Proof we are all lying to ourselves

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by six
I just explained to you that it was a combination of all three, not because of any one single event.

How could it have been a combination of anything if,

I have proven with facts and evidence that the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.

I have proven with facts and evidence that the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to casue the steel to weaken, according to photos, videos and comparison to other steel buildings. Also according to a fire department site.


How much more evidence do you need ?


[edit on 8-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

That is why ALL of the reports said it was a combination....the plane impacts PLUS resulting fires...started a chain of events that led to the collapse.

The official reports say the impact alone did not bring it down.

The official reports say the fires alone did not bring it down.

The official reports say it was a combination...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
Why are you still lying to everyone here, ULTIMA1?
It shows an inferno burning.

Gee, is that all you have, 1 lousy closeup photo of some flames?

You really need to learn how to do some research.

You need to able to show at least as many photos or as many videos as i can.


Photos of little to no flames showing up untill collapse.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

Gee, is that all you have? Some pictures from a far off video shot? They arent even time stamped....when were they taken? They are so far away, were they from the Hubble space telescope???

You requested a photo of the severe fire, with a timestamp. I provided it. Now you want more photos? What happened to all of your information?

Originally posted by Disclosed The official reports say it was a combination...

And the official reports are full of holes and contridict themsleves time and time again.

How can NIST state it was a combination then they state the buidings withstood the planes impacts and have stated that there was not enough heat to weaken the steel?

So please explain how it can be a combinations when neither planes or fire could have done it even together.

reply to post by ULTIMA1



Ummm, you are joking, right? Are you saying you don't know what a combination means? Oh my....

Let me make this as simple as possible.

You have a cereal bowl half full of milk. You fill half with corn flakes...(so its just milk and cereal) and its fine. If you fill half with bananas and blueberries (so you have milk and fruits) its fine. But...you fill it with both cereal AND fruit, and the milk spills over.


The impacts PLUS the fires caused a chain of events that led to the collapse. Thats what the reports state.

[edit on 8-11-2007 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed The impacts PLUS the fires caused a chain of events that led to the collapse. Thats what the reports state.

Well the reports also state that thier is no way a combination could have happened. The planes and fires could not have casued a chain reaction according to all the facts and evidence.

1. The planes did not damage the steel that bad.

2. The fires were not hot enough and last long enough to weaken the steel.

Sorry, no combination.

[edit on 8-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed The impacts PLUS the fires caused a chain of events that led to the collapse. Thats what the reports state.

Well the reports also state that thier is no way a combination could have happened. The planes and fires could not have casued a chain reaction according to all the facts and evidence.

Show us where the reports says no way a combination could have happened.

Show us the link...please.


1st off, lets look at the NIST report:

www.nist.gov...

The specific factors in the collapse sequences relevant to both towers (the sequences vary in detail for WTC 1 and WTC 2) are:

Each aircraft severed perimeter columns, damaged interior core columns and knocked off fireproofing from steel as the planes penetrated the buildings. The weight carried by the severed columns was distributed to other columns.
Subsequently, fires began that were initiated by the aircraft’s jet fuel but were fed for the most part by the building contents and the air supply resulting from breached walls and fire-induced window breakage.
These fires, in combination with the dislodged fireproofing, were responsible for a chain of events in which the building core weakened and began losing its ability to carry loads.
The floors weakened and sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the perimeter columns.
Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
Collapse then ensued.
The sequences are supported by extensive computer modeling and the evidence held by NIST, including photographs and videos, recovered steel, eyewitness accounts and emergency communication records. Additionally, this information was used to document a variety of factors affecting the performance of the buildings, the efforts of emergency responders and the ability of occupants to escape prior to the collapses. In turn, NIST has identified a number of future practices and technologies that potentially could have enhanced building performance and life safety capabilities on 9-11 had they been available for implementation. All are being considered for NIST’s upcoming recommendations.


[edit on 8-11-2007 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed
1st off, lets look at the NIST report:

www.nist.gov...

Yes lets look at the contridication in the NIST reports.

1. Building survived the planes impacts and would have kept standing. So it contridicts how severe the severed perimeter columns, damaged interior core columns.

www.nist.gov...

Post-impact capabilities of the WTC towers assessed. Demand to capacity ratios—the calculations indicating whether or not structures can support the loads put on them—showed that for the floors affected by the aircraft impacts, the majority of the core and perimeter columns in both towers continued to carry their loads after the impact. The loads from damaged or severed columns were carried by nearby undamaged columns. Although the additional loads strained the load-bearing capabilities of the affected columns, the results show that the columns could have carried them. This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires. NIST previously reported that the towers had significant reserve capacity after aircraft impact based on analysis of post-impact vibration data obtained from video evidence on WTC 2, the more severely damaged tower.

2. Now lets look at how NIST contridicts the fire being how enough and lasting long enough to weaken the steel.

wtc.nist.gov...

The collection of steel from the WTC towers was sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and, in combination with published literature, for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance.

...

Of the 31 core floor truss connectors (core seats) recovered, about 90 percent were still intact, although many were extensively damaged. Only two were completely torn from the channel.

...

A coating on the SFRM prevented the loss of the SFRM in some locations on the perimeter columns. This coating appeared as a band of white features on the SFRM wherever two aluminum panels met on the exterior columns of the buildings, becoming visible when the panels were dislodged. This may be a coating applied to protect the SFRM from moisture infiltration at the aluminum panel joints, acting to preserve the SFRM even when the SFRM was knocked off both above and below those locations.

...

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed.

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels ...

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors of the towers.

[edit on 8-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 8-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Your link confirms what I said.

read this part from your link:

"This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires."

impacts plus added fire = sad face


Also, the collection of steel was sufficient. You mean the 1/4 to 1/2 a percent of total steel. You DO realize that left 99.5% of the steel untested. I think i'll buy a lottery ticket with those odds.

[edit on 8-11-2007 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed
impacts plus added fire = sad face

(IMPACT WITH LITTLE DAMAGE) plus (FIRE THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH OR LAST LONG ENOUGH)

Sorry combination does not work. Please try agian.


[edit on 8-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Let me guess then. Is this your theory?

The planes (or something) may or may not have hit the building, with little to no damage.

But enough damage to cause a few small fires.

Plus enough damage to expose some steel beams and leave some aircraft aluminum near them.

Then a small fire starts there, not THAT hot, but just enough to melt the aluminum (not the steel), and start a thermite reaction.

Am I on target with your theory so far?

Originally posted by Disclosed
Let me guess then. Is this your theory?

My theory is very simple and comes from several professional and government research sites.

There had to be a 3rd reaction to cause enough heat to weaken the steel. Plus something had to casue all the molten steel in the basements of all the WTC buildings and its been stated in many reports (NIST, FEMA and others) that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel.

Since aluminum has a lower melting temp then steel the isolated fires were hot enough to cause molten aluminum and start a thermite reaction, the fires alone were not hot enough to weaken the steel.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


and your pre-collapse evidence is.....

You of course have firefighters on the IMPACT floor that radioed in that finding, correct? After all, they would recognize this, since they are professionals is dealing with fires.

Please show us your pre-collapse evidence that shows thermite reactions. Please link your radio reports, or interviews of people finding thermite reactions before the collapse.

Originally posted by Disclosed
Why are you still lying to everyone here, ULTIMA1?
wtc.nist.gov...
Page 72. There is a photo taken from a NYPD police helicopter, taken at 10:22:59am...only a few minutes from collapse of WTC1. It shows an inferno burning.

Have you even read the caption to that photo?

Here it is in bold face, big letters and italisized for the hard of seeing.

IT HAS BEEN ENHANCE BY ADJUSTING THE INTENSITY LEVELS

Direct quote from the link you provided. Don't call Ultima a liar when your precious NIST report is doing the same. Thanks.

Originally posted by six
I really dont think the temps are a issue.

I do when thinking about the huge heat sink of say 800 or so outer perimeter columns plus 47 inner columns made of steel and welded continuously. But, what does someone who has studied materials science or thermodynamics know?

reply to post by Griff



Umm...lighting intensity, not fire intensity. Good lord, I thought people here at least knew a little about photography. Perhaps I was mistaken.


[edit on 8-11-2007 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed
Umm...lighting intensity, not fire intensity. Good lord, I thought people here at least knew a little about photography. Perhaps I was mistaken.

So, why did they have to intensify it? Give me a break. Think about it. If a conspiracy site came out with a picture and the caption said they intensified it, you wouldn't be one of the first to start talking trash saying they are lying about it? Come now, really be truthful here.

reply to post by Griff


The photo was "intensified" to bring out detail, probably due to the smoke. If you feel this is a smoking gun, and it lets you sleep better at night, more power to you.

Originally posted by Disclosed
reply to post by Griff

 

The photo was "intensified" to bring out detail, probably due to the smoke. If you feel this is a smoking gun, and it lets you sleep better at night, more power to you.

Where did I say it's a smoking gun? If it makes you feel better to sleep at night to put words in others mouths, then more power to you. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of both sides. One is allowed to intensify photos, where the other would be taken to the cleaners for doing the same. Either we discuss the real truth or not. Your call.

reply to post by Griff


Griff,

which "conspiracy" photos are you talking about? I mentioned one of ULTIMAs photos seeming more intense due to being taken at night. I didnt say it was fake, I didnt say it was photoshopped...I just mentioned it looked more intense due to lighting.

where have I said that photos were fake?

Originally posted by Disclosed
and your pre-collapse evidence is.....

I have already showed you the photos and videos of what looks like thermite reactions and molten metals comming from the corner of the South tower.

And please do not be immature about the firemen, we have been over this and you know the firemen only made it to the 78th floor not the impact floors.

Oh, and you have never been able to post any evidence to deabte my theory of the thermite reactions.

Originally posted by Disclosed
Griff, which "conspiracy" photos are you talking about? I mentioned one of ULTIMAs photos seeming more intense due to being taken at night.

In case you can not figure it out. Griff was talking about the photo you posted was intensified.


[edit on 9-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]