that have lasted much longer, but did not result in any sort of collapse. Whole floors have been gutted by fires in some cases, and still no collapse. You can find examples of other such skyscraper fires here: 911research.wtc7.net...

When I say other fires have been testably more intense, I mean there have been other skyscraper fires that have had fires that accomplished more because of their greater intensity than the fires at the WTC buildings were able to accomplish. For example, in some of the fires mentioned in the link above, there was extensive window-shattering from the intense heat of the fires around the windows. The fires spread to other floors in some of those examples, as well.

By contrast, at the WTC buildings, there is no video or photographic evidence of any such widespread shattering of glass from heat. There are windows shattered from debris and the initial impacts, etc., but not from heat, or at least not many. This alone sets the fires back to the 600º C or below range, immediately. Beyond 600º C, windows begin shattering extensively from intense heat. Again, we did not see that at the WTC buildings. If the fires were as hot as they were claimed to have been, we would have easily seen the same widespread window shattering such as that in the other skyscraper fire cases.

Also, the fires did not spread beyond the floors that they started on. Fire going down the elevator shaft doesn't count either, I'm afraid, because the other examples of skyscraper fires being referenced did not have their fires spread to other floors by means of the elevator shafts. They were simply much hotter, and spread between floors themselves. And again, those fires didn't cause enough damage to the steel structures to collapse the buildings, so why would weaker fires in the WTC skyscrapers cause them to collapse? Let alone while the fires were dying, and let alone in a fashion that suggests all columns gave way at the same time!

So there are a few things for you guys to explain, those of you who buy the official story. A demolition would be able to explain all of it, obviously, but I suppose that's just a coincidence. So I'll start into this discussion I suppose with those points, if it's alright with you guys. As far as the NIST report, it won't load on my computer for some reason, but seeing as how it's not in its final form yet (as if they'll have some corrections to make or something), and apparently 'open to public comment', I'm skeptical of how concrete their explanations are from the start anyhow.

So now that I've read the NIST report, you can argue against this information.

You're arguing against others who have not read the report, and yet you have ignored me. I suppose it's because you can't even pretend to rebutt any of that, hence your repeatedly sending me a 392-page report and calling me names and leaving it at that.

Like I said, this information directly contradicts the NIST report because the NIST report holds that the fires were the cause of the collapses. That should be enough for you to debate this info yourself, but no. You just call names and perform other immature actions, that may be amusing for a 2nd grader but for adult it's simply annoying.

So you can stop resorting to childish behavior now. I've read the report and you can now pretend to critique the logic in my reasoning. Even if you don't believe I read the report, give me the benefit of a doubt and try to refute what I'm saying anyway. You being so knowledgeable on the subject, you can surely debunk what I'm saying.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by bsbray11]

[edit on 6-7-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

If anyone's a chicken it's you, I'm afraid. I posted evidence that contradicted the NIST report, and you're refusing to debate me by repeatedly telling me to read a 392-page report.

As you say, what's a matta? Scared? Chicken? cluck cluck (never been outside of the city, I see)?

Ok, The chicken crack wasn't entirely called for, but I would actually like to hear what specific comments you might have.

Anyway, as for the trading chicken insults, well, let's just start from scratch, shall we? We can cross one road at a time and work through this.

Now you can get on to explaining to me what was wrong with what I posted. Go ahead and critique it now, because I've read the report and what I have stated directly contradicts the report and proves that it's flawed. You can't just resort to name-calling now, Howard, because I'm telling you I've read it and I'm contradicting it. So now you have to prove me wrong.

What specific part of the report are you contradicting? Can you cite a page number?

There's a lot of information in this thread to cover, and this is my first post, so for convenience I'll just post a couple things I found interesting with the collapses, and we'll go from there.

First of all I'd like to ask those who buy the official story how the 'pancake collapse' itself started. The official explanation of the cause of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 were that fires and knocked-out columns provided such a weakening of support that those floors gave out and the buildings then began falling in on themselves, correct?

No, actually the gist of it is that the impact damage, combined with the loss of fireproofing on the trusses and columns and the building fire, caused the collapse.

My first problem with this is, that I would like to have explained to me, is why the buildings collapsed when they did. It's no secret that jet fuel burns very quickly. I believe it's been estimated that the jet fuel in either building had burned up completely between 10 and 20 minutes or so after each of their impacts. At any rate, the fires lost an immense amount of intensity around those times. Afterwards, the fires went on to feed off of office fires; off of furnishings and flammable parts of the building itself, no longer feeding off the jet fuel. It's also no secret that office furnishings burn more weakly than jet fuel, giving off less heat.

Actually, the caloric value (or fuel load) of office furnishings, paper, etc. is in the same range as jet fuel.

If you watch video coverage, the initial clouds are huge, and gray. The smoke is billowing out. That's because the fires are being fed by jet fuel, and we are told they are burning very intensely, which is evident by the amount of smoke and it's color.

Around the times that the jet fuel burns away, there is less smoke coming from the building, and it's much darker. Again, you can look at video for this if you want proof of it, or photographs.

it is true, the fires did have growth spurts and moved erraticly about the building. I think that this was due to the building damage more than anything else.

Dark smoke, especially when the volume is also decreasing, is a clear indication of weakening fire.

Not quite. The color of the smoke is not a direct corelation with the temperature of the fire. What about the indications that the fire was intensifying in a number of areas in the NIST report. There are clear photo sequences that show the fires growing in intensity.

. . .No surprise; jet fuel burns very quickly. except where it has been soaked into the debris piled up by the impact. Look at the pictures in the report of the visible debris piles. That stuff was soaked in jet fuel.

The conclusion we can come to is that the fires were initially hotter than they would be later. That makes sense, right? Well why didn't the towers then collapse while the fires were hotter, at their peak of temperature? Instead, they fall (rather suspiciously reminiscent of demolition) at a time when the fires were cooling off.

Even if the fires were cooling off, the structural damage was already done. The loss of effective support from any beams, trusses or columns that were buckled or twisted by the fire, would have to be added to the loss from those that were broken, cut and bent by the impact. The effect was cumulative.

So, again, why did the buildings collapse while the steel was cooling off and not while it was at its hottest? There was no added weight to further stress the steel beams, so added stress was not the problem. It doesn't make sense for steel to continue heating while the heat source itself weakens, and steel closer to normal temperatures holds more weight. So what then? What events specifically trigged the collapse? I've just shown that it is not logical to assume the steel was at its hottest, weakest state, and neither had any further stress been added since the initial impact of the planes.

Steel and concrete takes a while to heat and take a while to cool off. Once a floor slab gave way (see the report for the pictures of the slabs falling inside the building), the damage started to snowball. Creep is slow but steady.

So why didn't the buildings collapse when the steel was at its hottest, but rather after it had cooled for some time?

The buildings were burning pretty good when they collapsed.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by HowardRoark]

As for the question of why the buildings didn't topple like trees:

you have to remember, even though form a distance, they appeared to be tall slender monoliths, they were in fact complicates steel structures. They were designed to hold themselves up with the force of gravity parallel to the load bearing columns. While they were designed to sway in the wind, that flexibility was somewhat limited. the structures were not designed to resist the lateral forces that would be present if they tipped diagonally outside of that range of motion.

In addition, in order for the structure to tip over, the center of gravity would have to move outside the bounds of the perimeter walls. Since the floors were 200x200 feet, simple geometry indicated that this would have been a tremendous lateral movement.

I don't think that there is a structural engineer in the world that thinks that the buildings should have tipped over like that.

Actually, I can debunk the NIST report in two easy steps, and show their deliberate alteration of facts and thus collusion in the crime in one.

1. NIST claims that the heat of the flames weakened the steel causing a collapse.

Two steel-frame buildings that were not constructed anywhere near as strongly as the WTC towers, were completely gutted by fire, burned for far longer and more intensely than the WTC fires, but did not collapse, nor did they ever show any signs of collapse or even of warping steel.

THE WINDSOR BUILDING - MADRID

This building burned for temperatures upwards of 800deg Celsius for more than 18 hours. It had a similar truss design to the WTC towers, BUT it did not have the added protection of concrete surrounding the steel inner columns that the WTC towers had, and it did NOT have the steel perimeter that the WTC towers had.

The building:



The fire




The aftermath

external image

The collapse



Compare the cores of the buildings:
Windsor
external image

WTC


Which one do you think is stronger?


THE PARGUE CENTRAL TORRE

56 storeys. Steel framed. It caught fire on the 34th floor and burnt out to the roof.

www.cbsnews.com
High temperatures stopped firefighters from reaching the upper floors where the fire was strongest. Malfunctioning water pumps and a lack of fire extinguishers inside the building also complicated the job for firefighters

The fire




The collapse



In fact, military helicopters were scrambled to douse the flames with water. Why didn't this happen in the most technologically and militarily advanced nation in the world?

www.cbsnews.com
Military helicopters doused one of Venezuela's tallest buildings with water Sunday, bringing under control a blaze many feared might cause the tower to collapse.

THE WTC TOWERS

The buildings

external image


The fire



The collapse






2. NIST claims fires within the buildings of ever-increasing intensity, reaching temperatures hot enough to glaze pottery, cast aluminum and weaken steel.

Among other evidence disputing this is testimony from the grave.

A firefighting battalion chief was on the 78th floor of WTC2, on the south side, which is precisely where the plane hit. His radio communication was recorded and released before the government could suppress it.

You can listen to it yourself here: Firefighter tape excerpt - mp3
Here is a transcript of the relevant part:

===================================================================
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones." [10-45 Code One = Civilian casualty from fire]

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair are you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here." [civilians means able-bodied survivors]

Ladder 15: "Alright, ten-four. We're on our way."
===================================================================

This testimony from seasoned firefighters debunks the NIST report. There was NO intense heat. There WERE many survivors. And the fires were nearly contained. These heroic firefighters would be alive and well today if they hadn't been slaughtered by elements in the government, the intelligence community and the military.
More firefighters' tapes.
Survivors' testimonies


3. In its report NIST clearly misrepresents the facts.

From the NIST report, page 24:

Some of the burning fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts, blowing out doors and walls on other floors all the way down to the basement. Flash fires in the lobby blew out many of the plate glass windows. Fortunately, there were not enough combustibles near the elevators for major fires to start on the lower floors.

NIST here has attempted to explain away the damage to the lobby, broken glass windows and sheered marble panels, as being caused by flash fires. A mild kitchen fire will produce considerable soot and smoke damage.



We've all seen the footage from the French filmakers' documentary of the lobby as the firefighters walked through it. There was ABSOLUTELY no soot and no fire or smoke damage. The people at NIST are experts in fire and it's results, and there is no way that they could have missed this fact.

This image is from page 27 of the NIST report:



Look at the damage and cracking of the marble sheeting. Do you think flash fires could do this? Do you see any smoke or soot damage in the lobby? The glass and marble sheetings were broken by the force of the explosions in the basement.

From the NIST report, page 26:

Outside the building, a flurry of activity was beginning. Personnel of the Fire Department of the City of
New York (FDNY) were several blocks away, investigating a gas leak at street level, and observed the
aircraft impact. Within a minute, FDNY had notified its communications center and requested additional
alarms for the WTC. A Port Authority Police Department (PAPD) unit had reported to its Police Desk
that there had been an explosion with major injuries. By 8:50 a.m., the first fire engines had arrived, and
an Incident Command Post had been established in the WTC 1 lobby. An Emergency Medical Service
(EMS) Command was established 3 min later. More and more reports of damage, injuries, and deaths
flooded the communications channels, and knowledge of the extent of the catastrophe was emerging. At
8:52 a.m., the first New York City Police Department (NYPD) aviation unit arrived to evaluate the
possibility of roof rescue, but reported they were unable to land on the roof due to the heavy smoke. At
8:55 a.m., the firefighters entering WTC 1 began climbing the stairs (Figure 2–6). Their objectives were
to evacuate and rescue everyone below the fires, then to cut paths through the fires and rescue all those
above the fires.

Do you see any reports of burnt people being found in the lobby? Why was nobody burnt and no smoke damage done by jet fuel exploding into the lobby, blasting marble off the walls and shattering windows?

NIST is complicit in the cover-up of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition. I discovered this after only a CASUAL glance at the report. What else is there that they have covered up?

.

Glad to see a change in your attitude, HR. It's much appreciated.

What specific part of the report are you contradicting? Can you cite a page number?

"The collapses of the towers in the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001, resulted from a combination of aircraft impact damage and the ensuing fires."

wtc.nist.gov...

E.1, Introduction.

First of all I'd like to ask those who buy the official story how the 'pancake collapse' itself started. The official explanation of the cause of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 were that fires and knocked-out columns provided such a weakening of support that those floors gave out and the buildings then began falling in on themselves, correct?

No, actually the gist of it is that the impact damage, combined with the loss of fireproofing on the trusses and columns and the building fire, caused the collapse.

That's basically the same. Let's not split hairs; the officially reported cause, as we now agree, was the damaged support columns and fire. Everyone here, I'm sure, is aware of this idea.

Actually, the caloric value (or fuel load) of office furnishings, paper, etc. is in the same range as jet fuel.

Can you provide any third-source information to confirm that office furnishings and jet fuel will produce fires of similar outputs of heat energy? That is to say, that a fire fed by the contents of the WTC offices would produce as much heat as a fire fed by jet fuel? I tried looking this up on Google but couldn't find anything to verify it.

The color of the smoke is not a direct corelation with the temperature of the fire. What about the indications that the fire was intensifying in a number of areas in the NIST report. There are clear photo sequences that show the fires growing in intensity.

Of course it's not a direct correlation. It's an indirect correlation. Let's examine this further by the smoke output..

When smoke is black, it indicates there is soot in it. Soot is a result of fire being oxygen-starved, and having uncombusted hydrocarbons. Black, sooty smoke has a greater thermal capacity than lighter smoke and can serve to redirect heat away from the fire itself.

So, based on that information, which you are free to double-check yourself, the fact that the smoke coming out of the WTC buildings turned much darker is an indication of a poor burn within the buildings. It is an indication of the fires being oxygen-starved, and further, an indication that heat was being redirected off of the fires because of the greater thermal capacity of black smoke as compared to the earlier lighter smokes.

Based on that information, and the combined evidence therefrom that the fires were burning more poorly than before, with less oxygen, and a redirection of heat, we can solidly conclude that the fires were in worse condition and therefore producing less energy, ie heat, than they were previously. And based on that, we can conclude that the fires were cooling as the smoke darkened.

Even if the fires were cooling off, the structural damage was already done. The loss of effective support from any beams, trusses or columns that were buckled or twisted by the fire, would have to be added to the loss from those that were broken, cut and bent by the impact. The effect was cumulative.

You're right in that the structural damage was already done. The twisting of columns, buckling, etc., because of the fire, I don't buy, and that's where the problem with the official reports arises.

There is no evidence that the fires were ever hot enough, and as I've already stated, there were no widespread shatterings of windows from heat, nor did the fires spread to other floors by any means other than the elevator shaft. If the fires were much above 600 degrees Celsius, the windows would have began to shatter extensively throughout the building, and since no such thing happened, we can therefore conclude that the fires could not have been much hotter than 600 degrees Celsius. That's not hot enough to sufficiently damage this kind of structural steel.

So if the structural damage was already done, and the fires were not hot enough to further damage the steel sufficiently, then what was the straw that broke the camel's back, and made the buildings collapse? And even if the fires were hot enough, why didn't they collapse earlier on when there was a

Steel and concrete takes a while to heat and take a while to cool off. Once a floor slab gave way (see the report for the pictures of the slabs falling inside the building), the damage started to snowball. Creep is slow but steady.

Granted, it takes time to heat steel. If the fires were hot enough to sufficiently damage the steel (which again, there is no evidence of, but just thinking hypothetically), but then cooled, but were still hot enough to damage the steel, then there would be some space for slack there, and your argument would hold up.

In another hypothetical situation, if the fires were hot enough to damage the steel, but then cooled to a temperature that could not, the steel would not be sufficiently damaged if it did not heat up enough before the fire itself cooled. That much should be obvious, but just making it clear.

However, in the reality of these events, even at the peak temperatures of the fires, they were not doing the characteristic things such temperate fires should do if they were actually at the alleged temperatures. So even if they peaked, and then began cooling, it wouldn't matter because they weren't hot enough anyway. If they were, they would surely have also been hot enough to shatter windows on a large scale and spread to other floors. Those things, of course never happened.

Further, the steel would have began to glow a dull, dark red if it was hot enough to buckle, etc. And not surprisingly, there were no photos of any steel at any time in either building comprising any color indicating heating. Now, you could say that this was because the heated steel was on the inside, and we couldn't see it, but if there was no glowing steel at the very impact site where we could see, then there is no reason to believe it would've been glowing anywhere else in the complex.

At any rate, speculating on the steel on the inside is just that: speculating. Nothing to back that up. By contrast, we know that there were no widespread window shatterings as a result of heat, and we know that the fires did not spread to any other floors by any means other than the elevator shaft, and finally we know that there was no visible steel glowing from heat. And to give significance to those things, we know that they would have happened if the fires were actually at the alleged temperatures.

Thanks again, HR.

Just looking through the preamble to the report shows how truly bogus it is.

pg1
NIST NCSTAR 1 (Draft)
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

Keep in mind that this report was compiled by the Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) division of NIST, whose mission and expertise is to ensure fire safety in buildings. BFRL's mission with this report is to explain why the buildings collapsed based on the premise that it collapsed from fire and to provide recommendations for ammendments to building fire safety laws to prevent the collapse of buildings in the future. Their mission was NOT to investigate if there were explosives involved, or indeed, if there were any other possible reasons for the collapse. Any scientist worth his salt will tell you that a scientific investigation with a preconceived result is meaningless and is flawed science.

pg4
Disclaimer No. 3
Pursuant to section 7 of the National Construction Safety Team Act, the NIST Director has determined that certain evidence received by NIST in the course of this Investigation is “voluntarily provided safety-related information” that is “not directly related to the building failure being investigated” and that “disclosure of that information would inhibit the voluntary provision of that type of information” (15 USC 7306c).

In addition, a substantial portion of the evidence collected by NIST in the course of the Investigation has been provided to NIST under nondisclosure agreements.

NIST states that they do not have to disclose their sources of evidence, and thus precludes evidence being refuted based on the source. If they are challenged to provide sources, they can claim nondisclosure agreements. A luxury not afforded to U.S. journalists, it seems.

pg4
Use in Legal Proceedings
No part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a structural failure or from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report (15 USC 281a; as amended by P.L. 107-231).

This clearly states that the report is not admissible as evidence in a court of law. Which:
a) ensures that the government can not be sued if NIST unwittingly exposes government involvement in the attacks and collapses.
b) proves that the report is bogus, since the testimony of government experts is always admissible in court.

A report by experts that isn't good enough to be used in a court of law. Do we need to go on?

pg13
On the morning of September 11, 2001, Americans and people around the world were shocked by the
destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City and the devastation of the Pentagon near
Washington, D.C., after large aircraft were flown into the buildings, and the crash of an aircraft in a
Pennsylvania field that averted further tragedy. Three years later, the world has been changed irrevocably
by those terrorist attacks. For some, the absence of people close to them is a constant reminder of the
unpredictability of life and death. For millions of others, the continuing threats of further terrorist attacks
affect how we go about our daily lives and the attention we must give to homeland security and
emergency preparedness.

Within the construction, building, and public safety communities, there arose a question pressing to be answered: How can we reduce our vulnerability to such attacks, and how can we increase our preparedness and safety while still ensuring the functionality of the places in which we work and live?

"The terrorists are gonna get us" propaganda, even in a scientific report.

pg33
Immediately following the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the American Society of Civil Engineers began planning a building performance study of the disaster. The week of October 7, as soon as the rescue and search efforts ceased, the Building Performance Study Team went to the site and began their assessment. This was to be a brief effort, as the study team consisted of experts who largely volunteered their time away from their other professional commitments.

NIST, is here attempting to assuage the lashback from the thoroughly flawed FEMA report by laughingly stating that it was a "brief" and "volunteer" effort. This is disinfo damage control, ladies and gents.

p34
NIST does not have the statutory authority to make findings of fault or negligence by individuals or organizations. Further, no part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a building failure or from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report (15 USC 281a, as amended by Public Law 107-231).

Further disclaimers stating that NIST's report is not even good enough to be considered evidence of fault or negligence, nor is it good enough to be admissible in a court of law.

p44
The scarcity of physical evidence that is typically available in place for reconstruction of a disaster led to the following approach:
Accumulation of copious photographic and video material...
[...]
Establishment of the baseline performance of the WTC towers,
[...]
Conduct of four-step simulations of the behavior of each tower on September 11, 2001. Each step stretched the state of the technology and tested the limits of software tools and computer hardware. The four steps were:
1. The aircraft impact into the tower, the resulting distribution of aviation fuel, and the
damage to the structure, partitions, thermal insulation materials, and building contents.
2. The evolution of multifloor fires.
3. The heating and consequent weakening of the structural elements by the fires.
4. The response of the damaged and heated building structure, and the progression of structural component failures leading to the initiation of the collapse of the towers.

Again, the investigative approach and simulations that they carried out are all based on the premise that the collapse was caused by fire weakening the steel. The scarcity of evidence is admitted, and there is also no mention here of WHY there was a scarcity of evidence. We all know why there was no evidence. It was illegally shipped to China as scrap before you could say "inside job".


Based on all the evidence that is available, Bush, Cheney, Giuliani, Rumsfeld, and whoever is behind them could all be convicted of this heinous crime in a court of law and given the chair. The NIST report however, by NIST's very own admission, would not be allowed as evidence. In fact, I doubt it would be deemed good enough for a judge to wipe his *** with.

[edit on 2005/7/6 by wecomeinpeace]