Architectural Drawings Available; Columns may be To-Scale

Originally posted by Griff
All I'm trying to get at is that if fire can weeken steel, then surely there is something that doesn't make noise (even though there are plenty of reports of explosions, but that is another thread) that can weeken steel also. The difference being the second material would be able to be controlled where as fire can't. Am I making any sense?

Thermite/thermate.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Thermite/thermate.

But, then you get back to the original proplems with that theory. How were they shaped and placed and all that.

The same way as the explosives.

I have another idea (not sure if this has been suggested) but what if the explosives were rigged the whole time, since it was built, and the 3 days downtime was used to simply hook them all up??? The "high speed internet cabling" could actually have been the cabling for the explosives?

I don't wish to detract form the debate too much by arguing how they got there, but the dripping metallic looking stuff that is in several videos can't just be explained away. It certainly isn't jet fuel as that burns with visible flames and smoke, it doesn't glow and drip.

The fact it was coming from the corner of the building is intriguing, too.

The reason I say it was thermate is because on the few bits of the WTC that are left, they've found copious amounts of the by-product of a thermate reaction. There is no way it could have got there without thermate being involved somewhere.

Examples:

wtc.nist.gov...

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

They are trying to suggest that because the MAXIMUM take-off weight of the 767 is 20% greater than the 707, that this alone meant that all the damage was significantly greater, because of this single fact. The 767 wingspan is 17% greater compared with a 707.

707: www.boeing.com...

767: www.boeing.com...

Again, from NIST:

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

Good question! Maybe the answer is here.....

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, wtc.nist.gov.... This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

So why didn't it examine CD?

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Only 236 pieces out of 500,000 tons of steel???

Based on this comprehensive investigation

NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns

Seems reasonable........

dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors;

Yeah........ and.......... ???

and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns.

Anyone see a problem there?!?!?! "unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires"??? An aircraft hitting a building is "unusual"!!! What are they trying to say (and screwing up severely)????

To have "unusually large" and "jet-fuel ignited" fires, suggests that the fuel fire caused a much larger ("unusually large") secondary fire that was not jet-fuel fed. How else can you explain their particular choice of words??? It is known that jet fuel is insufficient to burn at the temperatures they suggest. All that should have occurred was a regular office fire, and plenty of those have occurred before, on a much larger scale, and without building collapse following.

What did they find that makes them say that in that way?? For jet-fuel ignited fire to occur, means there has to be a secondary sorce of fire, not related to the jet fuel, but caused by it.

If I ignite a paraffin block with a match, the match is not ignited, it is a source of ignition. See what I'm saying???

This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

Source please i(assuming this was a real investigation).

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below).

OK.........

Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

So if that isn't a progressive, pancake collapse, what is?! What kind of collapse was it? How does this explain the central core??

[edit on 14-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Finally..... wasn't this how the building stood since it was built, with the floors suspended between the inner and outer columns?

If so, all that should have occurred was it sagged on a few floors, but no collapse. The weight didn't suddenly increase.

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day.

NIST SAID IT!!!!

Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing, insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors;

Thought they just said fire wasn't the cause, this making the fireproofing a moot point, surely??

and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001

HOLY CONTRADICTION, BATMAN!!!!!!!

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day.

(Just in case you missed it the first time).

[edit on 14-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 14-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]