Fairbanks Video stabilized with horizontal charges.

reply to post by bsbray11

Again, this is a misconception. Steel warps in framed structures during fires, because it tries to expand in place and this creates all sorts of additional stress between structural members. The steel has to be uniformly heated to much too high of a temperature to lose significant yield strength, especially in a redundant structure.

Citation

NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

From the study you cited:

The question may now be asked, what about the large deflections seen in real structures? Are those not a clear sign that ‘runaway’ was occuring? Figure 3.36 clearly shows that for temperatures below 300 °C, the deflections for the restrained beam are much larger than that for the simply supported beam, however they have nothing to do with ‘runaway’. These deflections are caused entirely by the increased length of the beam through thermal expansion and are not a sign of loss of ‘strength’ or ‘stiffness’ in the beam until much later. In fact approximately 90% of the defelection at 500°C and 75% at 600°C is explained by thermal expansion alone. Most of the rest is explained by increased strains due to reduced modulus of elasticity. However the behaviour remains stable until about 700°C when the first signs of runaway begin to appear.

Here's a PDF of the University of Edinburgh study

While I do not dispute the authenticity of that study, it would be helpful if you could link to the material's original source rather than a 9/11 conspiracy site.

Still no response to my statement. Explosions wave out, WTC "spits of dust" didn't. And there was no light if they were near the outter building.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Still no response to my statement. Explosions wave out, WTC "spits of dust" didn't. And there was no light if they were near the outter building.

You keep going on about this, I already showed that you are not always going to see the flashes. It's stupid to think you would when there are examples all over the web that contradicts your notion.

No one has responded because it's a pointless unfounded point.

And what wave out? What does that mean? The squibs in the towers look exactly like squibs on known controlled demolitions.

What is ludicrous is the assertion that it was compressed air when clearly the buildings were not air tight. Compressed air takes the easiest path and that would not be through doors, down passageways and into elevators. Do you think the compressed air pressed the down button and waited...

The building is exploding outwards as it collapses, that is where all your 'compressed air' is going.

You guys would be arguing it was Allah that did it if that's what the government reported...

I have a feeling you are the sort that really doesn't care about the issue, you just want to win a debate, and you think by using the official government argument you can easily win. Well sry some of us have done our own research, and nothing you can repeat from the government reports is going to win any debate here. We know the official story better than you do. In fact better than most of you who are arguing for it. I keep hearing about pancake collapses which even NIST doesn't support. I keep hearing about how the fires weakened the steel when even NIST admits no steel got hot enough to fail. Most of you don't even know what you are arguing. That's what's so frustrating, the continuous debate over mute points.

When in reality I could take half a dozen single points about the collapses that can't be explained by the official story, and any one of them stops your argument dead, whether they were squibs or compressed air.

For example, the lack of resistance from undamaged columns. If you can't explain how that happened you've already lost the debate, and if you were really here to learn the truth you would want to find that answer, no?

But having said that this is not a competition, there are no winners and loser here, just government agents (paid or not) and those of us who want the truth to come out...

Originally posted by Gorman91
Still no response to my statement. Explosions wave out, WTC "spits of dust" didn't. And there was no light if they were near the outter building.

If we can have someone examine the footage and give me a flow rate, and area of the puffs, I could (generically) calculate if it was physically possible. Flow rate remains constant (just like energy). It's the velocity and area that changes, so if we know flow rate and areas, we can calculate if the velocity of the fall was enough to even produce that flow rate.

Someone got me thinking about fluid dynamics.

reply to post by ANOK

What is ludicrous is the assertion that it was compressed air when clearly the buildings were not air tight. Compressed air takes the easiest path and that would not be through doors, down passageways and into elevators. Do you think the compressed air pressed the down button and waited...

Evidence of compressed air can be seen in the following video originally posted by 11 11 which clearly shows a sustained stream that's in coherence with the collapsing section above:



If it can happen there, why not the rest of the building?

You guys would be arguing it was Allah that did it if that's what the government reported...

While I can't speak for anybody else, where I'm concerned I beg to differ. I couldn't care less what governments think or conspire, in fact I would much rather for governments to get out of my way. I can't stand nationalism or patriotism in any country, and I think democracy is heavily flawed and inherently corrupt. There is plenty that is wrong with every government on this planet, however I am not going to lie or misrepresent the facts simply because I don't like something. My heritage is Welsh, I am a British citizen from birth, and I have lived here all my life. What the US government thinks or does has no direct consequence on me, so no, I have no reason to believe what they say without scrutinising it. Reality is reality and that is the only thing I base my judgement on.

I keep hearing about pancake collapses which even NIST doesn't support.

Who here is asserting a 'pancake collapse' theory?

I keep hearing about how the fires weakened the steel when even NIST admits no steel got hot enough to fail.

Citation

NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers.

Citation originally posted by bsbray11 here.

However the behaviour remains stable until about 700°C when the first signs of runaway begin to appear.

For example, the lack of resistance from undamaged columns. If you can't explain how that happened you've already lost the debate, and if you were really here to learn the truth you would want to find that answer, no?

That issue has already been addressed in previous posts, perhaps you'd care to refer to them?

While I agree that Gorman91 appears to be pandering over points that have already been addressed, I find it a little convenient that you've used his post as a stepping stone to once again sidestep the posts and points that counter your argument. There are a whole range of arguments dealing with the issues you keep raising, you can find them by reading from here to here.

(continued)...

Originally posted by himselfe
Citation

NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers.

Citation originally posted by bsbray11 here.

However the behaviour remains stable until about 700°C when the first signs of runaway begin to appear.

You keep quoting NIST saying the ceiling temps got to be 1000 C. Can you also site NIST for us where they state that none of the structural steel tested got hotter than 600C? Thanks. To be fair and honest, we need all the information.

reply to post by ANOK

But having said that this is not a competition, there are no winners and loser here, just government agents (paid or not) and those of us who want the truth to come out...

I'm always hearing conspiracy theorists claiming to be objective, yet when it boils down to it the only point they ever really have is "teh government tis teh bad mmmk?"

Simply taking the opposing position is not being objective. Being objective involves looking at what happened regardless of your bias or own opinion.

The fact that your post has gained two stars, in spite of the fact that it avoids addressing points already made (most of which address issues raised in the post) and provides no real evidence or explanation to the argument, is a clear indication of the level of bias and lack of objectivity that's rife here.

Originally posted by Griff
You keep quoting NIST saying the ceiling temps got to be 1000 C. Can you also site NIST for us where they state that none of the structural steel tested got hotter than 600C? Thanks. To be fair and honest, we need all the information.

I don't see why I have to be the one doing all the work? That's your point, therefore it is your job to cite it.

In the tests you are referring to, did NIST reproduce the exact conditions of the fires in the two towers?

reply to post by himselfe


Himselfe as far as I have seen you have done ZERO work. Actually all of your "knowledge" of 911 comes from NIST, which is the worst possible source on the face of the planet because they are the suspects.

Do you believe a murder suspect when he tells you he didn't do it? YES YOU DO, the suspect is called NIST and FEMA, and ASCE, which are all government run.

YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THIS QUESTION:




Why, on 911, did the top section of the building fall through the rest of the building as if the rest of the building wasn't there? ZERO RESISTANCE?

Nobody, not even you himselfe, has EVER explained this smoking gun of controlled demolition.

all it takes is common sense to see 911 was an inside job. None of these complex calculations, and research is needed.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by 11 11]

reply to post by 11 11

Himselfe as far as I have seen you have done ZERO work. Actually all of your "knowledge" of 911 comes from NIST, which is the worst possible source on the face of the planet because they are the suspects.

Anybody who wants to know the truth in regards to that statement can read this thread. People will make their own minds up as to what I have and haven't done and I am ok with that.

Do you believe a murder suspect when he tells you he didn't do it? YES YOU DO, the suspect is called NIST and FEMA, and ASCE, which are all government run.

I believe in the motto "Innocent until proven guilty", it's part of what's called progression in society. If all logic and reasoning points to somebody being innocent, I expect the prosecution to do their work in proving otherwise.

YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THIS QUESTION:

I answered your question in this post. The answer to your question is 'neither', as explained in the original answer.

Why, on 911, did the top section of the building fall through the rest of the building as if the rest of the building wasn't there? ZERO RESISTANCE?

It didn't. Stop sidestepping over previous posts that have already dealt with your assertion.

Nobody, not even you himselfe, has EVER explained this smoking gun of controlled demolition.

That's because nobody with a clue claims it did fall with zero resistance.

reply to post by himselfe


LOL YOU STILL CAN'T ANSWER.

You are using straw man tactics to not answer a simple question..

It is fact that the WTC "collapsed" in 8.4 seconds. That means, the building fell as if the only resistance was "air". When the resistance should have been "the rest of the undamaged building" and "air".

You STILL haven't proven AT ALL how it is possible for the 110 story building to fall in 8.4 seconds.

Untill then, everything you say from here on out is going ignored as it is clearly obvious you are willing to forget how to read, and ignore "figures of speech" in order to APPEAR to know WTF you are talking about, when in reality you are using these tactics to tippy toe your way around the TRUTH which is that 911 was an inside job.


If 911 wasn't and inside job, I wouldn't be here trying to figure out WTF happen to the buildings. ESPECIALLY ONE OF MANY SMOKING GUNS WTC SEVEN.



[edit on 23-8-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by himselfe
That's because nobody with a clue claims it did fall with zero resistance.

If YOU had even the slightest clue or common sense, you would know when someone says "zero resistance" it usually means BESIDES AIR, because air is something you just can't simply remove. We live on Earth.

If you don't have the common sense to know that much than I don't want to even waste my time replying to your remarks that only shows that you are purposely picking and choosing words to rearrange to help your non-existent point of view.

hemselfe,

Since you like to use straw man tactics, and like to pick and choose words when answering questions, I will ask you a question that doesn't allow you to do that.

Answer this:



How come on 9/11/01, the top section of the WTC fell as if the only resistance was air? As if the image above had the same outcome on both sides.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by 11 11]

reply to post by 11 11

LOL YOU STILL CAN'T ANSWER.

You are using straw man tactics to not answer a simple question..

And I'm the one who's biased and not objective??

At this point I have to assume one of two possibilities, either you are having difficulties understanding the English language (which is quite possible given your misinterpretations early on in this thread), or you are deliberately avoiding acknowledging the answer due to your bias and disregard for the truth. Given the way you have conducted your debate thus far, I would say both. I can't really blame you if you are having trouble comprehending the debate, but there is no excuse for blatantly denying what has been said.

It is fact that the WTC "collapsed" in 8.4 seconds. That means, the building fell as if the only resistance was "air". When the resistance should have been "the rest of the undamaged building" and "air".

Care to provide calculations?

You STILL haven't proven AT ALL how it is possible for the 110 story building to fall in 8.4 seconds.

Some of the concepts are explained here. It's called science.

Untill then, everything you say from here on out is going ignored as it is clearly obvious you are willing to forget out to read, and ignore "figures of speach" in order to APPEAR to know WTF you are talking about, when in reality you are using these tactics to tippy toe your way around the TRUTH which is that 911 was an inside job.

You've been ignoring most of what I've said for the past 5 pages, you have nothing valuable to contribute so it makes no difference to me. Just remember that each time you 'ignore' me only to start responding to me later on while avoiding what's already been said, you make a fool of your self. I would love it if you could back up your assertions, it would make this this thread far less inane.

This world would be a far better place if people like you didn't exist. You make this world a living hell for anybody with intelligence. I realise that saying that might get me banned but with conspiracy chumps like you being allowed to bulldoze over reality with your stupidity like you're some sort of objective genius, I really couldn't care less. Forget governments, it's people like you that perpetuate ignorance and hinder humanity's ability to progress. I hate having to lower my self to this level, but there's only so much idiocy I can take, and people like you only ever seem to understand one thing, insults. Say what you like, the proof is there for all to see

EDIT: If anybody needs a review of your stance on reality, they can check here and here, and that's all I need to say.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by himselfe]

I'm no demo professional but I have 2 theories about the video. I can believe that all the extra weight and weakness in the building would cause it to snap at that certain location. I can also agree with piacenza. It all seems odd and many ideas are yet to be proven.

I hate having to lower my self to this level, but there's only so much idiocy I can take...

So don't do it. Making a low blow only lowers you to that level. Respect.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by BurningStar]

reply to post by BurningStar

So don't do it. Making a low blow only lowers you to that level. Respect.

Well duh! How does stating that help the situation?

Originally posted by himselfe
Some of the concepts are explained here. It's called science.

It would help if you understood the science you are citing.

Your explanation is correct that an object will fall and accelerate as long as nothing creates any friction, or resistance.

The 80 odd floors of undamaged welds and fastener was the resistance.

Do you get it now?

No matter what scientific explanations you try to spin to explain the lack of resistance it ain't going away. Without something taking away that resistance the tower would not have globally collapsed, period.

You said earlier who is claiming pancake collapse? Well what do you call what you're claiming if it's not pancake collapse? Floors dropping on lower floors causing them to fall is a pancake collapse. Floors blowing outwards and upwards is what I'd call an explosive demolition (not controlled necessarily), which is what we clearly see.

[edit on 23/8/2007 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK

It would help if you understood the science you are citing.

Your explanation is correct that an object will fall and accelerate as long as nothing creates any friction, or resistance.

An object will accelerate until an opposite force achieves equilibrium with gravity. Simply that an opposite force exists does not mean it has equilibrium with gravity or the kinetic energy of the object with momentum.

The 80 odd floors of undamaged welds and fastener was the resistance.

Do you get it now?

Of course, the question is do you? I have never claimed that the the floors below did not provide any resistance.

No matter what scientific explanations you try to spin to explain the lack of resistance it ain't going away.

I've never tried to claim any lack of resistance. 11 11 has though, perhaps you should ask him?

Without something taking away that resistance the tower would not have globally collapsed, period.

Clearly you misunderstand (or miss all together) the point about momentum and the extra energy it provided. It takes more energy to stop an object in motion that it does to hold an object at rest. You have yet to provide any scientific theory that disproves this.

You said earlier who is claiming pancake collapse? Well what do you call what you're claiming if it's not pancake collapse? Floors dropping on lower floors causing them to fall is a pancake collapse.

It would be a pancake collapse if the floors were progressively failing as each floor collided with the floor below. I am not claiming that.

Floors blowing outwards and upwards is what I'd call an explosive demolition (not controlled necessarily), which is what we clearly see.

Upwards? Magic.

You can't even see the floors.

Originally posted by himselfe
And I'm the one who's biased and not objective??

?

Yes, you are. As you do not understand the simple physics of "resistance".

Originally posted by himselfeAt this point I have to assume one of two possibilities, either you are having difficulties understanding the English language (which is quite possible given your misinterpretations early on in this thread), or you are deliberately avoiding acknowledging the answer due to your bias and disregard for the truth.

How about the THIRD possibility? The one that never crossed your mind because you are bias and objective. That possibility is the FACT that you didn't answer the question correctly. Nor did anything you say have anything to do with the resistance the undamaged building would have given the collapsing upper floors.

Originally posted by himselfe
Care to provide calculations?

Hmm thats funny, now you are ignoring my post huh? Go figure, maybe thats why I am giving you the "eye for an eye" treatment. Heck I recall you even using my evidence to support your non-evidence. Its hard to believe this video evidence I posted earlyer starts with a great huge "8.4" on the front of it in the YouTube preview window.

Originally posted by himselfe
Some of the concepts are explained here. It's called science.

Everything you posted in that post is 100% correct, and it is knowledge I have known for YEARS. Now, what you are failing to do, is explain to us how the undamaged section of the WTC "got below equilibrium", and allowed the top section of the building to pass through it with zero "friction". Got it?

Maybe you need to read slower.

Originally posted by himselfe
You've been ignoring most of what I've said for the past 5 pages, you have nothing valuable to contribute so it makes no difference to me.

Actually I have been ignoring most of what you have said because you haven't said anything important, or anything that has meaning. Everything you have ever said, I herd before.

The value of my efforts to make you look wrong every post you make is enough.

Originally posted by himselfe
This world would be a far better place if people like you didn't exist. You make this world a living hell for anybody with intelligence. I realise that saying that might get me banned but with conspiracy chumps like you being allowed to bulldoze over reality with your stupidity like you're some sort of objective genius, I really couldn't care less. Forget governments, it's people like you that perpetuate ignorance and hinder humanity's ability to progress. I hate having to lower my self to this level, but there's only so much idiocy I can take, and people like you only ever seem to understand one thing, insults. Say what you like, the proof is there for all to see

Actually, I make this world a living hell for anybody that isn't intelligent, because I have the power to show them their lack of intelligence. That's not an easy thing to do sometimes, its like trying to explain to a fish that it is not smart at all.

Originally posted by himselfe
EDIT: If anybody needs a review of your stance on reality, they can check here and here, and that's all I need to say.

I find it funny that you link to other topics of mine. Especially a 9/11 topic with video evidence and research of a laser beam light. On top of that, you link to my thread that actually holds the key to The Secret of the Universe that was responsible for all of Nikola Tesla's inventions, including the particle beam. Its a proven fact that the entire universe is design with two basic forces. Attraction and Repulsion.

But, I only expect geniuses to find The Secret to the Universe. Einstein was searching, but never found it. Obviously, himselfe, will never find it.

p.s. I know the real reason why the us gov. executed 911. The answer lies in the obelisk's. I know why they did it, just foggy on exactly how.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by 11 11]

[edit on 23-8-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by himselfe
An object will accelerate until an opposite force achieves equilibrium with gravity. Simply that an opposite force exists does not mean it has equilibrium with gravity or the kinetic energy of the object with momentum.

You obviously don't understand what you are saying. An opposite force is anything in the way. You are talking nonsense. Just from this statement alone I can see you have no idea what you're talking about.

The buildings top section had no where near the mass of the lower undamaged sections and it didn't get heavier or get 'extra' energy from anywhere.

Of course, the question is do you? I have never claimed that the the floors below did not provide any resistance.

LOL you don't have to make that claim IT HAPPENED. The building fell at close to free-fall speed give a few seconds without any slowing down, so don't you think it's pretty obvious there was no resistance?

I've never tried to claim any lack of resistance. 11 11 has though, perhaps you should ask him?

No I'm claiming there was no resistance because there was none.
Jeez it's hard to debate with people who are so confused.

Clearly you misunderstand (or miss all together) the point about momentum and the extra energy it provided. It takes more energy to stop an object in motion that it does to hold an object at rest. You have yet to provide any scientific theory that disproves this.

What extra energy are you talking about? You are right that there was extra energy, the question we're asking is what was that extra energy?

If you are claiming that the top had the 'extra' energy to pancake the building then that is nonsense. Where did that extra energy come from?

It would be a pancake collapse if the floors were progressively failing as each floor collided with the floor below. I am not claiming that.

So what are you claiming? All I've seen from you so far is quotes from the NIST report. They don't support the pancake theory but also they offer no alternative to that theory. So what did cause the progressive collapse according to you?

Upwards? Magic.

You can't even see the floors.

LOL you can see the concrete and the steel being blown up and out. Where do you think all that concrete was coming from then?

'Upwards? Magic' what was that comment about? It's obvious it's being blown upwards as you can clearly see that in the vids. Maybe you should watch some.