Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?

reply to post by Varemia


Would say your argument is mute, with or without fire proofing, as still impossible and implausible..

rense.com...

Another series of tests sought to address the alleged weakening of the WTC support columns. During a first-run investigators placed an uninsulated steel column in a 2,012ºF (1,100ºC) furnace and measured the rise in its surface temperature. Notice, this laboratory furnace was significantly hotter than the fires on 9/11 caused by jet fuel or any other combustible in the WTC. The column reached 600ºC in just 13 minutes­­­the temperature range where significant loss of strength occurs. When the test was repeated again with an insulated column, the steel did not reach 600ºC even after ten hours. The NIST concluded that "the fires in WTC 1 and WTC 2 would not be able to significantly weaken the insulated....columns within the 102 minutes and 56 minutes, respectively, after impact and prior to collapse."[my emphasis][56]

The NIST interpreted these results as validating its favored hypothesis that the critical factor on 9/11 leading to the global failure of the WTC's support columns was the damage to the fireproofing insulation caused by the Boeing 767 impacts. But was this an unwarranted leap? It certainly was not supported by the NIST's metallurgical analyses, which showed that not even one of the 236 steel samples, including those from the impact areas and fire-damaged floors, showed evidence of exposure to temperatures in excess of 1,110ºF (600ºC) for as long as 15 minutes.[57] In fact, out of more than 170 areas examined on 16 recovered perimeter columns, only 3 reached temperatures in excess of 250ºC (450ºF) during the fires.[58] And why ? Well, perhaps, in part, because, as Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, admitted, "the jet fuel....burned out in less than ten minutes."[59] Also, NIST scientists made another surprising discovery: The actual amount of combustibles on a typical floor of the WTC turned out to be less than expected, only about 4 lbs./sq. foot. Furthermore, "the fuel loading in the core areas....was negligible."[60] The shocking fact is that the World Trade Center was fuel-poor, compared with most other buildings. The NIST estimated that a fire in a typical area of the building would have burned through the available combustibles at maximum temperatures (1,000ºC) in about 15-20 minutes.[61] Not nearly long enough even at that temperature to cause exposed steel to lose 80% of its strength.

Nor is this all. I searched the NIST report in vain for any acknowledgment that here, as in the case of the truss assembly test, the actual fire conditions on 9/11 were substantially different from the UL laboratory furnace. In fact, with respect to the columns the differences were at least as significant as with the truss assembly test, and call into sharp question the NIST's conclusion that damaged insulation was the critical factor. Although the NIST took the position that "temperatures and stresses were high in the core area,"[62] as I've noted the investigation suffered from a persistent lack of information about real conditions at the core. The NIST had no hard evidence about the actual amount of protective insulation damaged/dislodged during the impacts. The NIST report acknowledges this,[63] then goes on to assume that all structural members in the debris path at the time of impact suffered 100% loss of insulation.[64] Surely, we are safe to conclude that the Boeing 767 impacts did cause damage to, or strip away, a substantial portion of the fireproofing material. Exactly how much is not knowable. But even if the NIST estimate of total loss of fireproofing is correct, there is virtually no chance that the fires on 9/11 weakened the WTC's core piers within the allotted span of time: 56/103 minutes.

A Vast Heat Sink

The reason for this, nowhere acknowledged in the NIST report, ought to be obvious: The WTC's support columns did not exist in isolation. This was no laboratory furnace. The columns in each tower were part of an interconnected steel framework that weighed at least 100,000 tons; and because steel is known to be an excellent conductor of heat this massive steel superstructure functioned on 9/11 as an enormous energy sink. The total volume of the steel framework was vast compared with the relatively small area of exposed steel, and would have wicked away the fire-caused heat almost as quickly as it was generated. Anyone who has repaired a copper water pipe with a propane torch is familiar with the principle. One must sit and wait patiently for the pipe temperature to rise to the point where the copper finally sucks the solder into the fitting. While it is true that copper is more conductive than steel, the analogy holds, regardless. The fact that only three recovered steel samples showed exposure to temperatures above 25

reply to post by earthinhabitant


Just stop copy-pasting from some other guy. His bias is so clear that it's laughable. You clearly do not understand what he is saying, so instead of reasoning with your own brain, you are simply posting what he said. Apparently it was enough to convince you, so why won't it convince me?

The problem is that I see through bullcrap. I can tell that this guy is not considering anything in any form of complexity. He has reduced the factors to their minimum levels, and then acted as if there is some certainty that the towers would not have collapsed based on his assertions.

Some of his points are good to consider, but they say nothing about the impossibilities that you are trying to push. It's just a bunch of brainwashing crap that you are eating with a spoon.

Originally posted by Varemia

why would people ever occupy such a building, knowing such and presume it was a predictable and someone knew it had a huge flaw,

WTC 7 was hit by a bunch of debris from WTC 1. No building is designed to have another building land on it.

It's prolly more important, when considering 7, that the water mains were cut/destroyed when the towers fell.

There is and never was a huge fatal flaw in 7. It most likely would not have fallen if the sprinklers would have worked.

The resistance to failure to fire is a SYSTEM. Passive protection plus active suppression. The active suppression was not operative.

In the towers, BOTH were absent - the passive protection was blasted off the columns by the plane debris, and likewise the active systems were destroyed.

reply to post by Varemia

that was just from 1 of 1500...that were not on the take and even you hopefully can see the discrepancies, issues and conclusions in the NIST report is theory and subject to conjecture by the experts critiquing it...not just you and those who wrote it and promote it, so was not just one person, this is like 1500 to 1, your one being NIST.

Originally posted by earthinhabitant
reply to post by Varemia

 

that was just from 1 of 1500...that were not on the take and even you hopefully can see the discrepancies, issues and conclusions in the NIST report is theory and subject to conjecture by the experts critiquing it...not just you and those who wrote it and promote it, so was not just one person, this is like 1500 to 1, your one being NIST.

Of course it can be critiqued, but you are talking about rejecting anything that is in their reports on the grounds that someone disagrees with their conclusions. That's just stupid.

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


fire retardant present or not, and does not blow off like suggested and still does not explain reality...

reply to post by Fluffaluffagous


None of that has any relevance to the fact that WTC 7 fell into its own footprint.

No matter the amount of fire, or asymmetrical damage from flying debris, that is simply not possible.

OSers want to believe that it was a simple collapse, but what happens in a natural collapse is the opposite of what happens in an implosion demolition.

The rubble pile is centered around the axis of the building. 47 stories reduce to about 4. The rubble is mostly in the footprint.

If it was a natural collapse none of that would have happened. Find ONE natural collapse that has those features. All implosion demolitions do.

These were natural collapses caused by an earthquake...



Steel framed buildings are stronger than masonry.

reply to post by Varemia


nope, just non credible reports, such as NIST...that think it fairly common that it is not accepted, so no need to debate it...

What is your occupation, and that, that makes you an expert on NIST...have you ever or currently work for NIST, will ask again and be more specific, and general other agency that is implicated in the cover up or acts?

reply to post by ANOK


funny they are clinging to the very evidence that is in question and doubted as being credible, by so many experts and others, who are not shilling and puppets or being paid to say ...acting like it is the word of god, ...who is calling who what!

100s upon 100s of scientists & engineers have reached similar conclusions. Formed A&E for 911 Truth in 2007, Scientists for 911 Truth in 2010.

reply to post by Varemia


no, nothing wrong with disagreeing, especially when you have not provided any valid sources to be consider credible, as NIST' Reports are flawed, to say the least, and has be deemed so by countless more than is need to show NIST Report is fraudulent in more ways than one, if we are going to consider it valid evidence and/or theory..

Debunking the NIST reports has been done satisfactory and if you want to cling on to their theory as proof, we can go over each little detail for you, so can be clear, on what did and did not happen and what is theory and what is fact and verify and check our sources, as some obviously are consider a joke...and so are those who aspire to them...

The whole NIST report hinges on a false premise, that sagging trusses can pull in columns.

Why should we give any of it any credence?

we can compare this blazing building ...and there are others at this link here to compare to, that were fires, not demolitions...as we can compare to demolition and have no doubt that is a fire and not a demolition here, at all, would hope..

911research.wtc7.net...

The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire
mandarin fire
The Hotel Mandarin Oriental blazes

The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed.

Originally posted by ANOK
The whole NIST report hinges on a false premise, that sagging trusses can pull in columns.

Why should we give any of it any credence?

edit on 5/17/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Because it rhymes with sunkist? Or they are god and everyone else is wrong... both pathetic...

...maybe they are huddling up trying to figure out, how and where going to find credible source to explain the illusion theory...one that is not getting paid to say, ...as it sounding like someone getting paid around here, has not been denied...

VAr, oh you went and called in a mod to stop the quotes, as that is just as expected from those who cannot handle the truth and want to hide it and cover it up, still does not make your source any more credible and in fact, makes it even less in my book and you.


Rival list may need a member added to it...

o Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter: "...the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It's impossible."

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous

 

Find ONE natural collapse that has those features.

World Trade Center Building 7?

updated my signature with a new link, to help everyone here with wading through the mire...

Originally posted by earthinhabitant
VAr, oh you went and called in a mod to stop the quotes, as that is just as expected from those who cannot handle the truth and want to hide it and cover it up, still does not make your source any more credible and in fact, makes it even less in my book and you.


Rival list may need a member added to it...

edit on 17-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: (no reason given)

Hey, I didn't do anything of the sort. The mods acted on their own.

I think I'll play the other side then. I refuse to debate you, because everything said by A&E for 9/11 Truth is non-credible. I think the NIST is more credible, and the papers made in peer-reviewed academic journals are more credible.

There, see how you sound now?

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

World Trade Center Building 7?

LOL you must be joking, right?

Just a reminder, it is WTC 7 that is in question. So you need to find an example that is not WTC 7. You know, in order to compare it to WTC 7.

That is the task, to find a natural collapse that results in the same features as WTC 7, symmetrical, vertical, collapse centered around the buildings axis etc...

Because those are features of an implosion demolition, not a natural collapse. So you can not say WTC 7 was a natural collapse, unless you can show that those features are possible from a natural collapse.

reply to post by Varemia


well, soon as you complained about cut and paste, got pm with a -20 points note...so maybe they got a little complaint from someone else, as did not mean to point the finger and jump to conclusions...

reply to post by Varemia


take a no response on your employer, occupation, is a yes...