Originally posted by esdad71
So, you won't believe a 3 year effort by the NIST to come to a conclusion on the WTC, but you will look at a movie for the answers? Are you
The only conclusion NIST came to was that the first floor to fail failed because of the jet impacts and subsequent fires. That's really all it says.
And even that much has been hotly disputed among scholars, as you would know if you keep up with both sides of the issue.
NIST doesn't offer any other information regarding the collapses, except to use words such as "inevitable" when discussing the collapses of every
single floor under the first to fail. Reread the report yourself and prove me wrong if you don't believe me.
The bottom line is that there is no evidence of implosion, but we do have the law of gravity. There is no evidence to prove that this was an
implosion. No trace elements left behind, nothing.
You keep saying this more as if trying to convince yourself than anyone else.
If there's no evidence for a demolition, then there's no evidence for what NIST is suggesting. If you read the actual report, there isn't
any supporting evidence that conclusively shows what they're saying. In fact, if you're clever, you'll notice that they pin the failures on the
trusses, which couldn't be seen from the outside and thus we can't possibly tell whether or not they glowing hot. We know
that the perimeter
columns hadn't lost significant strength because they weren't glowing and the aluminum coverings weren't melting. But what about the trusses?
It's your classic conspiracy theory! You can't prove what NIST is suggesting, so you'll just have to assume it's correct.
Did you know that the fireproofing was not up to code(according to 1969 standards since it was an interstate company and did not have to adhere
to NY city code), and for a truss the length of the WTC, they would not have survived 2 hours, since they were so wide and supported so much weight
for each floor.
Did you know that...
A) The fires didn't burn for 2 hours in either tower (not that it would actually make much difference even if they did).
B) Fireproofing isn't necessary when the steel isn't heated to 600 C and higher, and you're going to come up with something very convincing if you
want us to believe that hydrocarbon fires can heat steel to 600 C in conditions like at the WTC. Hydrocarbons max out their sustained temps around 800
C, and if you're honest with yourself you'll allow that those fires weren't going to be pushing max temperatures with the fuel/air ratio they had
going on up there. The smoke in each tower even darkened, which is obviously not
an ideal burn, and not pushing max temperatures of hydrocarbon
In transferring heat from even the hottest hydrocarbon fire of 800 C, to tons upon tons of steel (to 600 C or higher), which is an excellent conductor
of heat anyway, you're going to have problems. Air carries away a lot
of heat, for example, as I'm sure you can imagine (especially when the
smoke is dark and soot-laden). And that's before
reaching the steel and having to heat up any one section of it without the heat being
"wicked away," as Steven Jones puts it, and conducted around through the steel to keep it cool. And since you've read the NIST report, you know
that no section of either building was exposed to fire the whole time? The fires roamed, and when they left a section of building, that section would
most certainly begin to cool off from whatever insignificant temperatures were approached to begin with.
That's why so many people, such as the Scholars for 9/11 Truth team and other professional groups, are raising serious questions over what NIST is
suggesting. NIST hasn't even got to the rest of the collapses yet, if they even plan on it at all (I don't think they are). And they're already
having a lot of trouble. And on top of all of that, they won't release the full construction drawings, they're withholding thousands of photographs
and video recordings, and the information they've released so far has been kept to an absolutel minimum. The whole thing from NIST is just a bad