Can someone explain something to me?

[WilliamPitt]

More and more these days, I get people telling me they believe in the controlled demolition theory. I ask why, and they say they saw a documentary. Then I ask them to explain how it was done, and I never seem to get a clear response.

So here's what I always offer.

When those planes hit, they did four things:

1. Started a big fire;

2. Caused the building to torque around, damaging the superstructure;

3. Knocked the insulation off the steel reinforcements underneath the floors above and below the impact;

4. Disrupted the sprinkler system.

Steel melts at about 1,400 degress. The fire within the buildings was reported to have reached somewhere around 2,000 degrees. No sprinkler system was working to decrease the heat. With the insulation knocked off the steel struts under the floors, they melted and collapsed inwards and down. Thus, the buildings folded up on themselves and collapsed straight down and in.

As for WTC7 - the building I am always handed as the irrefutable proof - I have seen pictures that show severe damage and fire before it collapsed. Also, there were two 30,000 gallon tanks of fuel under the basement, there to be used by emergency generators if the power got cut. Between the damage to WTC7 from the hits on the main WTC buildings, and the explosion of those two tanks (i.e. the suspicious explosions reported by firefighters), it is entirely concievable that the building would fall into its own footprint.

This all makes a hell of a lot more sense than the idea that nefarious shadow people wired a bunch of buildings to explode without anyone seeing them, hearing them, noticing anything amiss, and without this massive undertaking coming to light at some point. Remember, this is the admin that failed to keep relatively simple secrets like the Wilson leak and the NSA wiretapping. I don't think they have the brain wattage to keep something like this under wraps.

So, explain to me why I'm wrong.

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Hi, I can see you're new down here

Welcome to the DUngeon. :hi:

The first thing you are wrong about is the two 30,000 gallon tanks of fuel. First of all, there were four tanks. Two 6000 gallon tanks and two 12,000 gallon tanks. All four tanks were found intact, they did not explode. The two bigger tanks still had most of their fuel inside of them. The two 6000 gallon tanks were found empty. There was no signs of spillage in the area around the tanks. The ground under the tanks had no signs of contamination.

So where did 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel go? I think I have a pretty good idea. By the way, got a light?

[greyl]

2. There were at least 9 tanks, not all were found intact,

and there was evidence of contamination. This is based on your own thread from a few days ago and the link you provided. It's absolutely amazing how untruths are repeated, even after they're corrected.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

edit: forgot a word, adding link to your thread

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. There were other day tanks throughout the building

they were smaller ones that probably kicked in when the electric ran out. By afternoon most of them would have run out of fuel. Some of the day tanks were hooked into the pressurized fuel system that ran from the basement through most of the 5th floor.

They didn't need thermite to take down the building. Too bad the shut off valves are probably all gone. I'd love to see how many of them were left open.

[greyl]

6. I know. There are 2 other points I made that you aren't addressing.nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. There was a small amount found around the tanks

but nothing significant.

You accuse me of repeating untruths. Wow, I thought you would have a little more trust in me by now. You put your faith in the wrong places.

[greyl]

11. Ok, there's one more point re: "found intact"

That makes three untruths by my count, unless you can provide evidence that they were all found intact.

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. Jeez, do I have to hold your hand for you?

Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: "In addition to Con Ed's oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

The two 6,000 gallon tanks supplying the 5th floor generators through a pressurized piping system were always kept full for emergencies and were full that day.

Both tanks were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after the collapse. Some fuel contamination was found in the gravel below the tanks and sand below the slab on which the tanks were mounted, but no contamination was found in the organic marine silt/clay layer underneath.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf#search=%22WTC%207%20floor%20plan%20NIST%22

Instead of being such a pain, you could help with some of the heavy lifting around here. :-)

[greyl]

16. Are you suggesting that "intact" equals "damaged and empty"?nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. Intact has in not exploded

Has in no evidence of being on fire.

Has in probably being intact before the collapse.

Has in being damaged has a result of the collapse but still recognizable.

[greyl]

39. Ok, so what have we come to agreement on?

How would you reword your statement from post #1?:

First of all, there were four tanks. Two 6000 gallon tanks and two 12,000 gallon tanks. All four tanks were found intact, they did not explode. The two bigger tanks still had most of their fuel inside of them. The two 6000 gallon tanks were found empty. There was no signs of spillage in the area around the tanks. The ground under the tanks had no signs of contamination.

Also, when you say "not exploded, no evidence of being on fire, and probably being intact before the collapse", 1. are you talking about all of the tanks? 2. What support is there for making those 3 statements?

[Bushwick Bill]

3. I am agnostic on demolition.

I am generally agnostic on demolition of the towers, although I can't help but think WTC 7 was demolished given who was in that building and the way it fell. Demolition advocates seem convinced by how the towers exploded outward near the top, the speed of the collapses, alleged pools of steel long after the attack, and the complete pulverization of concrete.

This guy seems to sum up a lot of the feelings of the truthers on this.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2349

The truther demolition fans love the Steven Jones paper.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Many also love Jim Hoffman.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

When I look at this core, then back on the shots of the second tower hit (if you see an angle from the side of entry, to me it appears to enter the corner of the building), I see most of the jet fuel burn up outside the building, and then I read "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines"...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/audiotape.html
...it makes me think twice.



Will, if nothing else, check out minutes 45-60 of this video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8076200333701191665
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=95

In my opinion, the 9/11 Truth movement should be focusing on why Sibel Edmonds is being gagged if she says she knows how the 9/11 attacks were financed (and that high-profile Americans are tied to the crimes); why the 9/11 Commission doesn't address the fact that the head of Pakistani intelligence wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta when the same guy was meeting with our congressional intelligence leaders on the morning of 9/11; why the 9/11 Commission bothered publishing a report based on NORAD testimony when they now admit in a new book that NORAD lied to them so badly they were going to recommend a Justice Department investigation; and who coordinated the wargames that miraculously occurred at the time of the attack.

[FoxOnTheRun]

32. The Truth movement is fractioned

In my opinion, the 9/11 Truth movement should be focusing on why Sibel Edmonds is being gagged if she says she knows how the 9/11 attacks were financed (and that high-profile Americans are tied to the crimes); why the 9/11 Commission doesn't address the fact that the head of Pakistani intelligence wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta when the same guy was meeting with our congressional intelligence leaders on the morning of 9/11; why the 9/11 Commission bothered publishing a report based on NORAD testimony when they now admit in a new book that NORAD lied to them so badly they were going to recommend a Justice Department investigation; and who coordinated the wargames that miraculously occurred at the time of the attack.

Its a good thing to have a base of researchers who do the work with actual data, so the rest of the people have something to work with.



PAKISTAN'S INTER-SERVICES INTELLIGENCE (ISI)
The ISI and the CIA are friends, good friends. They helped to train Osama, helped to get the Russians addicted to heroin in Afghanistan ...

War Games

KEAN: Three questions, then I know the general has to leave.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Ask about the war games that were planned for 9/11.

KEAN: Commissioner Gorelick?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Tell us about the 9/11 war games.

GORELICK: Could you please be quiet? We have only a few minutes with General Myers, and I'd like to ask a question. General Myers, the -- I'm sorry.

KEAN: I would ask please people in the audience to be quiet if you want to stay here.

http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html


Ruled by criminals, FraudVotingmachines, Patriot Act 1&2, Selective Service Draft Boards, Multiple Wars, Media apathy etc.
It's clear where this is heading...

In numerous polls 36% to over 50% know there is a cover up and involvement of the gov.
I think that the only people, who believe the governments version are the people, who think WMD have been found in Iraq.

Maybe the 100 Million or more people who are awake can make a change.
There was a mass awakening when the C-span aired the LA 911 Symposium. The Neads/Norad Tapes followed.
People like Webster Tarpley or Alex Jones went to numerous Talk Radio shows, Mike Malloy for example.....ehm


Maybe a lot of people will come to Ground Zero on 8-11th September and show significant numbers.
http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/

[pauldp]

4. You have heard Silverstein's "Pull it" comment right? What do you think?

You are aware the 911 Commission did not mention the collapse of 7 in their report?
You do realize this bizarre unprecedented collapse was seen by very few people on television.
You do realize we are still waiting on the final report from NIST explaining how it collapsed.
I assume you've seen the footage from various angles of 7 coming down. Does it not look like a CD?

I am assuming you are aware of these things Will, since I know you poke your head in here occasionally.
So what do you make of them?

The physical evidence was destroyed so completely I think we may never know for sure. However, you
can't fault people for thinking the explanation for a suspicious, unexplained event could be that it is
exactly what it looks like.

[theanarch]

13. well, here's my two cents...

...the larger WTC buildings were wired for controlled demolition, possibly after the 1993 bombing, and more likely after the 2000 "Millinium Plot" (where hijacked airliners were to be flown into European landmarks--like the Eiffel Tower--on New Years/Centurys/Milliniums Eve), just in case the need arose to "pull them down" in a controlled demolition, as opposed to the more costly and life-threatening event of having them fall (for whatever reason) at an angle into other skyscrapers, and across whole city blocks. Once this pull-down capacity became known to Junior's junta, all they needed was an excuse to pull them down, and make it look like an act of 'terrorism' (the Pearl Harbor-like event the PNAC-advisors around Junior had explicitely desired). This might answer the LIHOP/MIHOP discussion: The NSA (e.g. Rice) obviously knew that 'something big' was planned and was operational; probably didn't take much detective work (mostly developed by the FBI, and we all know how they were ignored/ordered to stand down) to guess it would be airplanes and (given the precident) the WTC. So they let it happen because the planes-into-buildings themselves weren't necessary to bring the building(s) down...it was only sufficient that it APPEAR they did (e.g. as long as it produced "great visuals" for endlessly-looped-on-tv videos--smoke! flames! falling/burning debris/people!). Which means the 9/11 hijackings could have been/probably were "legitimate" as reported--e.g., a genuine terrorist act allowed to happen, and manipulated to be worse than it otherwise might have been. As explanatory narratives go, this is a far more streamlined, uncomplicated and sensible 'conspiracy theory' than the one's already out there; and in some ways, so obvious that it took longer for anyone to think of it. Just a thought.

BTW: these remarks concern the WTC alone; and (purposely) does not address the other two planes.

edited for syntax

[MissWaverly]

97. makes sense except for 1 thing

Why were people told to go back into the buildings, if they knew in an emergency they would
pull the buildings then why were people told to go back.

[theanarch]

117. only a guess, of course,

but given the level of confusion, miscommunication and panic, and degree to which command and control was dysfunctioning, it could simply be an accident (i don't envy anyone trying to sort out who knew what when, and the responsibilities that went with each). As Napoleon Bonaparte said: never ascribe to evil what is more adequately explained by incompetence.

[TheWraith]

148. Actually, "Stay where you are" is standard proceedure in an emergency

For any large building or facility that has many people not trained in emergency response, the standard operating proceedure in an emergency is tell everyone to stay where they are and remain calm. If people panicked or tried to escape, they could injure themselves or others in a stampede, do something stupid, or interfere with emergency response efforts, say by getting in the way of firefighters or paramedics. Letting people run around in an emergency could potentially make it worse. Of course, had they known what was going to happen, they'd have ordered everyone to get out of the building as fast as possible, but instead they adhered to protocol.

And to address an earlier point, the WTC buildings were not wired for demolition--the "pull" comment referred to pulling the firefighting teams from WTC7, because the NYFD thought it was about to collapse. They were right.

[FoxOnTheRun]

7. A Crime has been comitted and there is not much evidence left, but

1.

9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

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."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape.htm

Because fires were going out.
And remember South Tower fell first although it was not hit perfectly.

So the firefighters were at 9:52 at 78th floor reporting the fires could be knocked down with two lines.
And the South Tower collapsed 6-7 min after that at 9:58-59.
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc2-strike-0.avi

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/woman-waving-close.avi
You can see a woman waving and the smoke is black, which indicates low oxygene.


2. The top started to torque around but why should it go all the way down encountering the most resistance?
The floors beneath had not that much damage (fire and heat goes up)



What about the explosions in the B levels(seconds before the impact of the plane) of the WTC, witnessed by numerous people including William Rodriguez?
And the destruction in the Lobby filmed by the Naudet Brothers ?

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. Yet, the ground floor windows at WTC5

which was consumed in fire are still intact on the east and north side.

[Carefulplease]

15. This might be because no jet fuel got spilled...

This might be because no jet fuel got spilled in the elevator shafts of WTC5.

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. Where is the evidence that fuel poured down

the elevator shafts of the two towers? Jet fuel doesn't 'pour' out of exploding planes. It is consumed in the fireball or it atomizes.

[Carefulplease]

40. Proof of jet fuel in the elevator shafts...

The proof of fuel spills in the elevator shafts is from the large number of elevator doors on many floors below (all the way to the sub-levels) and above the impact zone that burst open when the aircraft hit -- all of them from shafts that lead directly to the impact floors and none at all from any other shaft. Numerous witnesses of those explosions reported the smell of the fuel.

The fireball can not consume all the fuel spilled in the towers because of the limited amount of oxygen available initially. The overpressure from the fireball pumps the unburnt fuel through all available exit and this includes all the hollow shafts that were damaged by the plane impact on the core.

[Old and In the Way]

42. Actually, only 1 elevator went from top to bottom

The Naudet film doesn't show any evidence of a fuel fire in the lobby, either. Just a lot of destruction.

[Carefulplease]

43. This is just a shematic view...

Edited to add references and comment on fire.

There were roughly a hundred elevators in each tower.

There were two express elevators (#6 and #7) in each tower that ran from the sub levels to Windows on the World restaurant (WTC1) and to the observation deck (WTC 2). There was also a freight elevator (car #50) that served all the floors. So three shafts ran all the length of each tower.

There is no evidence of jet fuel fire in the video? The overpressure can travel further than the burning gasses. Any atomized or gaseous jet fuel that would have made it to the lobby would have burned fast.

http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-7index.htm
p. 34

http://www.fireox-international.com/fire/NFPA1993WTCIncidentReport.pdf

"Only three elevators in each tower, one freight and two passenger, traverse the entire height of the building. The freight elevator has door openings on all floors and basement levels. One of the passenger elevators that traverse the entire building has door openings 15 on every floor between the 78th floor and the top of the building, and it has openings in the basement levels and openings on a few floors in the lower two-thirds of the building."

[Old and In the Way]

66. I stand corrected on the elevators.

I still don't think I saw any evidence of sooty smoke in that film...if all this fuel had dumped into the shaft(s) and ignited, I'd think there'd be some serious fire and smoke requiring the firefighter's attention when they arrived in the lobby.

[DoYouEverWonder]

62. I don't doubt people smelled fuel

the question is where was the fuel they were smelling come from?

There was also a call to FDNY about a gas smell near the WTC towers that is documented in the Nanett film, before the 1st Tower was hit. That was how they got the great footage of the plane going in that was filmed from the base of the tower.

At the moment, I've been looking into the diesel fuel storage at WTC 7, but in the process I have been coming across info about fuel storage in the other buildings. There may have been tanks in the sublevels of the Towers for emergency generators and the fuel for some of those generators may have been piped up through the elevator shafts. This is an area I haven't finished researching, so at this point let's call it speculation on my part.

[Mist]

75. Not to mention, the planes were on the outer edges of the buildings-

how close to the elevator shafts could they have been? Plus, the doors to elevator shafts are closed, as a rule. That "fuel going down the elevator shafts" was something I felt was beyond belief the first time I heard it. Odd how much of the story of 9/ll seems to have been constructed off the top of someone's head, with no actual examination.

[petgoat]

86. I don't see how jet fuel moving at 450 mph can be persuaded to

stop in 100 feet and change course 90 degrees so it falls straight down.
It would have to hit a mighty solid wall to stop it and make it puddle
on the floor so it would run down the shafts.

[TomClash]

131. Supposedly the fuselage from UA 175 hit the roof at 5 WTC

Or at least that's what the FBI claimed. I suspect the rest of the building burned quickly because Borders Books was located there - but not in the area shown by your photo. That area was mostly escalators descending into the Concourse.

[sabbat hunter]

61. welcome to DU

that is one report on the 78th floor of the south tower, the only stairwell that was accessible due to damage and fire. near this area there was little fire, but it doesnt take into account what was going on other floors which they didnt get to/go to yet.

too often it is repeated that oh the firefighters said the fire was small. they are only talking about the fire that they were able to get to in the south tower on one floor. not about the entire fire.


also based on a recent special on national geographic channel, that woman after waving jumped from the building. if the fire was small as it is claimed over and over, why would she jump.


if i can find a link to the full video i will get it. but that clip does not show the whole story.

[FoxOnTheRun]

63. Thanks

I've been reading DU occasionally for a year but wasn't aware of a September 11th forum




This woman jumped?


What about him?



Lets assume the fire and plane knocked out the 78th floor and around.
Why should the whole building collapse?
Pancaking is not possible due to free fall speed.
And the Explosions in the basement seconds before the plane hit?

[marions ghost]

88. Is it true

that there are seismic records of an explosion occurring just before each tower fell?

[FoxOnTheRun]

91. I haven't looked much into it

They recorded the impact of the planes with 0.7 and 0.9 Mag

It's not much, The best thing would be to ask all survivors like William Rodriguez.
But not many want to listen to them.
I've listened to great interview, maybe half a year ago, but can't find the mp3.
His first thoughts were that a generator blew up, and he also was there when the 93 bombing took place.
So he knows a bit about those things.


http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/story11_16_01.html

[marions ghost]

94. OK thank you for that info

n/t

[wildbilln864]

109. mg, welcome to the dungeon..

Here's one related link
Click here!

[momzno1]

165. this 3 part video series examines some of the seismic and explosive q's

This man was across the Hudson in Hoboken NJ and filmed both towers collapse.
He leads a very scientific analysis of the events.
I found it very informative and interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCDUyV6aXeM

[wildbilln864]

10. Steel melts at 1400 degrees!?

Where'd you come up with that? Are you talking degrees farenheit?
It's my understanding that steel melts at 2800 degrees F. and the fires didn't get over 1800 degrees F.!
And that peak temperature of 1800 degrees didn't last long enough to melt steel before the temp declined. So why was there evidence of molten steel weeks after the event?

[wildbilln864]

17. here's one link...

http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

[Carefulplease]

14. The issues of temperatures and steel's melting point...

Actually, structural steel melts at temperatures around 1500 degree Centigrade or 2700 degree Fahrenheit. The temperature reached by the fires wouldn't have much exceeded 1000C or 1100C. However, structural steel looses roughly half its strength around 600C. So the weakening of the heated steel and the stresses incurred by the structure from differential thermal expansion, rather than the melting of steel, account for the collapse of the already damaged structure.

[mhatrw]

21. There's no evidence that any steel was exposed to even 600C

temperatures.

Not a single piece of metal recovered by NIST demonstrated exposure to such temperatures:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=45315&mesg_id=45315

[LARED]

29. Actually there is plenty of evidence the fires were over 600C

The NIST knows with high certainty and reliability what temperature fires reach in office fires. Those effects on steel have been studied extensively.

[mhatrw]

38. Yes, they are typically 650C to 900C.

So why does NIST claim 1000C without evidence? Note that both of these fires burned for less than two hours, and there are firefighter witness reports that the fires that existed could have been put out relatively easily.

Note that the temperature of the fire would only translate to the temperature of the steel if the vast majority of steels' fireproofing actually was stripped away by the plane crash in the exact vicinity of the hottest fires. NIST doesn't have any convincing evidence that this was the case, either, which offers an explanation for the complete lack of any metal that reached 600C.

[LARED]

53. read this

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/fulltext/nrcc42466/nrcc42466.pdf

[mhatrw]

74. The paper proves MY point.

See figure 3.

Fire in real world = 800C

Fire in NIST's fantasy world = 1000C to 1100C

[LARED]

77. It does????? How?

The large quantity of jet fuel that spread across several floors of the building ignited much of the building and aircraft contents. This caused simultaneous fires across several floors at the same time. This generated fire conditions significantly more severe than those anticipated in typical building fires (Yong and Kodur 2000, FEMA 2002). The maximum fire temperatures attained in the WTC fires were in the range of 1,000° to 1,100°C. These temperatures were not significantly different from other typical office building fires. However, the rise in fire temperatures was much faster than those in typical building fires and represented typical hydrocarbon fires with temperatures reaching about 800°C in the first 3 to 4 minutes (ASTM 1993).

In Figure 3 the time-temperature curves from two standard tests and typical building fires based on temperature measurements acquired in experiments involving office furnishing conducted by DeCicco, et al., (1972) in the Hudson Terminal Building (30 Church Street, New York), is compared. Temperature development in the WTC fires in the intial stages is likely to be closer to the ASTM E-1529 curve.

However, the fire size and heat output in WTC fires was much higher than that of typical office building fires. The heat output generated from WTC fires was about 2-5 GW (FEMA 2002, Rehm 2002) and comparable to the power produced by a large commercial power generating station.

[mhatrw]

84. See figure 3.

It shows the results the actual temperature measurements of an actual office fire fluctuating between roughly 650C and 800C as expected. It also shows the AST E119 (building) time vs. temperature curve, in which the temperature increases to about 825C after an hour.

The ASTM-E1529 curve (which is the ONLY shown curve for which the temperature even approaches 1000C) is supposed to model a large hydrocarbon pool (typically, a fuel container) fire -- not an office building fire. Why try to pretend otherwise?

How in the hell can spilling perhaps a half a 767 load of fuel (a lot of it was consumed in the fireball and much of it was atomized into the air outside the building) in a building the size of the WTC towers be compared to fuel tank? Consider the total volume of the building, the structural damage, the fact that the building was not water tight and force of gravity upon liquids.

Name me one scientific reason to believe that the WTC tower fires are modeled better by hydrocarbon pool fuel container fires than by office building fires. We are talking about two of the largest office buildings ever designed, if not the largest. They just don't magically change from office buildings into giant fuel tanks because less than a millionth of their total volume is dispersed with fuel.

[LARED]

90. I saw figure 3. I was not impressed

You are willfully ignoring a direct statement about fires in the WTC in favor of graph used as a guide.

[mhatrw]

92. Here's a simple question. Were the WTC towers

A. buildings

or

B. fuel containers?

Please explain NIST's scientific basis for using the fire temperature curve associated with B rather than A to model the WTC fires.

[LARED]

104. Pay attention.

The report is not from the NIST. It is from a Canadian group. If you bothered to read the report you would find out their reasoning for using curve B.

[mhatrw]

105. Please explain those reasons in your own words.

I've read the report. I don't see any reasons. I see a wishful assumption.

[mhatrw]

76. There is no evidence that any WTC steel ever reached temperatures

in excess of 600C.

NIST assumes:

1) the WTC fires are better modeled as giant fuel container fire rather than office fire (even though the smoke is thick and black as is the case with the typical office fire and not the typical fuel container fire)

2) the plane impacts knocked off the vast majority of the steel's fireproofing in the exact vicinity where the subsequent fires burned hottest (this postulate was "tested" only by firing several shotgun blasts directly at a piece of WTC steel and pretending that this somehow modeled the plane impacts)

3) what the actual recovered metal -- not a single piece of which showed anyh signs of being exposed to 600C temperatures -- actually demonstrates is meaningless compared to assumptions (1) and (2).

[LARED]

79. There is abundant evidence that the fire were over 600 C

The NIST is one of the worlds authorities regarding life safety studies in buildings. There was a high level of video evidence showing the scale, intensity, and movement of the fires in the WTC's. That will empirically determine the fire temperatures.

[FourScore]

80. Is that sort of like the

high level of video evidence showing the lack of scale, intensity and movement in the WTC7 fires?

[FourScore]

82. self-delete

[mhatrw]

81. Yes. It's a simple empirical measurement.

You just press the thermometer into the video tape and multiply the result by 3/2 to make up for the missing dimension.

[LARED]

89. Why not actually expand your vision to

include reality. The NIST is an authority


http://www.fire.nist.gov/

[mhatrw]

93. Funny that you'd mention reality. Name one real world building

fire for which a temperature over 1000C was directly confirmed in the first hour of burning.

I'll make it even easier for you. For almost all large scale office building fires other than the WTC towers, the debris was extensively tested to determine its temperature exposure. Please show us any debris of any office building fire in history for which any recovered materials showed long term exposure to temperatures above 1000C.

[LARED]

108. If your interested I'd check

fire.nist.com. to find that information.

Other than that I will diligently do your homework for you right after you name me one office fire started after a commercial aircraft impacted it at 400 + MPH loaded with fuel.

[mhatrw]

112. Yes, of course. The "it was unique in all history" excuse.

I'm looking for the scientific justification (other than simply assuming the worst imaginable case because the towers collapsed so quickly) for modeling office building fires as fuel container fires rather than building fires.

I'm saying there is none. You and the NIST are saying there is one. You have your homework cut out for you.

[petgoat]

95. That NIST is an authority does not mean that they're

necessarily telling the truth.

NIST is an agency of the Department of Commerce, the Director of which is
a political appointment by the Bush adminstration.

[Grateful for Hope]

96. You have said this a lot better than I could have

Thank you.

[petgoat]

100. Kevin Ryan pointed that out in his address at the

Chicago conference.

Here's the 54 minute version http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1881839648593493167
Here's a 27 minute version http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1125095941324931668

It's a pretty dry presentation but it's full of gold.

Here's my notes on it:

Kevin Ryan presentation

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/presentation-by-kevin-ryan-from.html

No building exhibiting all the characteristics of demolition
had ever not been a demolition.

Mike Taylor of Nat'l Ass'n of Demolition Kors said it looked like a CD.

Ronald Hamburger--thought charges had been placed. Then contributed to
both NISt and FEMA reports.

NIST reports to the Dept of Commerce, Secu of CommerCe is Carlos Gutierrez

NIST's director is a Bush appointee.


Open letter from 60 scientists: Buscists "deliberately and systematically distorting
scientific fact in the service of policy goals."


Union of Concerned Scientists statement: "Serious pattern of undermining science"

House Committee on Gov't Reforms: "manipulated the scientific process and distorted
or suppressed scientific findings."



Griffin: No building exhibiting all the characteristics of demolition
had ever not been a demolition.

Mike Taylor of Nat'l Ass'n of Demolition Kors said it looked like a CD.

Ronald Hamburger--appeared to him that charges had been placed. Then contributed
to both NISt and FEMA reports.



99.7% of the steel evidence was destroyed.

"melted steel" theories originally were validated by BBC, Scientific American, NOVA,
and profesors from major universities.

National Geographic cited very high temps: (2900 f?)
A&E/History Channel (2500 f?)

None of these people have apologized.


Steel melts at 2800 F; jet fuel burns at max 1500 degrees.

Gas temps exceed steel temps.

thermodynamic calcs show steel temps reached max of 600 F in impact zone.


ASCE report evolved into FEMA/BPAT 5/02

Silverstein/Weidlinger report 10/02

NIST report:



the same ASCE team that did the initial report on WTC (Gene Corley,
Charles Thornton, Paul Mlakar, Mete Sozen) also did the OK City report--
these four were among the 8 in the WTC team.

Corley headed the team. Thornton-Tomasetti was given control of the site.
Tomasetti cleared the decision to recycle the steel, later regretted it.


By Jan, Manning was calling the report a half-baked farce, Cheney went to
Tom Daschle and asked him to limit the scope of the investigation, and W visited
Daschle to reinforce this.


<<<<Note Thornton's partner, Richard Tomasetti, was reported to be behind the unprecedented and widely criticized decision to destroy most of the steel evidence.11 Says http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690

11: <11> James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center (New York: Times Books, 2003), 330. >>>>


99.7% of the steel evidence was destroyed.

John Skilling, WTC designer, said in 1993 that the analysis anticipated that the greatest problem of a plane crash would be the fires. The structure would still be there.

NOVA video was 4/02 (Corley and Thornton) FEMA report was
5/02-- pancake.

6/02 NIST starts. Corley makes "public comment" statement:
Look at the floor connections.


Most important NIST material:

1-5 temps
1-6 collapse
1-7 WTC 7


Authors had participated in the FEMA report, and the explanations
are quite different.

10/02 Corley and T-T were involved in the Silverstein report.
This was connected to the Silverstein insurance claim. It concludes there was no floor failure; column failure only.

(Ryan speculates that a floor failure would mean a design error
resulting in only one event.)

NIST is the TNRAT report (They'll Never Read All This)

10 Characteristics of Demolition

(not sure about some of these)
Sudden onset
Straight Down
free fall speed
total collapse
sliced steel
signals of earthquake
pulverization of concrete
dust clouds
....ejections (squibs)
demolition rings
pocketsof molten steel

NIST 9/05 42 sub-reports, 10,000 pages

NIST document review original documents: original fire resistance test data and Skilling fire resistance design analysis missing.

original design claims:

236 samples saved was 0.3% of the steel
Paint deformation test showed less than 2% of the samples
showed temps above 480 F.

Steel microstructure studies showed no samples reached
crticial half-strength value. (600 C)

Before the steel analysis NIST claimed that samples had been
selected from the impact and fire damage areas.

After the analysis NIST said none of the steel samples was
from zones where high heating was predicted.


Shotgun tests of fireproofing.

Workstation burn test achieved desired results (in terms of
gas temps, not steel temps) by doubling the amount of hydrocarbon
fuel and over-ventilating.

WTC1 had new fireproofing upgrade with 2X the amount NIST used
in its floor models. NIST doubled the floor load.

realistic computer simulation parameters were replaced with extreme parameters

the investigation was deceptive and unscientific:
essential documents were missing
eyewitness testimony was ignored
physical tests that disproved pre-determined conclusions
were downplayed or ignored
The entire theory is built on fudged and inaccessible
computer simulations


NIST says 14% of n tower core columns and 15 of s tower were severed.

Design claims called for 2000% live load increase in perimeter columns before failure.

NIST theory depends on the proposition that the fireproofing was
widely dislodged.

The testing involved firing 15 shotgun rounds. Fireproofing was applied to plywood. The fireproofing could not have been widely
dislodged because the energy was not available.

calculations showed that all the KE of the planes was consumed
in punching through the columns and the floors and shredding the
plane. 2500 MJ.

NIST 1-6a Appendix C shows that 1 MJ / square meter was needed to dislodge the fireproofing. 6000 square meters of area was involved.

Floor sag issue: after two hours in a high-heat furnace, the
35 foot deck sagged only a few inches if at all.

In the computer they turned the sagging to 42 inches.

In the model they doubled the time.


Objective findings would have been:

Few columns were damaged

remaining columns had excess capacity

Fireproofing could not easily be dislodged

steel could not have softend at those temps

even long term tests showed minimal sagging of floors

forces were not sufficient to buckle columns

spread of instability would have taken more time than it did
and would not result in uniform free fall.

They reported findings directly contradicting their physical
testing.


WTC7: Tallest building in 33 states. 6.6 seconds.

[Grateful for Hope]

101. It will take me some time to go through all of this

but, thank you, Petgoat, for all this info!

BTW, I will be in NY until 9/7 on vacation and looking for a home. I have to be back at work on 9/8. I sure wish I could remain in NY over the 9/11 weekend. I would definitely be participating.

[Carefulplease]

118. Petgoat, ought you not to remove items that were shown...

Petgoat, ought you not to remove items that were shown to you to be false already?

"Fireproofing was applied to plywood"

[Grateful for Hope]

99. One thing I have also been thinking about

is that, IMO, it is never wise to subscribe "authority" onto any agency of the state without demanding proof that that agency warrants that adjective.

[LARED]

107. So what?

The directors of many Federal Organizations are appointed by the President, and have been for years.

[John Q. Citizen]

110. EPA is an authority on air sampling. So what went wrong?

CIA and DIA, are authorities on WMD. So what went wrong?

NORAD is an authority on AIR Defenses. So what went wrong?

FEMA is an authority on disater management. So what went wrong.

Your confidence in authority may require an extreme make over, LARED.

[treestar]

150. Why doesn't any building collapse due to fire?

Or at least any fire that hot, even if made of structural steel? Wouldn't a smaller building collapse even more quickly?

[mhatrw]

20. Steel melts at about 1500C. No office fire has ever reached 2000C.

Never.

NIST estimates that the WTC-1 & WTC-2 fires produced temperatures as high as 1000C. Yet 99% of all office fire temperatures range between 600C and 900C. In fact, the maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating is less than 900C.

Moreover, NIST's physical examination of hundreds of pieces of recovered steel revealed not a single piece that had been exposed to temperatures over 600C for any period longer than a couple of seconds. Finally, only two pieces of metal were recovered for which any pre-collapse exposure greater than 250C was observed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=45315&mesg_id=45315

Could you please share with us the pictures that show severe damage and fire to WTC-7 before it collapsed. This animated gif appears to show controlled demolition:

[FourScore]

22. Hi Will!

How strange to see your post here today on this forum since I was just thinking of you yesterday and wondering what your take on 911 might be. My mother and I are on your listserve and I greatly appreciate your work.

I have to say that I definitely believe in MIHOP. The path to that point was agonizing to say the least. In the beginning (before I researched it for myself) I believed that such conspiracy theories were nonsense and ridiculous. Not anymore.

I am sure you have seen much of this before. Still...

For images of other high-rise fires that exceeded the temp and duration of the WTC fires:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

For images of other collapsed steel and concrete high rise buildings:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/analysis/compare/collapses.html

For numerous live witness testimonies of bombs exploding in the buildings. (There used to be a compilation of these on one video, but I can't seem to find it.)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54747

For the trailer of the upcoming documentary: 9/11: Press For Truth with Paul Thompson and the Jersey Girls:
http://www.911pressfortruth.com

I think it is also important to read Paul Thompson's website. The general publics view of 9/11 tends to be very myopic. Like the movie Syriana so deftly portrayed, events are much more complex. There are layers and layers of interwoven stories that cannot be ignored if one wants to understand the entire picture.

All I can say is that I send you my prayers on this journey. What you will find is frightening and disturbing.

[democraticinsurgent]

23. See this video

The video many people may be referring to is the recently released 9/11 Eyewitness: Hoboken.

Their website is here:http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/

Link to the scientific highlights on google here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4965356265227042415

Will, I have to say that the more I look at it, the more it looks like Controlled Demolition. I'm aware that there are two sides to the story and not nearly enough hard evidence. Controlled demolition certainly fits into a larger narrative that may include remote controlled planes, the infiltration of NORAD and the FAA, the puts on Wall Street of American Airlines and United Airlines, the mysterious movements/lack of movements by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush, etc.

Controlled demo isn't necessary for the above but is easier to believe knowing that Marvin Bush's company was in charge of security there, as well as at Logan Airport.

I think a lot of people focus on CD because if it's proven in any way, the Official Conspiracy Theory has been itself demolished in one fell swoop.

Glad to see you here.

Rick

[FourScore]

24. See the remains of the Windsor Building fire

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

It apparently also had no sprinkler system.

[bmcatt]

25. Another way of looking at it

The one thing that consistently puzzles me about 9/11 discussions (and this is not intended to offend) is the presumption that anyone who questions or challenges then, of necessity, has the answers.

I believe that there is sufficient evidence to show that the WTC buildings (towers 1 and 2 and bldg 7) did not collapse as a result of fire. I also believe that the free-fall nature of their collapse strongly (but not necessarily conclusively) indicates that the buildings were subject to demolition.

Having said that, though, I don't know (nor do I have any speculations) on *how* the buildings were wired for demolition. Sure there are ample theories around. But, without a more rigorous investigation, one that refuses to accept the published (and widespred) myth of impacting planes and the subsequent fires, it is difficult, at best, to determine exactly how that was done.

As for myself, I'm a skeptic. I don't believe that the official story is the truth. I believe that there are elements of truth in the various alternate explanations, but do not know which elements are the ones that, when pulled together, form "The Truth of What Happened on September 11, 2001".

I would liken it to being given a large jigsaw puzzle... without the solution picture... with a lot of pieces removed from the box... and, just for fun, even more pieces from a different puzzle thrown in... And then someone comes by and hands you a picture that matches the new pieces. Sure, it's possible to make something that might, a little, look like the new picture. But that's not solving the original puzzle.

In any event, welcome to the dungeon.

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. I 'm pretty sure WTC 7 wasn't wired for demolition

It was piped in.

A pressurized fuel pipe ran through the building from the basement to the 5th floor where the generators were. The pressurized pipe ran the east/west length of the 5th floor and it appears did not have a fire suppression system other then a masonry wall that it ran alongside on the 5th floor. From there pressurized pipes fed some of the day tanks.

Sidenote - No fuel tanks or generators were in the original design of the building. Most of this equipment was added after 1993.

[BootinUp]

26. Excuse me for saying this

but I think you are wasting your time. There are good reasons to convince people of the reality of the disaster but it seems to be futile to me after a couple weeks at it.

[democraticinsurgent]

31. Why is he wasting his time?

It's an important question. We don't know the "reality" yet. That's why everyone is asking questions and looking for new information, even 5 years later.

If you came to this forum to convince everyone of your concept of reality, you are the one that is wasting your time.

And while you're here, please have some respect for the intellectual curiousity of William Pitt. He's earned at least that with his dilligent and insightful work all these years.

[frylock]

36. yet here you are

[SidDithers]

28. Good luck, Will...

and welcome to bizarro world.

Sid

[FourScore]

30. More photos and info

From:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/index.html

About the fires in WTC1 and WTC2:

"...Fire-induced column failure collapse theories assume scenarios in which fires consume entire floors and burn for extended periods at temperatures of over 800 C. There are several problems with such scenarios.

--800 C is near the maximum flame temperature of hydrocarbons burning in air without pre-heating or pressurization of the air. Even those temperatures are usually reached only with premixed (blue) flames, such as in gas stoves and blowtorches. Diffuse flames, of the type in the WTC, tend to be far cooler.

--Widespread fires reaching 700 C would have caused extensive window breakage and would have made the steel glow red-hot. No such events were observed.

--Fires would have to be very extensive to raise the temperatures of columns to near the fire temperatures, given the thermal sinks of the steel structures. Columns of the perimeter walls and of the core structures were well coupled thermally. In order to soften columns, fires would have to exceed the capacity of the 100,000 tons of steel in each building to draw away the heat. In fact the fires did not even consume entire floors of either Tower.

--Heating the external columns would be especially difficult because the columns were situated outside the interior volume, with only one of the four sides adjacent to the building's interior.

--Heating of core columns would be especially difficult given the apparently poor ventilation of the core regions, being further from any air supply.

--As the jet fuel burned off and the fires became less severe, the columns would have cooled and regained most strength lost to elevated temperatures..."

Photo of WTC7 -- if the fires were hot enough to weaken steel beams, then windows would be exploding:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7.html

Compare the WTC7 photo to the damage done to WTC3,4,5&6, yet they did not collapse, though they also experienced fires:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc3456.html

[hpot]

33. Explained

Hi Will, I never expected to see you here in the DU dungeon. May I ask what prompted your post?

The fire within the buildings was reported to have reached somewhere around 2,000 degrees. No sprinkler system was working to decrease the heat.

The buildings are basically huge heatsinks. Any thermal energies inside will most likely be absorbed and dissipated by the steel columns. ie: if you place a candle flame near a metal coil the flame will go out. - Same principle but on a larger scale.

I have seen pictures that show severe damage and fire before it collapsed. Also, there were two 30,000 gallon tanks of fuel under the basement,

There was molten pools of steel. Steel cannot stay liquid for weeks unless there is an external heating source. I doubt concrete , glass bits and office furniture or even fossil fuels are sufficient for insulation or as a heating source.

Caused the building to torque around, damaging the superstructure;

The buildings were engineered to withstand multiple hits and sway due to the environment.

it is entirely concievable that the building would fall into its own footprint.

WTC 1,2 and 7 collapsed and shared the same characteristics. What are the odds of all three falling in the same manner with a symetrical collapse? Normally, one can expect partial collapses over a period of a few hours. On 9/11 each building collapsed equally on all sides as if the underlying support did not exist.

This all makes a hell of a lot more sense than the idea that nefarious shadow people wired a bunch of buildings to explode without anyone seeing them, hearing them, noticing anything amiss, and without this massive undertaking coming to light at some point. Remember, this is the admin that failed to keep relatively simple secrets like the Wilson leak and the NSA wiretapping. I don't think they have the brain wattage to keep something like this under wraps. .

Personally, I would prefer to believe your theory but it can be intellectually dishonest to disregard the evidence available. Besides physical evidence, there is plenty of opportunity, motive and the means to accomplish it.

Here are two links I hope you find helpful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholars_for_9/11_Truth

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688

As for brain wattage, they were stupid enough to expect a clean getaway while leaving massive witness, physical & photographic evidence. Intelligence is definitely not their specialty.

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. Pst

I think we scared him away?

[wildbilln864]

35. yes you may be right DYEW...

Maybe he'll be back tomorrow though during office hours.
Obviously he's arrived at some incorrect information which reinforces his belief that CD was not a possibility. That whole "steel melts at 1400 degrees" thing really was disapointing. I'd hoped he'd have at least researched that much.
911 WAS an inside job!

[FourScore]

37. Yep!

[mirandapriestly]

50. People are ill informed, aren't they?eom

[mirandapriestly]

48. I'm sure he already has his mind made up

like the rest of them.

[Carefulplease]

41. The heat conductivity of steel is low...

Suppose some fire heats one end of a six foot steel beam to 600C while the other end is kept at zero degree C (it is dipped in icy water). Suppose also the temperature to vary continuously from 600C to 0C along the beam so that the overall heat flow is steady and maximized. How long will it take for the heated end of the beam to carry away the heat produced by the burning of a six inches thick block of candle wax with the same cross section as the beam? (Assume the wax to burn just fast enough to maintain the heat flow that the beam can sustain through conduction.)

I haven't performed this particular calculation yet but that should give us an idea of the ability of steel to carry the heat produced by the combustion of some hydrocarbons some distance away from the fire through conduction alone.

[wildbilln864]

44. Carefulplease, I do wish you'd be...

more careful, please!
I don't think a six inch block of candle wax would burn without a wick of some sort. Otherwise, why do they need to put wicks in candles? Do you mean a six inch wick in your candlewax block?

By all means though, do go ahead with your calculations, lol.

[Carefulplease]

45. Wicked experiments...

By all means wildbilln864, I pay for the wax; the least you can do is to provide the wick yourself if you believe one is required.

(I have chosen wax because I expect the heat produced by the combustion of a unit volume to be easy to find out with a simple Web search. I have chosen these peculiar dimentions because I want to make the amount of combustible material proportional to the available amount of steel capable of carrying heat away. I'll do the calculations if the poster I replied to declines to have a go at it or to venture a guess.)

[greyl]

46. I have the wax and a fire pit.

I was hoping it would come in handy during these discussions.

If wildbilln864 wants to see a video rather than doing the calculations, I can record the experiment.

[greyl]

47. The wick provides the wicking action

so that the melted wax can burn in a controlled fashion. That's what a candle is.

[mirandapriestly]

49. Can you post a picture of this tremendous damage?

I sure haven't seen it.

[greyl]

51. He used the word "severe" not tremendous, and

pictures and video of it have been shown to you, but I agree - you haven't seen it yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4

And recently a thread at the Democratic Underground message board revealed a new TV clip showing damage high on the the south face of WTC7:




Photos of the damage, eyewitness accounts of the damage, and links to more photos of the damage:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

edit: added 1 link and 1 pic

[petgoat]

56. That Video has not been authenticated, AFAIK nobody can say

where it came from (except from a DVD disseminated by the Mae Brussel
website).

[greyl]

121. And of the other vids and photos at my links, what say you?

"That" video fits the body of photographic and video evidence that exists.

Are you saying you have reason to doubt that it's authentic?

[FoxOnTheRun]

122. Popular Mechanics claims they have

photos of that side of the building.
If it's true they will show them together with the 84 pentagon cameras to smack down on the truth seekers.


Building 6 had a little damage too , so what?

[greyl]

124. No, they don't.

As I recall, they say the FBI allowed them to see the pictures. It isn't PM's decision to release the photos or not.
And when/if the photos and videos are released? Fake!, fake!, fake! will be heard.
There is already enough evidence that WTC7 was severely damaged, but people do not allow themselves to see it.

edit:gram

[FoxOnTheRun]

125. The problem is people

don't know what kind of enemy they are up to.
Psy-Ops etc. It's not like the agencies haven't done things like this.
The CIA brags that they can bring up every story on the front pages they want to

The PM guys are liars and go from talking points,the staff has been completely changed over the years when the new editor came.
And PM is owned by HEARST.
I remember the HEARST's Maine Headline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Journal98.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism


It's pretty obvious that they are preparing building 7 and the pentagon as a setup, although I think people won't fall for it.
I think Building 7 has been CD.

[greyl]

126. I think many do know, but that too many

have a conspiratorial worldview that works to distract from the actual crimes.

There's a clear difference between the Yellow (sensationalistic) journalism of the 1890's and mass media under a fascist regime. I don't know why you think that wikipedia link supports your case.
If we go back far enough, the Democrat and Repub views on slavery are reversed. In more recent times, it's the right-wing which fosters conspiracy theories, and the left-wing which fosters independent and critical thinking.

[John Q. Citizen]

128. The left always knew the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy..

No one I knew bought into the lone gunman theory.

And over time, we've been proven correct and proven to be the independent and critical thinkers.

Unfortunately, there were also a lot of media and political gate keepers who dismissed, pooh pooed, and ridiculed anyone who tried to support what seemed obvious to us.

Same as it always was.

[FoxOnTheRun]

129. Sure but the same power structures exist today

It's clear that 911 was an inside job, but people always tend to jump into honeypots.

I don't believe in left or right wing, there was no left or right in the 18th century.
Critical thinking is a good thing, but when you don't have all the facts its pretty difficult. And you come to wrong conclusions.


I know that most countries have left the path of the constitution and domestic politics have gone to some kind of photo op.
I'm from Europe and nobody asked us if we want the EURO or the EU

Chancellor Helmut Kohl said:

Wo kämen wir da hin, wenn der Bürger über solch grundlegende Fragen selbst zu entscheiden hätte?
paraphrasing: What would happen if the citizen could decide over such basic issues?

The same thing happened in the US with the North American Union
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAeEc23_7Ig
and even today some people don't believe it.

I don't know when the AMERO comes or the capital goes to Atlanta...

Poltics has become a show, and people don't realize that there is a higher authority mostly controlled by the banks.

Take for example Lyndon Larouche, obviously he had inside knowledge and so he was able to predict a reconnection of East and West Germany in 1988
and the fall of the Iron curtain. But he won't tell you where he gets all his info.

Freeman: On behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, I'd like to welcome all of you to today's seminar and webcast. I should probably say, in the way of introduction, that the selection of today's date was not accidental: Because, it was in fact, in 1988, on Oct. 12th, that Mr. LaRouche, in a press conference that was held at the Kempinski Hotel in Berlin, in the Federal Republic of Germany, announced the impending collapse of the Soviet system. It was a collapse that he said would begin in Poland, and would lead to the restoration of Berlin as the capital of the Federal Republic of Germany.

At that time, no one agreed with Mr. LaRouche. And people did not completely understand where his forecast was coming from. Within a year of that press conference, the world had changed significantly. In fact, it was the case that the Soviet Union fell. It was also the case that Mr. LaRouche was a political prisoner, placed in prison by the administration of George Bush.

http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/audio_video_files/2005/051012_webcast.html

If you haven't read the book, It's a good one, explains a lot. (Remember Communism and Fascism is pretty much the same, it's not freedom )
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/allen/allendex.html

Its based on Prof. Quigleys "Tragedy and Hope", he was Clinton's mentor Georgetown University. It is from the 60's.

[mirandapriestly]

72. bwahaha, well excuse me...that video

maybe shows some damage, although strange that it should pop up now, but the building fell so of course at some point there was damage. What is important is how it was inflicted. Since there is a credible eyewitness account that damage occurred prior to debris falling off the towers, it is reasonable to concur that the damage happened from BOMBS. There is also an eyewitness account (EMR)that saw planted explosives. The building was also evacuated at 9AM while the others weren't AND there are several video accounts of people who are told the building is about to come down.

[mogster]

52. The reason the WTC north and south fell

Is always listed - even though no building has ever crashed because of a fire before - to be due to the special construction of the buildings. I don't care much to delve into lenghty technical explanations (nor do I have any way of proving them wrong or right), so I use logic instead.
OK - I accept that reason; the WTC 1 & 2 fell due to all the official explanations, but then explain WTC7, which had a different building structure and was hit by no plane.
Meaning; that explanation/reasoning can't be used for WTC7.

Here's from Madrid. This building burned for a day, yet didn't fall.



In all years of modern construction, no building fell down because of fire, yet in a single day, in a few hours, three buildings fall down. It just happen to give the pretext to imposing a whole new doctrine proposed in a doc published a year before, which also - wistfully - mentioned that this doctrine would never see the light of day in absence of an event like 911.

There are dumb people in this administration, for sure. But the people behind this are not dumb, nor simple. They know what they do.

[Carefulplease]

54. How good are your logical argument...

I don't care much to delve into lenghty technical explanations (nor do I have any way of proving them wrong or right), so I use logic instead.

How good are your logical argument when the truth of the premises and the validity of the material inferences are of no concern to you?

[mogster]

59. I prefer to stay in the realm of

1. Who benefits from a collapse/maximum damage
2. Who benefits from the political impact
3. Who has a bad track record of lying to the public
4. Who has stated, before it happened, that an event like this would benefit the implication of their doctrine
5. Who has used the event to further that political doctrine

That's my base for why I'm critical to the official explanation, not any technical detail (although WTC7 should give reasonable doubt to anyone watching the video of the implosion)
You know as well as me that there are a lot of versions of each technical 'proof', wether it supports the official version or the opposite. As each item is proposed for questioning, it is soundly debunked by the opposite camp.

I ask myself the following questions:

Who had the most to gain from attacking the US on September 11, 2001?
Not Al-Queda, for sure. They've lost most of their bases and the Taliban lost control in Afghanistan. If bin Laden is as smart as we're to believe, he'd have foreseen som response, some exit strategy, to going up to the biggest bully in the schoolyard and punching him smack in the face. And if he saw this as the first and largest attack in a longer war, and wanted to gather support among Muslims, why did he deny he was behind it on several occations right after 911? No logic.

Was the US government capable of attacking it's own citizens to get support for their doctrine?
Sure. They've proven it by being almost addicted to terror, using it as the means to get their ways. Now last with the UK 'mass murder in the air'-plot, where you saw several signs of them jumping on this as a means to brand the Dems as weak, and details leaked out from the UK reinforce this; they forced an early sting against the 'plot' to use it politically.
It's not the same as actually MIHOP'ing attacks towards the homeland, but shows a willingness to use terror politically.

[greyl]

55. Was the building in Madrid constructed like WTC7?

No, very differently.

This fire is one of the fires Conspiracy theorist like to point to when talking about high raise office fires. This fire lasted 26 hours. But what they don't tell you is that the first collapse happened only 1 hour and 30 minutes after the fire began. But why didn't the building fall completely? It was on fire for 26 hours. The answer is very simple. The building were constructed very differently than the WTC. Reinforced concrete was used in the core and under the 17th floor. Below are detailed descriptions of how the Madrid tower was constructed and the reason for it not collapsing...
http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm

more:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

[mogster]

57. Well

Statistics are on my side :-)

But you wouldn't relate to that, would you?

[greyl]

58. 50 sour grapes

says nothing about the fish.

What stats could you possibly be talking about?

[mogster]

60. The stats

You wouldn't possibly be talking about.

[Carefulplease]

67. The statistics you apply are actually the laws of probability...

...applied to independent events although the theory you are intent of refuting claims them to be interdependents. You argument also is an instance of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Texas_Sharpshooter_Fallacy

[mogster]

78. The bullseye

Well, OK. But why overlook the obvious difference in structure between WTC1/WTC2, and WTC7, and the improbability in implying that their downfall would be caused by the same; a fire? ;-)

What is your rationale when it comes to this difference?
Two buildings went down because a jet liner hit each. The third didn't have the same height, the same construction design or a jetliner landing in the middle.

And you can of course not separate this piece of evidence from all the other strange coincidences, the mentioned doctrine and the general untrustworthyness of the politicians in charge. That's what wrong with the debate from the sceptics; they overlook the general picture and makes every piece of evidence into an isolated island, where all corraborating evidence around it is invisible, or rather; need to be dragged up and debated again, usually producing a catch 22. It is anti police work. Imagine instead a board on the wall with all the evidence collected, sorted into a pattern. Then you get a verification on each bit, and see what reinforces that pattern and what goes against it. That's the way to treat evidence. You study who will benefit, as the motive is always an important factor. You study who had the means, the opportunity and also their history of actions. You study their behaviour before, during and after the crime. You develop theories. Theories aren't dangerous, they're sound and reasonable. It's a product of an open mind, a sign of freedom of thought, enlightenment, democracy.

The term 'conspiracy theory' dissolves all that work in a second, making it into laughing matter, like 'did we land on the moon' or 'was the soccer world cup held in Sweden in 1958'. Every UFO-sighting or alien abduction ever claimed is immediately attributed to what you write, and you are reduced to, at best, an internet loner with a fixation for exotic theories.
We're living in an exotic world, no doubt about that. The evidence on that board is overwhelming, and in the background the war in Iraq is thundering on. The world has changed completely since September 11, 2001, from safe and progressive democratic societies to isolated nations controlled by fear. All that change, just because of 911.
I think that justifies crass and probing questioning about that event.

[Carefulplease]

85. The case of WTC7 as compared to WTC1 and WTC2

What is your rationale when it comes to this difference?
Two buildings went down because a jet liner hit each. The third didn't have the same height, the same construction design or a jetliner landing in the middle.

The damage WTC7 suffered isn't just structural. A large amount of windows on the south face were broken and the fires grew totally unchecked for 7 hours. It is also quite unprecedented that a highrise steel-framed building is allowed to burn withought there being any attempts to fight the fires at all.

If you want to avoid making the Sharpshooter fallacy, you ought not to ask -- Why were many building surrounding the Twin Towers damaged and/or burning and only WTC7 collapsed? (The fallacy lies in the unstated assumption here -- that such an event ought to have low probability merely owing to its specificity)

Why ought the first occurence of a high-rise building's collapsing from unchecked fires while it was not previously hit by an aircraft to have been something other than the actual collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 2001? There is a first to everything (that has occurred at least once). There is no specific reason why it should have occurred earlier or later in history. There is no known specific reason either why it shouldn't have been WTC7. And there are reasons why it should have collapsed.

And you can of course not separate this piece of evidence from all the other strange coincidences, the mentioned doctrine and the general untrustworthyness of the politicians in charge.

Agreed, but such characterisation of the framework ought to be kept in the background unobstrusively (as part of one's outlook) when one is arguing with another (who do not share the outlook) the independent merit of a particular hypothesis or of some alleged evidence for the validity of one's framework.

[mogster]

87. Your post is the best example why I don't debate tech evidence much

It defies every logic and rational way of debating.

Maybe a little butterfly flew past WTC7 at the wrong moment and fluttered it's wings, and that poor building just couldn't take it anymore. I don't know. But the possibility that this happened should surely be noted and soundly debated.

I'll stick with:

"Two buildings went down because a jet liner hit each. The third didn't have the same height, the same construction design or a jetliner landing in the middle."

This:

"There is a first to everything (that has occurred at least once). There is no specific reason why it should have occurred earlier or later in history. There is no known specific reason either why it shouldn't have been WTC7."

Is just chaff, my dear Watson ;-)

[petgoat]

98. Damn is that chaff silly.

I wonder how someone acquires deep familiarity with the NIST report.

All I needed to know was

1. no core steel samples show heating above 250 degrees
2. NIST expresses no regret about the destruction of the WTC steel
3. they tweak the parameters of their model to fit the hypothesis
4. they claim there is "no evidence" for the explosive hypothesis,
ignoring the eyewitness testimony of explosions
5. they dispose of the explosive hypothesis by saying "NIST found
no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that
the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using
explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." Why the weasel
language so reminiscent of Dr. Rice's "nobody could have imagined"
statement? Are they saying the explosives were planted after
midnight the morning of 9/11?
6. they assume that collapse initiation=total progressive collapse
7. they have refused to release their visualizations of the collapse
8. they have not released the photos and videos upon which their conclusions
are based
9. they have not addressed the effects of refractive distortion on the
pictures they claim show perimeter column bowing

to know it wasn't worth my time.

[Carefulplease]

113. "I don't debate tech"

"Maybe a little butterfly flew past WTC7 at the wrong moment and fluttered it's wings, and that poor building just couldn't take it anymore."

Or maybe, just maybe, the structural damage and fires were enough; and the butterfly is superfluous.

[vincent_vega_lives]

64. Madrid

1. No large commercial aircraft crashing into it at high speed.

2. No jet fuel starting widespread fires simultaneously.

3. Entirely different structural design.

To name just a few...otherwise yep exactly just like the WTC.

[FoxOnTheRun]

65. What about the Empire State Building?

A B-25 only flying at 225 mph


But maybe it comes closer to the WTC incident and the building is still there


http://www.withthecommand.com/2002-Jan/NY-empireplane.html

[OldSiouxWarrior]

103. Look up the differences between a B-25 and the WTC planes.

The B-25 was a twin engine prop plane of WWII. By modern standards, it was a small plane. And at the time of the crash, that one was low on gas.

The WTC planes were big jets and were going much much faster, and their fuel tanks were nearly full.

Things like that make a difference. It's like getting shot with a .22 from a handgun or a .300 Magnum from a rifle.

[FoxOnTheRun]

106. Sadly we will never know,

unless someone builds a WTC tower and crashes a 767 into it.

Many say the South Tower hit, which was not a central hit like the North Tower or the Empire state building, consumed 60-80 % of the fuel in the fireball outside.

I'm not saying this can be compared 1:1, but it has a lot of similarities.
I offered this as an exchange to Madrid.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

115. Getting shot with a .22 handgun is similar to a .300 Magnum rifle.

Both are bullets. But I think you will realize that there is a huge difference.

[mirandapriestly]

73. Also the redundancy of the building construction

makes the fall unlikely the way it occurred, since there was no damage below the 70th or so floor on either building.

And when people say this administration is incompetent - look at everything they have gotten away with! You have to be incompetent to think they are incompetent.
The mofos should be in prison now and they haven't been touched. They should at least have been questioned for their incompetence, if they were so incompetent how did they not get questioned on that?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

102. That fire has nothing above it.

The structure that is on fire is not supporting any weight. The WTC fires had bunches of stories of building above them that the fire weakened steel had to support. Your comparison is false.

[John Q. Citizen]

111. If you look on the right side of the building you can see some of

the structure above it is still standing. There were floors above where the fire is now and most of them are gone.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

114. A little bit of structure is NOT bunches of stories.

No comparison. That fire damaged structure is holding up very little, expecially compared to the WTC floors that were on fire.

[John Q. Citizen]

116. It looks like at least 8 or 10 stories to me that are no longer there. But

the steel on the right side still is.

I could be wrong but that's how I see it.

[DoYouEverWonder]

120. The impact zone in WTC 1

was only 4 floors - 94 thru 98.

The impact zone in WTC 2 was a bit bigger because the plane banked. It went from the 78 thru 84. However two of those floors had minimal damage.

I guess things look bigger on TV?

[WilliamPitt]

68. ALL PLEASE READ

I want to thank everyone in this thread for providing me with all this info. It is a lot to digest, and I appreciate the effort. :toast:

[FourScore]

70. No, Thank YOU, Will!

One thing to keep in mind: You are definitely informed about the PNAC. Ask yourself how much of their agenda they could have acheived if 9/11 (a Pearl Harbor type of event)had never occured.

One other point I'd like to make. I agree that Bush is too inept to pull something like this off. Cheney, however, is not. When I see the expression on Bush's face in that classroom, he looks frightened. Even an idiot (like Bush) would jump out of his/her chair and start to investigate what is going on if his/her cheif of staff whispers "America is under attack." NO ONE just sits there unless they already know in advance what's going on. At least that's my opinion.

Good luck, Will.

[DoYouEverWonder]

71. It is a lot to digest

and this thread is just skimming the surface.

Most us down here are just trying to figure what the fuck really happened that day. There is a lot we don't know and a lot we will probably never know, but one thing we do know is that the OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory) has more holes in it then swiss cheese. 9-11 had to be an inside job.

[greyl]

119. Thanks for staying so involved with it. nt

[leftofthedial]

69. I think just to be safe, we should claim

that the fires burned at a million degrees

that will silence all the wackos.

[FourScore]

83. Dust

Here is a good link regarding the enormous amount of dust:

http://www.911research.com/wtc/analysis/proofs/volume.html

Please also refer to this excerpt from the Naudet film (firemen Joe Casaliggi):

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/contents.html

[Generator]

123. With experts on all sides

with an opposing opinion on each side, I'm certain we will never know for sure. And I don't waste any time on this (though I did just link to the guy who worked in the towers who says the power was off the weekend before 9/11 in the upper floors and people without security access were in the building) because frankly, it's also possible that they were set to fall by some band of terrorists.In other words, bombs in the towers doesn't have to mean Bushco. In fact that seems likely to me. "IF the planes fail, Mr. Taliban/Pakistan/Osama evil overlord who works with the CIA-we still have bombs in the building." Hell- just hijacking the planes and having them crash somewhere a few times over America would have been almost as good for terror affect. Oh and they bombed the WTC at the same time! It really does sound like a back-up plan the more I think about it.

So proving the towers couldn't have collapsed that way doesn't prove MIHOP. All it means is that there were others involved. That's why that link about the buildings power being out to me is a thousand times more interesting than all the experts combined. And it does seem mighty strange they just collapsed like that. But strange things do happen. It seems like a lot of wasted energy to me though because how in hell you could ever prove it? Especially when the evidence-the remains of the towers themselves was shipped away so quickly.

[truthmover]

127. 900C = 1400C? Please advise.

So if the fires burned at a sustained tempurature of 900C, as has been suggested here, and the melting point of steel, with no fire retardent is about 1400C (just looked it up), then why should the steel heated to only 55% of its melting point even be significantly weakened?

[mhatrw]

130. IMHO, fires burned at a sustained temperature of 550 to 900C.

Perhaps reaching temperatures as high as 850C - 900C in certain hotspots within an hour of burning but very probably not. This would make the WTC-1 and WTC-2 office buliding fires like every other large scale office building fire for which ambient temperatures or temperature exposures have been measured before or after the fact.

[LARED]

132. Your humble opinion is based on .........

what?

[mhatrw]

133. The entire recorded history of office building fires.

Your disputation of my humble opinion is based on?

[LARED]

134. Based on the entire recorded history of office fires started by

commercial aircraft impacting at about 500 MPH, (for a total of 2) and that experts put the temperatures higher.

[mhatrw]

136. Yes, you have your "unique in all of history" fallback.

As well as your "experts struggling to explain how the planes and ensuing fires could have possibly caused the buildings to collapse so soon decided to model WTC fires as fuel container fires rather than office building fires" wildcard.

All I have against this impressive array of imagination is every other office building fire in history.

[LARED]

157. Sorry you can't have it both ways

FIrst of all the experts I pointed you to, were not part of the NIST study.

Secondly, you can't claim all office fires are have some max temperature, therefore the WTC was limited to that temperature knowing the WTC fires are unique. Then claim I am falling back on 'it's unique' as some false argument.

[mhatrw]

159. I didn't say it was a false argument.

I said it was a weak argument. Even though planes started the 2 of the 3 fires, they were still office building fires and should have been modeled as such rather than as fuel container fires.

[LARED]

161. There were not modeled as fuel container fires.

Where did you get that?

[mhatrw]

162. Oh, let's see. The temperature vs. time curve?

The standard ASTM E-119 temperature vs. time curve takes about 120 minutes to reach 1000C.

The standard ISO-834 temperature vs. time curve takes about 90 minutes to reach 1000C.

External building fires (and the plane crashes made part of building "external") top out at under 700C.

Only hydrocarbon pool (fuel container) fires reach temperatures in excess of 1000C within the first hour of burning.

See Figure 8 on page 13:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02086.pdf

Or alternatively, see figure below:



ASTM E119 is for buildings
ASTM E1529 is for fuel containers

[LARED]

166. Notice the use of the term standard

That means under certain standardized conditions you can expect to see similar results. What you need to do is compare conditions used in those standards and compare them to the actual conditions under scrutiny.

Let me know how you make out.

[mhatrw]

167. They were office building fires.

Tell me in your own words the scientific reasons why you think the temperature vs. time curves of these fires would be the sort of curve expected for fuel container fires rather than that the sort of curve demonstrated by all other office building fires in the history of the world.

[Carefulplease]

168. How do you know that *all* other office fires...

...have reached top layer peak temperatures significantly lower than 1100C? Isn't your reference set too large? Why not restrict the comparison fires taking place on very large office floors that spread quickly on vast areas owing to the use of volatile accelerants and that were very well ventilated? Is any one of these factors irrelevant? Why do these parameters seem to make so much difference in fire dynamics models? Also, what is wrong with NIST's full scale burning tests? Shouldn't they provide relevant empirical data?

[mhatrw]

171. You tell me.

Name a real, actual forensically measured office fire in history that exposed steel to temperatures above even 900C (note than the NIST claims the WTC fires reached 1100C almost immediately) in the first hour of burning.

[Carefulplease]

172. Office fires that produce air temperatures above 1000C

I am unsure I quite understand you question. Do you mean 900C steel temperature of 900C air temperature? How is the forensic measurement performed?

There is rather more data available about full scale fire tests. These often are performed (just as NIST did for the WTC fires) in order to provide insight into actual historical fires.

Notice how a small office fire (with typical office furnishing) produced air temperatures of 1254C. The 12m x 12m area represents 3.5% of the area of 1 single WTC floor and no jet fuel was used.

http://guardian.150m.com/fire/small/cardington.htm

A series of four fire tests were carried out on a purpose built test building at BHP Research Melbourne Laboratories. The test simulated a 12m x 12m corner bay of the real building and was furnished to resemble a typical office with a 4m x 4m small office constructed near the perimeter of the building. Water tanks provided the imposed loading. The first two tests were concerned with testing the performance of the existing light hazard sprinkler system. Test 3 was designed to test the composite slab. The soffit of the slab was left unprotected although a non-fire-rated suspended ceiling was in place. The supporting beams were partially protected. The fire was started in the open plan area and allowed to develop fully. A maximum atmosphere temperature of 1254°C was achieved. The ceiling remained intact during the tests and was beneficial in protecting the slab. In test 4 the ability of the steel beams to withstand a fire without protection was assessed. The fire was started in the small office but unfortunately did not spread to the rest of the compartment and another fire was set in the open plan area. The atmosphere temperature reached 1228°C whilst the steel beams reached temperatures of 632°C. Deflections of 120mm were recorded in one of the beams during the test. The steel beams and slab were shielded by the ceiling resulting in relatively low steel temperatures and small deflections in comparison with Broadgate. The results of the various fire tests concluded that the William street building did not need fire protection on the beams or the underside of the slab and the existing sprinkler system was adequate.

[mhatrw]

173. How long did it take to reach the maximum temperatures ...

of 632C steel and 1228C to 1254C air?

[Carefulplease]

174. This article does not say...

However, arson investigators have a name for volatile fuels. They call them
accelerants. Have you considered that dousing the furniture, walls and carpets of several WTC floors with a few thousand gallons of jet fuel could have an effect on the spread and speed of development of the fires? Could this and the effect of 400 broken windows and a huge hole in one wall producing a constant breeze of fresh oxigen through the building have contributed to make the WTC fires atypical office fires? NIST took these factor into account in their tests and models. Look it up.

Have I given you ground to doubts your earlier suggestion that possibly no office fires in history might have produced air temperatures in excess of 900C within one hour ever?

[mhatrw]

175. None whatsoever.

Please produce a single temperature vs. time curve for a real office building fire that supports your contentions.

[Carefulplease]

176. "Time curve of real office building fire" ?

What you ask for is unclear. Do you refer to "real" accidental or arson fires? Since those aren't anticipated events no thermocouples are set in advance and the time-temperature data for them do not exist. However there is a vast literature on test fires and simulated fires. I assume empirical test fire data would please you better than simulated fire data.

Here are some empirical data on tests performed at the Cardington Fire Research Station:

http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fire/pdfreports/RFeasey_01.pdf
p.211, appendix B2, section B2.1

The time temperature curve for a test with high ventilation factor and average fire load (40gk/m^2) is displayed in figure B2.1, p.214.

Temperatures over 1000C are reached within 10 minutes, and over 1150C within 20 minutes.

Another test with the same fire load and a lower ventilation factor produced the curve displayed in figure B2.3, p.217.

Temperatures over 1000C are reached within 20 minutes, and over 1200C within 40 minutes.

No jet fuel was used in either test. The fire load is wood.

[mhatrw]

178. Do you really believe what you just posted?

Did you even read the text? Or did you actually think you could bamboozle me with such nonsense?

Due to the nature of this fire and the compartment geometry, the test data is quite
unusual, with distinct variances between the temperature profiles at different locations
in the compartment. Figure B2.1 shows 3 temperature profiles at crib lines 10, 6 and 2
(there were 11 lines of cribs in total). These were manually extracted from Figure 25 of
Kirby et al (1994). Also shown is a representation of the same test fire from the NFSC
data series, which is effectively a boundary curve or envelope to all fires, being
exceptionally conservative for any one location within the compartment.

[Carefulplease]

180. The use of the envelope curve is indeed conservative.

I have no idea how you interpret those statement that you emphasized such that the data ought to be disqualified. I reported factual data you challenged me to find.

The temperatures recorded in different locations vary. I did not mention the envelope curve from the NFST fire test database. Why should I have? I reported on the raw data provided in this paper. The envelope curve is conservative (it expresses a lower bound) because it only displays the maximum temperature reached at any time from *just* three locations in the compartment. If the spatial peak in temperature happens to be located anywhere else than at those precise locations then the actual highest temperature at that time would be higher. In other words, including the data from more locations in the composite graph would have bumped up the envelope curve for some time intervals. Why is that significant? Do you fear that I might have underestimated the average temperature in this test fire?

The fact remains that temperature above 1200C were reached within 40 minutes during the second test that included a more realistic ventilation area. You did not comment on that one either.

[mhatrw]

181. 1) It's not a real building fire; it's a tiny test fire.

2) The quick high temperature readings exist only in a tiny spatial vicinity.

3) Even for a test fire, the outlying data is quite unusual.

"Due to the nature of this fire and the compartment geometry, the test data is quite
unusual, with distinct variances between the temperature profiles at different locations
in the compartment."

[Carefulplease]

182. Didn't you notice that...

1) This test fire simulates a fire in a *big* room
2) It main singularity is the rectangularity of the enclosure
3) The temperatures curves displawed for three separate locations are rather representative of well ventilated fires: (a) high peak well above 900C and (b) the peak temperature is reached fast!

In this and other references that you were given, you can find *dozens* of experimental time-temperatures curves in which temperatures in excess of 1100C are reached within 10 minutes and sustained for as much as an hour. Some of the most significant factors are fuel load density, ventilation factor and size of the enclosure. Larger enclosures produce fires that last longer and are hotter. (Remember that the WTC fires were big.) Those fire tests are designed to mimic a wide variety on conditions that can be encountered in real building fires. The only peculiar things about the Carrington tests we just discussed is the elongated rectangular shape of the enclosure and its somewhat higher than average fire load density.

You suggested that possibly not a single office fire in history has reached 900C within an hour. I have to ask you again: What is your ground for that claim?

[mhatrw]

183. The fact that not a single actual office fire in history has

demonstrated temperatures above 900C within the first hour of the fire.

[Carefulplease]

184. So you are willing to dismiss all existing empirical data...

So you are willing to dismiss all existing empirical data gathered in test fires on the ground that thermocouples aren't wired up to measure "actual" office fires?

Well, in that case I would point out to you that not a single "actual" office fire in history has demonstrated temperatures that remained below 1200C for the fist five minutes.

With your peculiar standard of proof, you can't prove me wrong either. Let is just dismiss everything that experimental science can teach us.

[mhatrw]

185. Wrong. You are willing to dismiss all the existing empirical data

of every forensically examined office fire or thermocoupled office fire experiment in history, none of which have demonstrated temperatures over 900C within the first hour of heating.

Well, in that case I would point out to you that not a single "actual" office fire in history has demonstrated temperatures that remained below 1200C for the fist five minutes.

Sorry, but that is 100% false. Every actual office fire (including those experimentally set on fire to determine fire conditions) has burned within a temperature range of 550C to 900C during its first hour.

[Carefulplease]

186. Every one?

You must have some reason for dismissing NIST's several actual scale fire tests that were designed to mimic as closely as possible the actual conditions (fire load, geometry, radiative environment, ventilation factor, etc.) that typically held in the WTC Towers. However, let that pass.

You never made clear what it is that counts as an "actual office fire" such that an experimentally measured time-temperature curve is available for it.

You now make the very specific claim that "every" such thing has burned within a temperature range of 550C to 900C during the first hour. Can you provide a reference to just one such historical or experimental time-temperature curve estimate? Could you also tell me what its characteristics are that make it count as an "actual office fire" whereas my examples do not?

[mhatrw]

187. Actual office building fire = actual office building on fire

Why is this not clear to you?

[Carefulplease]

188. What is not clear for me?

One thing that is quite unclear for me is your ground for making such bold claims:

"Every actual office fire (including those experimentally set on fire to determine fire conditions) has burned within a temperature range of 550C to 900C during its first hour"

Can you provide just one reference to an experiment in which a fire was lit in an "actual office building" and in which such a temperature range as you mention was established? If you can, then tell me also what makes that experiment legitimate whereas the data from the actual fire tests I have provided must be dismissed as irrelevant.

[mhatrw]

189. Your fire tests weren't actual office buildings.

Why do put "actual office building" in quotes? Do you really not understand the difference between an actual office building fire and a lab test fire?

There are hundreds of actual office building fires that have been put out within their first hour or so and then forensically examined. There have also been several actual office buildings that were purposefully put on fire as experiments in order to study actual office building fires. Other actual office building fires have just happened to exist in locations where the ambient temperatures they exhibited could be accurately measured. Not one of these measurements has produced evidence of above 900C temperatures within the first hour of heating.

If you wish to contend differently, please produce your evidence.

[Carefulplease]

190. Are you making things up?

This is a serious question. Maybe you aren't but it is not helpful to me or others when you make all those bold assertions while never providing any reference or pointers even when you are politely asked for them.

Do you have some reference to data, any data, on estimated ranges of air temperatures (either below or above 900 degree C) that were forensically established after the fact in office fires? I just don't know where to look for.

You do not have any reference to data about those empirical office fire tests you mentioned earlier, do you? That would be useful as well.

Most interesting would be data about those office-building fires that just hapened to occur in locations where temperatures could be accurately measured. How did they do this? References would be greatly appreciated as well.

I really need to understand what went so awfully wrong with all that international literature on fire tests and fire models that we have been able to examine so far.

[mhatrw]

192. Nothing is wrong with our international standards.

No standard cellulosic fire curves show temperature above 950C within an hour of heating.

The ISO-834 and ASTM E-119 temperature vs. time curves both are well under 950C after 60 minutes of exposure.

If you have evidence that these standard curves that are used everyday to supposedly conservatively rate the actual components of our actual buildings are in fact completely inadequate to model actual office building fires (which is what you keep implying), please present your evidence.

If test fires that accurately model office fires actually reach significantly higher temperatures at much earlier times, please explain why the IS0-834 and ASTM E-119 remain as our industry standards.

[Carefulplease]

193. Nothing is wrong with them indeed...

Edited for typos.

Such temperature curves behave a bit like the envelope of a continuous sequence of (post flashover) time-temperature curves with a moderate ventilation factor and an ever-increasing fuel load density. They are not meant to model any particular sort of realistic fire but rather to provide some convenient standard *benchmarks* for the prescription of allowable behavior for structural elements and assemblies that are heated in test furnaces.

The two standard curves you mention both specify furnace temperatures that reach 900C *before* one full hour (before 40 minutes for one of them). Are those curves the ground for you claim that *not* one single office building fire in history has reached a temperature of 900C within the first hour? That seems rather contradictory even accounting for the fact that the curves are meant to define conservative benchmarks.

It is still hard to see why you would discount empirical results produced by fire tests in large or well-ventilated enclosures. The WTC fires weren't standard fires. They were huge and very well-ventilated. They were also mainly hydrocarbon fires during the first few minutes. This was quite a jumpstart.

[LARED]

179. Did you bother reading the report or did you just look at

the pictures?

sort of curve demonstrated by all other office building fires in the history of the world.

That curve is based on a two standard tests. Again I will point you to the concept that standard tests are based on standard conditions. The WTC fires were no like regular office fires, nor like the tests curves. They were multi story, had a very large intital fires, and had no or severely compromised fire systems systems.

That is why the the authors of the report believe the temperatures were higher. That is why I put my faith in the experts. They are saying it not me.

[petgoat]

139. The jet fuel burned off in ten minutes. After that it was just a

big office fire.

experts put the temperatures higher.

Your experts tweaked their parameters until they could rationalize a
collapse without explosives. Of course they put the temps higher.
Do you think they wanted to get Kevin Ryaned?

[LARED]

156. Correction

Very big, multi-story office fire, with no sprinkler protection and degraded fire proofing.

BTW, the experts I am relying on were not part of the NIST. It was a report out of Canada. I'm sure Bush the mighty can influence those engineers in Canada as well.

[Snivi Yllom]

191. steel loses half of its strength at 583C

higher than that and you can have even mroe plastic deformation, long before the steel actually melts.

Steel loses its strength and stiffness when subjected to high temperatures. A typical steel structural member loses its load-carrying capacity (or about 50 percent of its original strength) at 538°C (1,000°F) when exposed to an ASTM E-119 standard fire (Kodur and Harmathy 2002). An unprotected steel member subjected to an ASTM E-119 standard heating environment is able to maintain its structural integrity for about 20 minutes. To limit this loss of strength and stiffness, external fire protection (fire proofing) is provided to the steel structural members to achieve required fire resistance ratings. Figure 4 illustrates the variation of strength and stiffness in steel as a function of temperature.

The entire argument that the fires were nto hot enough to do damage to the structural integrity of the building is laughable.

[MervinFerd]

135. Will, common sense, logic and two errors.

First, the errors:

1 The planes did extensive structural damage to the towers, in addition to starting the fires and knocking off insulation. The outside structure was part of the support of the building. The buildings may have been close to collapse before the fires.

2. The steel did not melt or need to melt. It just needed to be weakened and expand and twist to disrupt a structure already damaged by impact. That happens at much lower temperatures than melting.

Now the logic:

To make the collapse argument, it needs to be shown that there is NO POSSIBLE mechanism by which the impacts and fire could have caused the collapse. That's a near-impossible standard to meet. We may -never- know exactly what caused WTC7 to collapse, but its enough that there ARE plausible mechanisms.

Now the Common Sense:

These collapses are of INTENSE interest to the world community of structural engineers and architects. They don't want -their- buildings falling down on -their- heads. If there were really something fishy about the collapses somebody in that community would have raised questions. They would not have proposed explosives, but they would have raised technical questions in the guise of correcting errors. Or posted anonymously. This Stephen Jones fellow is a crank.


These questions have been addressed extensively in well-known sites: try 911myths.com

[mhatrw]

137. About your "logic" and "common sense"

Logic: No, to make the CD argument, CD needs to be shown to be more LIKELY than a collapse caused by fire (and in the case of 2 of the towers, a previous impact) within the timeframe.

Common Sense: Before Thomas Eagar's "zipper" theory of collapse was discarded by NIST, please tell us exactly who in the structural engineering community publicly challenged it as flawed? I mean, this fishy, impossibly flawed theory was presented to the nation on NOVA as the de facto explanation for the WTC-1 and WTC-2 collapses. So why didn't somebody in the community of structural engineers and architects raise a public stink about it?

[Nozebro]

147. Very good points and questions. EOM

nt

[MervinFerd]

158. Burden of Proof: Common Conspiroid Fallacy

NO.

If you claim that Pigs can fly, you need some pretty strong evidence of Flying Pigs. I don't have to prove the absence of Flying Pigs.

In the absence of other evidence, you have to make a strong case that collapse was impossible. And the consensus of the expert community is that you haven't even shown it is improbable.


Zipper theories: The NIST investigation determined that the "Zipper Theory" was flawed. That's the expert community correcting itself.

REAL investigations progresssively refine their conclusions. The "Zipper theory" was an initial concept. Extensive study and modeling came up with better concept. The idea of progressive collapse is there in both ideas.

The important point is that the experts had no doubts that -some- plausible theory would be found.

[dfgrbac]

138. Did you watch his presentation? I doubt it.

First of all, Professor Jones' correct name is Steven Jones.

I suggest you listen carefully to http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-steven-jones-utah-seminar-video.html">what he has to say before critiquing him. Believe me, it's well worth your time.

If you can't view the video, at least read carefully his paper http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html">Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?.

[petgoat]

140. The outside structure was heavily redundant, and built

for a hurricane. Even if the compressive load capacity of the external walls
were compromised, the wall across the building would hold the wall up through
tension, mediated by the hat truss and the core columns.



Your opinion that the buildings may have been close to collapse before the
fires is afaik not shared by any respectable analyst. It is an example of
the kind of unjustified assumption favorable to the Bushcists' account that
is so frequently made by those who believe it.

As to the steel, the melting myth came from those right after 9/11 who were
falling all over themselves to do away with the tales of explosions and
secondary devices that were all over the TV on 9/11. Kevin Ryan says
"melted steel" theories were validated by BBC, Scientific American, NOVA,
and profesors from major universities, and that presentations from
National Geographic cited temps of 2900 degrees and A&E/History Channel
said 2500. None of these "experts" have ever apologized.

Your "logic" is absurd. I don't have to prove that Julie could not possibly
have killed Bob in order to prove that Kathie did.

Your Common Sense is similarly specious. Part of Professional demeanor is to
avoid controvery. Any person of any engineering stature who would go on record
criticizing an official US government study without seeing the blueprints and
without spending hundreds of hours in analysis would have to be self-destructive.

9/11 myths is as hastily and hysterically concocted as was Dave Kopel's "59 deceits"
site about Fahrenheit 9/11. Turn to any page and you'll find something absurd,
often in the first sentence or even the title.

Its citation of the collapse of a building under construction, with floors only
tack-welded in place, as an example of total progressive collapse is a sample
of its spurious analysis.

http://911myths.com/html/progressive_collapse.html

[Carefulplease]

152. On the reserve capacity of the core.

The outside structure was heavily redundant, and built for a hurricane. Even if the compressive load capacity of the external walls were compromised, the wall across the building would hold the wall up through tension, mediated by the hat truss and the core columns.

The core wasn't designed to resist the wind loads; its job was to hold roughly 60%
of the static loads. So, its reserve capacity was much lower. It is estimated to be around 30% (of dead load), if I recall correctly, as compared to 500% for the perimeter columns. Such a mechanism as you point out also means that the hat truss, acting like a lever, adds on the core a greater load that is being taken off from the damaged wall.

Your Common Sense is similarly specious. Part of Professional demeanor is to avoid controversy. Any person of any engineering stature who would go on record criticizing an official US government study without seeing the blueprints and without spending hundreds of hours in analysis would have to be self-destructive.

Do you mean that there are no flaws in the published studies that could be exposed by qualified professional, whereas unqualified critics can easily point them out? Is there something about lack of qualification that leads to fearlessness in the face of controversy?

[petgoat]

153. I didn't say the core was designed to resist the wind loads.

Obviously that's what the perimeter columns and the hat truss are for.

30% reserve capacity seems unbelievably low. 400% is normal safety factor
AFAIK.

Is there something about lack of qualification that leads to fearlessness in the face of controversy?

Of course. A professional with a professional reputation can not declare the emporer
naked without ironclad proof. And not even then--controversy brings shame to your
firm, your professional associates, and your clients.

ONLY tinfoil hatters stated the obvious--that Dr. Eagar's zipper theory was ridiculous.
And only a non-pro like Dr. Eagar (he's a materials scientist, not a structural engineer)
could have come up with such a theory.

Professionals quietly accepted FEMA's ridiculous report, and they're just as quietly
accepting the NIST report. It's Government Business, none of theirs. Without seeing the
blueprints abd doing hundreds of hours of work, it would be imprudent to comment.

[Carefulplease]

169. Reserve capacity of the core...

On edit: Explicitation of "design loads".

I did not mean to imply that you said that the core resisted the wind loads. I meant to point out that the core not having to carry the wind loads meant that it was designed with less reserve capacity than the perimeters walls (on a non-hurricane day)

The actual reserve capacity of the core might be closer to 100% based on demand-to-capacity ratios listed in the NIST report. This is based on the actual loads and the actual strengths of the steel components. My 30% figure must come from DCR ratios that are based on design loads and nominal strength of the steel components. The later have intrinsic safety factors. The former include live loads that are about four times what they were on 9/11 2001 (Hoverer, the bulk of design loads of core columns are dead loads). This would account for the discrepancy. I'll do some more research when I have some free time.

[TheWraith]

141. You're not wrong.

Will, your post displays common sense, a rare enough thing in this forum. The simplest and most logical explanation is that planes flew into buildings, causing them to collapse.

About the temperatures of the fire and the steel... Something that people here seem to ignore about the issue is that steel doesn't have to melt in order to loose its structural stability. In fact, the critical temperature for steel where it loses its loadbearing capacity is between 500 and 560 degrees celsius, which is around 1,000 F.

And yes, I've seen the same photos of WTC7--most notably, one which showed where a massive gouge had been cut out of the building by falling debris. Convenient that for a group with every known photo of the WTC, with every errent pixel highlighted and circled, that nobody noticed the damage to the building.

[FoxOnTheRun]

142. Even

if Larry S. who got lucky and cashed 7 billion $ admits building 7 was pulled?

How did Osama arrange those war games at NORAD? wait I forgot he is CIA.

[TheWraith]

143. Are you trying to rape and mutilate the facts?

What was said was that a decision was made to pull the firefighting crews from WTC7 because the NYFD was concerned that it was about to collapse.

And how often, exactly, do you think that NORAD runs wargames?

[FoxOnTheRun]

145. Vigilant Guardian for example is normally once a year sometimes twice

[TheWraith]

146. And how many other wargames do they run?

Isn't there a decent chance that at some point, some kind of emergency would happen in the middle of a wargame? It's happened in the past.

[FoxOnTheRun]

149. I don't know

TAfter 9:03 a.m.: NORAD Training Exercise Cancelled

NORAD Commander Larry Arnold later says that after Flight 175 hits the South Tower, “I thought it might be prudent to pull out of the exercise , which we did.” He says: “As we pulled out of the exercise we were getting calls about United Flight 93 and we were worried about that.”

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=1100#a903exercisecancelled

08:57:11NASYPANY: Think we put the exercise on the hold. What do you think?

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

Maybe it's funny

Amalgam Virgo Air defense against rogue state/terror cruise missiles, hijackings
Vigilant Guardian Air defense against hijacking
Northern Guardian Air defense
Vigilant Warrior NORAD exercise
Northern Vigilance NORAD deploys fighters to Alaska, northern Canada
Amalgam Warrior Large live-fly air defense and air intercept, tracking surveillance
Global Guardian Nuclear warfighting, "Armageddon"
Crown Vigilance Air combat command exercise
Apollo Guardian Large scale live-fly air defense and air intercept, tracking surveillance
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Crashing planes into buildings
AWACS AWACS over Florida, Washington DC
Fort Meyer, Virginia Firemen (Pentagon), "aircraft crash refresher course" for firefighters
TRIPOD II, Manhattan Response to biochemical attack
Timely Alert II Emergency response to bomb attack

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=69359&mesg_id=113366

[petgoat]

155. If I remember right, Bronner in that Vanity Fair piece was

trying to make out like NEADS's guys were liars 'cause they claimed
they knew about 93 at 9:16. Your 9:03 time seems to corroborate that.

[FoxOnTheRun]

160. Let's assume they lied

In testimony a few minutes later, however, General Arnold added an unexpected twist: "We launched the aircraft out of Langley to put them over top of Washington, D.C., not in response to American Airlines 77, but really to put them in position in case United 93 were to head that way."

As the tapes reveal in stark detail, parts of Scott's and Arnold's testimony were misleading, and others simply false. At 9:16 a.m., when Arnold and Marr had supposedly begun their tracking of United 93, the plane had not yet been hijacked. In fact, NEADS wouldn't get word about United 93 for another 51 minutes. And while NORAD commanders did, indeed, order the Langley fighters to scramble at 9:24, as Scott and Arnold testified, it was not in response to the hijacking of American 77 or United 93. Rather, they were chasing a ghost. NEADS was entering the most chaotic period of the morning.

Probably the guys at NORAD are moles and made sure that the wrong things have been done.


But again no one talks about the war games and everything they talk about is who lied.

KEAN: Three questions, then I know the general has to leave.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Ask about the war games that were planned for 9/11.

KEAN: Commissioner Gorelick?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Tell us about the 9/11 war games.

GORELICK: Could you please be quiet? We have only a few minutes with General Myers, and I'd like to ask a question. General Myers, the -- I'm sorry.

KEAN: I would ask please people in the audience to be quiet if you want to stay here.

[mhatrw]

144. Please share all of these photos with us. n/t

[treestar]

151. Then buildings that sustain fires collapsing should be rather

common, shouldn't it?

[TheWraith]

164. And so it is, steel frames or not.

Ask a firefighter. Skyscrapers collapsing is less common because of the extraordinary precautions taken for fire supression and fireproofing, precautions which can be overwhelmed by the impact of a fully loaded jetliner carrying thousands of gallons of high-energy jet fuel.

[petgoat]

154. The critical temperature is beside the point.

NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating above 250 degrees
celsius.

As to that photo of WTC7, when the collapse of the building was a complete
mystery to everyone and FEMA threw up its hands in frustration, a professional
disaster photographer had a picture that would explain the issue and he kept
it secret? And he only made it public by releasing it to an amateur debunking
site five years after the fact? I'm supposed to believe that?

[TheWraith]

163. It obviously wasn't much of a mystery.

Considering that the FDNY decided to withdraw their teams from the building, believing that it would collapse, someone obviously didn't find it so strange of an idea.

As for NIST, assuming that what you say is true--and I can't be sure that it is--they only recovered 1% of the total steel from the building, and the worst damaged areas would be the least likely to be recovered. They also didn't find any segments cut by thermite, either, but that doesn't impact your theories, does it?

[petgoat]

170. It was a very great mystery. FDNY's stories of damage were all over the

map. FEMA/ASCE chose to ignore them and leave them out of their
report.

My theory is that FDNY thought there were bombs in the building
and very wisely decided to stay out, but such a notion became
politically incorrect.

the worst damaged areas would be the least likely to be recovered.

Why not? If you were trying to figure out what happened, why wouldn't you
pick out the most wrecked up burned up pieces?

They also didn't find any segments cut by thermite, either, but that
doesn't impact your theories, does it?

If the steel was destroyed in a coverup, then wouldn't the thermite pieces be
destroyed too? There was a load of stuff that was "stolen" and recycled separately
at four different mob-owned scrap yards.

[woo me with science]

177. They used an INVISIBILITY CLOAK!!!!!

It is a SECRET SCIENTIFIC PROJECT!!!!!!!

People dont get it, because it is VERY SCIENTIFIC!!!!!!!!

And nobody told about it because they were under MIND CONTROL!!!!



SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER!!!!:headbang:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x114128