WTC Challenge

The early, quick-burning bursts of flame feeding off the large amounts of spilled jet fuel probably knocked down some windows, yes. But do you have any evidence showing that the steady, long-term fires that then set in caused any window shatterings? That is, after all, what determines whether or not those fires actually stayed above 600 degrees Celsius, and therefore had the possibility of weakening the steel sufficiently. The actual shattering is also important, because the glass itself is what's being observed.



Yes Howard, and you are apparently blind. Stop playing your misinfo bit. Your challenge has been met a few times, despite your refusal to recognize it. You're a stubborn old man. The evidence is throughout this thread.



Another attempt to discredit opposition...

And on and on...



I have to agree with this. Your tactics have lost their effect, Howard, and it's just getting old, really. You used your tactics a bit too frequently, with actual scientific rebuttals too infrequently. You're just starting to look silly with your one- and two-line rebuttals that just consist of a mocking sentence and a or two, and a a few 's for good measure.



Have you even once considered that you are wrong, or that the official explanation may have errors? Maybe you actually know WTC 1, 2, and 7 were all demolished, but can't agree with us for reasons that have to do with your paycheck?

It's like the Catholic Church arguing to the very last that the Earth is flat, and the center of the universe. Sad.

Aluminium has a melting point of only 660.32 °C, Construction Steel has melting point of 1535° C, bit of a difference there. Oh but i'm sure the plastic office furniture raised that tempurature because NIST did a test and said so right Howard? They must of missed the office fire in '75 which spread over 6 floors but did nothing but singe some firefighters hair.

What's your point with those pretty NIST pictures? To show us that Aluminium and Steel, although both metals and both used in entirely different ways in the construction of the WTC melt at totally different tempuratures?

Oh wait, i know what your point is.... circular logic.

There's better molten metal to talk about, like the pools found at the Cores base, what did NIST say about those?? I know the head honcho at Controlled Demolition said that's where he'd place explosives to bring the building down but i guess no one at NIST bothered to look into that.

steel looses almost half its strength at 600 C. Did you know that?







And you have proof that they were not aluminum?

Seriously, how many times has this been addressed in the last 30 pages?


Here's some extra info that might have some bearing on the topic at this late stage.



See also 25 Ways To Suppress Truth

It also regains it's strength as it cools down but anyway....



So AGAIN you have NOTHING Howard but a circular logic which is designed to put people off the trail rather than giving them anything real to think about.



Considering you can't prove they were aluminium, we'll have to take the word of someone who was there:

"This is where clean-up crew discovered hot spots of "literally molten steel" more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, required the help of a professional.

A call was placed to Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) who arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation

American Free Press asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon."
www.letsroll911.org...

Here's a government link on the thermal hot spots:
pubs.usgs.gov...

That's it from me to you Howard, i'm getting dizzy going around in circles with you.
Keep it real.

the metal in the sublevels was reportedly steel. hardly anything can be proven except that there is a criminal removal of evidence from a crime scene.

where's the report on the molten metal in the basement, howard? we can't 'prove' anything without a report from FEMA or NIST( femanist? lol). luckily, it is already in an official FEMA report, as you know. why are you pretending you don't know?

gigo, eh? cool word.

howard, this building had multiple load distrubution features designed into it. the 'mosquito net' analogy should not be completely ignored. if one corner was experiencing rather intense heat, (whether from jet fuel or slow thermite reactions), then the building should lean towards the weakened spot. for the building to just start into near freefall, with no perceptible acceleration curve, then we must assume that all support on one floor gave out at exactly the same time. and then we must make another huge list of assumptions, based on assumptions.
the negligible damage to the outside walls(10 to 15 per cent), and the hottest areas of the 'inferno' do not account for an even distiburtion of heat throughout an entire floor, which is the necessary condition for any kind of momentum gaining sudden movement as surmised by the official load of manure.

and lose the 'nobody heard explosions' argument, because MANY witnesses reported hearing explosions. you have a bad memory for facts that don't fit your version of reality.

That is my point exactly.

And what are these HVAC ducts connected to?

Fans units located on the mechanical floors

What are the fan units connected to?

Outside air vents.

How is it that the flames from the 99th and 100th floor are outside the building if the windows are still intact?



So are you trying to claim that those fires in the above photo were not hot enough to break the glass?


The following charts illustrate the open windows over time



and



Black indicates that the window is open, blue that it is not visible (or undetermined)

Clearly, the fires burned through the windows over time.

Nice defence HR....

There could be two explanations for this though, either the Windows were broken from plane impact, of the fireball expanding outwards broke some of the windows.

I personally think those fires were below 600 C.

I believe that the assessment of the windows after the impact means after the fireballs as well, since the intent of the ilustration is to show the extent of the window damage due to fire alone.

Howard, what's important here is not how the fires "opened" windows. That could have happened from any number of things fire does to a window panel when it's burning right up next to it. What is important is how the fires shattered the glass, or that they didn't. Two very distinct and different things.

If that is truly molten aluminum, then that is the first piece of evidence I have seen suggesting that the fires at any point were above 600 degrees Celsius. It's unfortunate that that was an isolated incident, and that the fires began dying down substantially after the jet fuel burned away. During this time, it wouldn't surprise me if some windows had their glass shattered in that corner of the building. Then again, that region was awfully close to the impact, so actually that may not even be true, lol.



Yeah, it was after the fireballs. But you're missing the point. Think about this: Jets crash into both buildings. Giant fireballs roar out of them both. Then fires get right up next to the windows in some parts of the building, only in the same region that both the jet impacts and fireballs have already affected. Now how many ways can those three things "open" windows without actually shattering the glass from heat? Quite a lot I would imagine. The point of the heat actually shattering the glass itself? Totally missed.

I don't doubt that some windows indeed had their glass shattered by the fire itself, but not very many. That's why I've been saying that there was no widespread shattering of glass from heat. If you look at other famous building fires, this exact thing happens: windows shattering in a widespread fashion from heat. That doesn't mean the window panel fails from heat. It means glass.

And what have you to say to these?



I can guess you'll say that there was pressure? Remember that this is before any collapse, so if you say pressure you're going to have to account for where this pressure would have come from. We know the air wasn't pre-heated. The WTC wasn't being used as an oven on 9/11.



But I suppose that's nothing new, considering there were no glowing steel beams of any color at the WTC that day. Well, any color besides cold, hard gray, that is.



Oh, but you're going to say that the fires damaged the core columns mainly. Ok.



But wait, this directly contradicts that whole mess about the elevator shafts causing those demolition squibs! So wait... what evidence is there then that those shafts could have effectively carried air around the building, let alone cause magical beams of pressurized air to blow out windows?



And that's been covered here as well. The fires, judging by the smoke output, cooled over time. Jet fuel burns quickly.



Yet what did we see at Ground Zero but cleanly cut shards and beams of steel? How were they cut into pieces so cleanly? It's well known that this type of steel bends, and only then at high temperatures, but won't shatter unless there's some real directed force behind the cut being made. And again, why were the cuts so clean?



But how many columns actually failed? Not even a majority. Less than 15% of either building's section of perimeter columns, and the South Tower lost a obvious minority of core columns as well since the plane that impacted into it came out of another side diagonally, totally failing to hit the building head-on! Based on those facts, that less than 15% of either building's perimeter columns were down and a clear minority of the South Tower's core columns, we can say that nowhere near 9/10ths of the columns were out. Even considering we don't know how many core columns were knocked out of the North Tower, the South Tower fell just as easily with almost all of its core columns, so why should we think that either the perimeter columns or core columns had anything to do with the collapse?

Hmm..

[edit on 16-7-2005 by bsbray11]

I’m sure this has been posted before but I think it needs to remembered it’s not just us here at ATS that feel the FEMA is a load of bull

Fire Engineers Call WTC Probe ‘Half-Baked Farce’




[edit on 16/7/2005 by Sauron]

Let's take a friendly look at our buddy Howard's posts on this thread alone in regards to their disinfo tactic use. This isn't meant as a personal attack, but just a simple comparison.

These are the tactics that WeComeInPeace just posted.



On page 27, TheShroudOfMemphis posts these images showing an anomaly in the collapse of a WTC building:



Howard responds to these images by posting the following:

"Prove it. Offer conclusive proof that these so called blasts occured before the collapses started."

The above quote was from page 27 of this thread; post number: 1534450 (post id: 1556343).

Howard thereby implies that for the graphics to be valid, the explosion would have had to have taken place before the start of the collapse (with "before" in bold in his original post).

In fact, the very video SoM linked to shows that the explosion takes place at the very start of the collapse, not before it. With his remark, Howard avoids addressing this graphic/video directly by simply suggesting it's invalid because it happened while the collapse was starting. SoM never once suggested the blast happened before the collapse starting.



After being absent from the thread for over 45 posts in which much evidence against the official story was successfully argued (extraordinarily fast collapse speeds, little resistance from steel, cool fires, few destroyed columns, and a beginning into exploring the demolition squibs), Howard jumps back onto the thread with a single rebuttal attempt, and doesn't look back to address any of the other information that had been presented since his last visit, despite his old habit of showing up and making several consecutive posts doing just that.

The single rebuttal to the vast amount of into covered in the 45 posts he missed was directed towards a remark Misfit made regarding half of a floor appearing to blow out. Howard's attempt to explain them:

"Easy, that is the mechcanical floor. That is the air being blown outward through the building HVAC intakes. The air is bing forced down and out through the shafts in the core as the building collaspes."

The above quote was from page 27 of this thread; post number: 1534273 (post id: 1556166).

Howard then returns an hour later and produces the post you see under disinfo tacitc #1. Unlike earlier exhibited behavior, Howard does not go back to address the unusual collapse times or the apparent lack of resistance from the steel frames of the buildings. Neither does he address the small number of downed columns.

He is selective in his addressing of the evidence of cool fires.

The evidence posted regarding the cool nature of the fires was as follows:



In responding to this (only after it was posted several times), Howard addresses only point A, posting diagrams showing windows that had been "opened" over time at the WTC on 9/11 (page 28; post number: 1537063; post id: 1558956). He failed to show how many failed windows were "opened" by heat-shattered glass, and wholly failed to address the other two points.

Howard was similarly selective in his address of WeComeInPeace's post regarding the demolition squibs and Howard's alleged paths of air in the WTC. In fact (and this may fall more under tactic #5), Howard takes a response from WeComeInPeace and makes it his signature, supposedly ridiculing WCIP for something he himself suggested! Not only hypocritical but an attempt to mock and discredit WCIP.



In terms of this thread, Howard was the very person to make the thread, which is in itself an attempt to intimidate and discredit those who do not buy the government's official story regarding 9/11. Being a newer member here, I don't know Howard's history with the forums prior to this thread, especially in regards to this topic. Maybe someone else can fill this section in with a little more detail.



I'll give two examples, both by Sven. First, from page 21, post number 1523461, post id: 1545354:

"(psst.....Howard.....y'r the man, great pic's man )"

Second, from page 22, post number 1527662, post id: 1549555:

"The pictures are GREAT [referring to pictures posted as part of counter-arguments to arguments made by those supporting the demo theory]

Must say get great pictures on this thread [Howard still d'a man...(the cat guy good 2) ] "

As stated, this will occur naturally on forums, but it also naturally aids the disinfo process.



Here, we have as an example Howard posting the following:

"Well, since you are an expert on sylips, chemtrails, ufos and other bullcrap, Why don't you submit a comment to NIST based on your vast knowlege."

The above quote was from page 28 of this thread; post Number: 1537113 (post id: 1559006).



Here's a good example of this, posted not too long ago by our HowardRoark:

"My mission is to deny ignorance, As long as people like you espouse it, I will fight it."

The above quote was from page 28 of this thread; post Number: 1537226 (post id: 1559119).



I'm not going to dig for any examples of the above, though if anyone has any feel free to share. I would expect that Howard has done this before, but from his great preference for being selective (tactic #2), he doesn't do it often.

Again, not meant as a personal attack or anything. Just making simple, honest comparisons.

Speaking with some expertise as I have been involved with highrise mechanical systems for 21 some odd years both new installations/start-up and operating/ maintaining existing systems.

SOME HERE KNOW ABSOLUTE DIDDLEY ABOUT HOW AIR ACTS WITH-IN A BUILDING WHEN IT IS PRESSURIZED

Are any of you demo/squib people degreed mechanical engineers or for that matter operating engineers?

I only ask because some of the theory put forward is absolute quackery.

If you are - your licensure should be in question.

The rest of you (no professional experience) should not guess about things you know nothing about - its getting laughable.



[edit on 16-7-2005 by Phoenix]

Wow, Phoenix. Thanks for that total and absolute rebuttal. I feel so much more informed. x.x

Not my job to educate you on what should be easily obtainable information out on the web - why don't you do some research before making unsupportable claims about air movement under pressure with-in an enclosed space including shaftways.

ASME (search word) is a good place to start. "Static Pressure" is another search term that should help you understand.

Good day

[edit on 16-7-2005 by Phoenix]

Just for the sake of argument, I did a search and read up but can't figure out why this happened:



Any suggestions?

Yes look up "static pressure" and do the math using the cubic volume of a
WTC floor (not area) x compression velocity and you will begin to understand the forces generated.















9

Excellent research and comments to counter Howard's and the others lame arguments. In the post by "We comein peace"...where the building begins to explode ( comtrolled demo ) and you can clearly see the antenna on top, there is an enormous amount of debris going straight up above the antenna.....Hmmmm.
Thanks for the disinfo list and the comments. You done good.

Larry

That's great. Now show us what's laughable and what's not.

I'd like to see your explanation of how compressed gases exploded windows far below the point of collapse.

Doubting Thomases abound here. If you want to ridicule something, stop blabbing about expertise and waving your hands and show proofs or some theories.