Question about the officialreport. Steele heating up

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Cassius666

I only talked about the oxygen, but it takes more than air to keep steele and concrete burning for months.

You have a serious knowledge problem to claim that anyone is saying that the steel and concrete was on fire. Only in your fevered little truther brain is this a valid description of what happened in the piles.

This is known as a strawman argument. It's a logical fallacy, and is used by truthers to bolster their viewpoint of 9/11 by bringing up issues that no rational person talks about.

Or to find a ruin that burned close to that long, despite firefighters attempting to hose it.

They don't have a problem with it. Only in your fevered little truther brain is this a problem.

But go ahead and try to set a steele beam on fire.

Why? Only in your fevered little truther brain is this a valid argument.

Like I said, I talked about people with expertise about the NIST report and they did not support it.

Then you only talkked to idiots.

I did not find any other people online who support the NIST report as well.

Then you are one.



What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Authors Bazant, Le, Greening & Benson. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 134 (2008).

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions Co-author Verdure. PDF. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 133 (2007): pp. 308–319
Discussion and replies to June 2006 Bazant & Verdure paper: James Gourley, G. Szuladinski

Bazant & Zhou, 2001-2002: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis J. Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Sept. 28, 2001, addendum March, 2002.



Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C., JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.



Dissecting the Collapses Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.


A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.



S. W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, et al. “The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers collapse”, JOM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 22-29, November 2007.



Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.

"Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers" Clifton, Charles G., HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11

"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Monahan, B., Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.


Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1" Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421



Engineering Conference Papers

"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" Marechaux, T.G. JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.



Abboud, N., M. Levy, D. Tennant, J. Mould, H. Levine, S. King, C. Ekwueme, A. Jain, G. Hart. (2003) Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 360-370

Beyler, C., D. White, M. Peatross, J. Trellis, S. Li, A. Luers, D. Hopkins. (2003) Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 371-382

Thater, G. G.; Panariello, G. F.; Cuoco, D. A. (2003) World Trade Center Disaster: Damage/Debris Assessment In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 383-392




Fire Protection and Fire Modeling Papers

How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory; Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L. Fire Safety Journal; 2003 Vol. 38, p501-533, 33p.

Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.

"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" Brannigan, F.L. Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

"Construction and Collapse Factors" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Collapse Lessons" Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Burgess, I.W., 'Fire Resistance of Framed Buildings', Physics Education, 37 (5), (2002) pp390-399.

G. Flint, A.S. Usmani, S. Lamont, J. Torero and B. Lane, Effect of fire on composite long span truss floor systems, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (4) (2006), pp. 303–315.




Fire Protection Conference Papers

"Coupled fire dynamics and thermal response of complex building structures" Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, Volume 30, Issue 2, January 2005, Pages 2255-2262 Kuldeep Prasad and Howard R. Baum

Choi, S.K., Burgess, I.W. and Plank, R.J., 'The Behaviour of Lightweight Composite Floor Trusses in Fire', ASCE Specialty Conference: Designing Structures for Fire, Baltimore, (Oct 2003) pp 24-32.

Jowsey et all, Determination of Fire Induced Collapse Mechanisms in Steel Framed Structures, 4th European Conference on Steel and Composite Structures, 10 June 05, 69-76

Usmani et all, Collapse scenarios of WTC 1 & 2 with extension to generic tall buildings, Oct-2006 Proceedings of the International Congress on Fire Safety in Tall Buildings

I am not quite ready to belive that fantastic tale yet and wear your tinfoil hat.

It's a fantastic tale to you since you lack knowledge.

No dear, there is plenty of evidence that ground zero stayed at unexplanable high temperatures for months. Only because the NIST report does not mention that, does not mean it is not true. And yes, it is a fantastic tale, right up there with bigfoot and aliens they are trying to sell. About as fantastic as the reasons they give that of all the buildings at a distance from WTC 1 and 2 only wtc 7 caught fire and collapsed.

Only in your feverish "debunker" mind do those and many many many other details not exist.

reply to post by Cassius666


Thermite is a very bad candidate as it has a very low energy density compared to materials that are readily available in offices. The amount of thermite needed to heat up the debris would be so enormous, it would make no sense whatsoever. Way more than would be needed to make the building collapse, and way more than would be possible to keep out of sight. Explosives or thermite are about the worst explanation for the heat.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Thermite is a very bad candidate as it has a very low energy density compared to materials that are readily available in offices. The amount of thermite needed to heat up the debris would be so enormous, it would make no sense whatsoever. Way more than would be needed to make the building collapse, and way more than would be possible to keep out of sight. Explosives or thermite are about the worst explanation for the heat.

Actually Thermite sounds a better candidate than an office chair burning for months. Thermite that did not react yet, coming into contact with metal and reacting as everything is stirred up lightly? I can go with that. Especially since the reaction would take place even if the material is wet. An Office chair and a computer mainboard burning for months after it has been hosed ? That sounds very fantastic.

Maybe it was thermite, maybe not, but so far no better explanation has been given.

reply to post by Cassius666


Firstly, if there was leftover thermite, it would need a high temperature in order to react, so it would not react months later, it would react right after the collapse, when the heat was at it highest point. Secondly, they would also have found massive piles of thermite that did not react at all, which obviously was not the case. And thirdly, as I already stated, the total amount needed would be totally absurd. Way more than would be needed to demolish the buildings.

So are you saying that there was a enormous amount of termite planted in the building, not to make it collapse, but to heat the debris after the collapse, and which would be ignited during a time span of several months? For what purpose would anyone do that? Does it make any sense?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Firstly, if there was leftover thermite, it would need a high temperature in order to react, so it would not react months later, it would react right after the collapse, when the heat was at it highest point. Secondly, they would also have found massive piles of thermite that did not react at all, which obviously was not the case. And thirdly, as I already stated, the total amount needed would be totally absurd. Way more than would be needed to demolish the buildings.

So are you saying that there was a enormous amount of termite planted in the building, not to make it collapse, but to heat the debris after the collapse, and which would be ignited during a time span of several months? For what purpose would anyone do that? Does it make any sense?

You got it backwards, the reaction of thermite causes the heat. But lets say it wasnt thermite that did not react and came into contact with the steele, what kept on burning for months there amit all that steele and concrete. Office chairs? Like I said, that sounds even more fantastic than the thermite theory. Now some scientists made the claim they found thermite residues. Others say the indication of thermite could stem from elsewhere, like the aluminium of the plane, which still does not mean no thermite was used.

At any rate, office charis and telephones are a very poor candidate to keep up high temperatures for months.

reply to post by Cassius666


So are you saying that the heat that ignited the thermite came from another thermite reaction? Do you see the problem here? (as in, what initiated the first thermite reaction that initiated the other). Or do you think it was some sort of very long chain reaction that by some freak of nature kept going on for months?

Anyway, you do not address the point that the amounts needed are totally absurd. That alone is enough to reject it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666

 

So are you saying that the heat that ignited the thermite came from another thermite reaction? Do you see the problem here? (as in, what initiated the first thermite reaction that initiated the other). Or do you think it was some sort of very long chain reaction that by some freak of nature kept going on for months?

Anyway, you do not address the point that the amounts needed are totally absurd. That alone is enough to reject it.

How much thermite would be needed in your opinion? In the months leading up to the attack quite a lot could have been fitted inside.

Thermite reacts with steele and causes heat, not the other way around. I said its the best explanation anybody provided yet, but I am curious on your explanation on why red hot steele was pulled out of ground zero a month after the attack. What caused the longest structure fire in the history of mankind?

reply to post by Cassius666


Thermite does not react with steel, where did you get that from? I am not sure what caused the temperatures to be high so long exactly, but underground combustion of debris is the most likely explanation I heard. Thermite or explosives are next to impossible for the reasons I gave (which you did not refute).

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Thermite does not react with steel, where did you get that from? I am not sure what caused the temperatures to be high so long exactly, but underground combustion of debris is the most likely explanation I heard. Thermite or explosives are next to impossible for the reasons I gave (which you did not refute).

en.wikipedia.org...

No the reasons you gave do not rule out thermite. I dont see how they do. You just said I am wrong and insist that office chairs computers and desks were burning for well over a month.

reply to post by Cassius666


Can you quote the Wiki where it says thermite reacts with steel? Fact is, iron is a residue of a thermite reaction. Quiet the opposite.

I have given reasons why thermite is wrong:

1) you need an igniter.
2) you need huge amounts that serve no purpose but to heat debris after collapse.
3) no thermite was found.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Can you quote the Wiki where it says thermite reacts with steel? Fact is, iron is a residue of a thermite reaction. Quiet the opposite.

I have given reasons why thermite is wrong:

1) you need an igniter.
2) you need huge amounts that serve no purpose but to heat debris after collapse.
3) no thermite was found.

Well its what they found

world911truth.org...

But like I said, its the best explanation I got for the longest structural fire in history. I cant say too much about the details. I only know that wooden desks burning for over a month do not produce this.

moltenmetalsmokinggun.blogspot.com...

www.techimo.com...

You still think its me you gotta covince. If you clinge on the NIST report which makes those fantastic claims and resides at the fringe of society, its everybody else with some expertise you gotta convince first.

Just like Ahmed who made his own claims at the fringe of society has to convince the jew the Germans the rest of Europe first with his goverment report about his idea of the holocaust.

So you go tell Professor Steven Jones, BYU Physics Professor that he is wrong. I am no expert. I never claimed to be one. I just kind of stick with the many experts outside the NITS umbrella who question the report.

Call me narrow minded for not sticking with the small elite clan who believes in reptillians, bigfoot or the NITS report. That might not make me special, call me a sheeple, but I am not quite ready yet to wear a tinfoil hat.

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Cassius666
Or to find a ruin that burned close to that long, despite firefighters attempting to hose it.

Doesn't just this one sentence totally destroy the controlled demolition theory? Never in history a demolished building using explosives has shows such a feat.

Well there is no better explanation for that to occour than thermite either, which could have been used to bring down the towers, which could have been planted in the months leading up to the "attack". That must have escaped the watchfull eyes of marvin bush who headed the firm that provided security for the towers.

And we see yet another example of just how misinformed some people are. Marvin Bush was never in charge of the day to day security of the World Trade Center. That fact has been posted on ATS many,many times, and yet, people still cling to the lie that he was.

Originally posted by vipertech0596

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Cassius666
Or to find a ruin that burned close to that long, despite firefighters attempting to hose it.

Doesn't just this one sentence totally destroy the controlled demolition theory? Never in history a demolished building using explosives has shows such a feat.

Well there is no better explanation for that to occour than thermite either, which could have been used to bring down the towers, which could have been planted in the months leading up to the "attack". That must have escaped the watchfull eyes of marvin bush who headed the firm that provided security for the towers.

And we see yet another example of just how misinformed some people are. Marvin Bush was never in charge of the day to day security of the World Trade Center. That fact has been posted on ATS many,many times, and yet, people still cling to the lie that he was.

Stratsec formerly Securacom did not provide security for the wtc then?

en.wikipedia.org...

Nobody said he was personally in charge watching supervising the guards and locking up at night. I was speaking more figuratively, but okay I can understand if it sounded as if I thought he would put on his uniform for his night shift.

However I admit that there is no evidence that either stratsec or Marvin were related in that mess.

The NIST report is still a fantastic tale of special science and a string of very fantastic coincidences and unique events.

reply to post by Cassius666


Securacom had a contract to install security systems at the WTC, that much was true. However, it could not live up to it's responsibilities as the primary contractor and was excused from it's contract. Securacom did end up working for the company that took over the contract. The actual physical security was handled by the PAPD and the security department headed by John O'Neill.

Originally posted by Cassius666I only know that wooden desks burning for over a month do not produce this.

And how do you know this exactly? The thing with combustion is that it needs an external oxygen supply. So unreacted carbon based material can remain unreacted under the pile for months, and then when it starts to get oxygen as the cleaners dig deeper, it starts to burn. On the other hand, there is no mechanism to ignite thermite after months at all. Thermite either reacts directly, or it will not react at all. It needs an external heat source, which would not be available after months, if the other debris did not burn.

moltenmetalsmokinggun.blogspot.com...

www.techimo.com...

You still think its me you gotta covince. If you clinge on the NIST report which makes those fantastic claims and resides at the fringe of society, its everybody else with some expertise you gotta convince first.

Just like Ahmed who made his own claims at the fringe of society has to convince the jew the Germans the rest of Europe first with his goverment report about his idea of the holocaust.

So you go tell Professor Steven Jones, BYU Physics Professor that he is wrong. I am no expert. I never claimed to be one. I just kind of stick with the many experts outside the NITS umbrella who question the report.

Call me narrow minded for not sticking with the small elite clan who believes in reptillians, bigfoot or the NITS report. That might not make me special, call me a sheeple, but I am not quite ready yet to wear a tinfoil hat.

edit on 17-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

You should never choose which science to believe based on political reasons. Always look which science stand up to scrutiny, and try to think for yourself as much as possible. If you lack the knowledge or expertise, you should always follow the consensus, as for any theory you will find opponents. Unless you believe that almost all scientists in the world are part of a huge conspiracy to scam humanity, but if that is the case you are delusional and you have more alarming issues to address.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Cassius666I only know that wooden desks burning for over a month do not produce this.

And how do you know this exactly? The thing with combustion is that it needs an external oxygen supply. So unreacted carbon based material can remain unreacted under the pile for months, and then when it starts to get oxygen as the cleaners dig deeper, it starts to burn. On the other hand, there is no mechanism to ignite thermite after months at all. Thermite either reacts directly, or it will not react at all. It needs an external heat source, which would not be available after months, if the other debris did not burn.

moltenmetalsmokinggun.blogspot.com...

www.techimo.com...

You still think its me you gotta covince. If you clinge on the NIST report which makes those fantastic claims and resides at the fringe of society, its everybody else with some expertise you gotta convince first.

Just like Ahmed who made his own claims at the fringe of society has to convince the jew the Germans the rest of Europe first with his goverment report about his idea of the holocaust.

So you go tell Professor Steven Jones, BYU Physics Professor that he is wrong. I am no expert. I never claimed to be one. I just kind of stick with the many experts outside the NITS umbrella who question the report.

Call me narrow minded for not sticking with the small elite clan who believes in reptillians, bigfoot or the NITS report. That might not make me special, call me a sheeple, but I am not quite ready yet to wear a tinfoil hat.

edit on 17-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

You should never choose which science to believe based on political reasons. Always look which science stand up to scrutiny, and try to think for yourself as much as possible. If you lack the knowledge or expertise, you should always follow the consensus, as for any theory you will find opponents. Unless you believe that almost all scientists in the world are part of a huge conspiracy to scam humanity, but if that is the case you are delusional and you have more alarming issues to address.

Well I am in no position to debate scientists architects and structural engineers here in Germany, Europe and those in America who oppose the NIST report any more than I can tell holocaust survivors they did not really see the holocaust. They are the experts on it. However I looked into the NIST report and I have been pointed out and explained some of the contradictions, why its unscientific, what numbers were exagerated and why it does not stand up to scrutinity.

It is YOU who believes all the scientists in the world are commiting a conspiracy against the NIST report, that makes YOU delusional that makes YOU the guy who wears the tinfoil hat. That makes YOU the guy who believes in a wild conspiracy theory because some muslims hate your freedoms. If the scientists in Europe and Germany convince me to give the NIST report some credibility, I might change camp. So far they explained to me the fallacies errors and why it is unscientific and not worth the paper written on it.

I am sorry you are saddened I dont side with you. I am sure the moonhauxers are saddened too that most people side with all the other experts. Well I am going to side with all the other experts and not with the small elite club which BELIVES in the 911 report. Sorry, but thats how the world works. Sometimes a Galileo is out there and it turns out everybody else was wrong and the crazy guy right, but I am very confident in this case, you will remain the crazy guy. I hope it has been established who is in the tinfoil hat camp and who is not.

reply to post by Cassius666


You just need to realize that the vast majority accepts the official explanation. There is just a handful of dissidents, and only 2 I know of who published. Thats how it is in reality.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666

 

You just need to realize that the vast majority accepts the official explanation. There is just a handful of dissidents, and only 2 I know of who published. Thats how it is in reality.

If that is your perception of what you think is reality I do not really care. I dont know of anyone who accepts the official version and I am not going to wear a tinfoil hat screaming NIST report. I am sure the moonhauxers think too that the vast majority has been "enlightened" by their theories. That does not make it a fact.

Go right ahead email them and tell them they are slimy truthers.

firefightersfor911truth.org...

If you want to go around thinking that the NIST report is accepted in the mainstream then do so. I am not going to make a fool out of myself by embracing the NIST report. And like I said, it is not me you have to convince, it is the experts in America and the experts in Europe you have to convince. I admit to being no expert, but I wont follow a MR. nobody on a conspiracy site either. And if you want to go anywhere in life, I recommend you take off that tinfoil hat, Mr. tinfoil hat.

The whole thing is ridiculous. The event is being rationalized backwards.

The buildings were destroyed so it had to be the fire so the steel had to get hot enough.

But where do they tell us how many tons of steel were in the vicinity of the plane impact against the south tower? There had to be enough steel there to support another 29 stories of the building. So how could that much steel get hot enough to weaken in less than an hour?

But then it must have happened because the building was destroyed. it is just circular pseudo-logic to justify what people want to believe, it is not an explanation. Without accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete this entire incident is a bunch of crap. It is just dragging stupidity on and on and on...

But the laws of physics will never change. How long will the structural engineers make themselves look stupid?

psik

reply to post by Cassius666


Firefighters are no scientists, and are no experts on building collapses. For the rest, the number of publications (or rather the lack of) speak for itself. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what the consensus is.