It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FEMA says melted steel at WTC 7

page: 10
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by MikeVet

1- yes, it's true that the buildings witstood the impacts. that is plainly obvious since we all saw it. but would agree that they weakened the load capacity of the buildings?

2- yes, it's true that the fires, by themselves, didn't burn hot enough or long enough to cause the collapse. but don't you agree that statement implies that fires can weaken steel? it must be true because your statement implies that there is a point where it COULD cause a collapse on its own, if left long enough.

3- so if you choose to deny ignorance, you must agree that when you combine the 2 weakening inputs, there MUST be a point whereby the effect of the 2 would bring down the buildings. that point remains somewhat undefined


1. Not according to NIST, the impacts did not cause a weakened load capacity.

wtc.nist.gov...

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.


2. As stated the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the steel to weaken enough for a complete collaspe.

wtc.nist.gov...

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed.

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels ...

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors of the towers.


3. So as stated the impacts and fires were not enough to cause the collapse.

Please let me know if you need any more evidence i have more.



[edit on 6-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Now you're just trolling-

1- Reread your first link - it says ADDITIONAL damage would be necessary..... implying that the damage done wasn't enough. Just like I stated. or are you going to stick with "removal of columns wouldn't weaken the building" LMAO.... deny ignorance, please.

2- a limited sample is proof that all were subjected to the same heat? more trolling. deny your ignorance and think logically.

3- more cherry picking. here's a guy who continually says the NIST is all wrong, then cherry picks selected paras from it, while ignoring the body of work it represents. still more trolling.

you have demonstrated a clear predeliction for trolling - cherry picking evidence, quote mining, and lying. traits that i thought that this site was against. i once thought you were actually interested in truth, but now i see you are not. you are beneath any more replies. go troll somewhere else.

welcome to the world of ignore.




posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
So Griff (and others) it would be safe to assume that you do not believe in evolution then?

(I do have a point related to the discussion, provided someone answers the above)



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
So Griff (and others) it would be safe to assume that you do not believe in evolution then?

(I do have a point related to the discussion, provided someone answers the above)


you forgot to mention holocaust denial, the earth is 6000 yrs. old and little green men.
i have a point related to this thread. i'm just not going to type it out now, 'cause i think this is some kind of a game.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   


you forgot to mention holocaust denial, the earth is 6000 yrs. old and little green men.


no, I chose not to mention them.

Actually, its not a game. It is a serious question to Griff (and others)



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
6- NIST isn't tasked with the responsibility of disproving CT theories. do it within the CT community


Your whole previous post can be summed up while I answer this point.

First, this is NOT a conspiracy theory. Unless you are including FEMA in the CT crowd now?

Second, NIST IS taxed with finding out what happened to the towers and 7 on 9/11. This would include the mysterious melting and corroding of WTC steel. Again, it's NOT a CT. So, yes, they are taxed with finding the answer to that mystery. NOT just Greening's coulda/shoulda/woulda.

Now, this is the last time I will say these things to you because (no offense) you are starting to sound like a troll.

NIST is taxed with finding this out for sure. They haven't bothered to figure it out. Even though gypsum drywall is used everyday in the construction of steel buildings. Now wouldn't it be of interest to determine how much of a hazard gypsum is to steel if it has the potential to melt and corrode steel?



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
So Griff (and others) it would be safe to assume that you do not believe in evolution then?

(I do have a point related to the discussion, provided someone answers the above)


I believe in evolution as an hypothesis.

Please look up the words:

hypothesis, theory and scientific law.

Evolution is an hypothesis.


A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena.


en.wikipedia.org...


Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory.


Gypsum melting and corroding steel is an hypothesis.

A theory is:


In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.


en.wikipedia.org...

Gypsum melting and corroding steel is NOT a theory. Notice the "testable model" and 'being tested through experiment" parts of the above definition.

Now scientific law


A scientific law, is a law-like statement that generalizes across a set of conditions. To be accorded law-like status a wide variety of these conditions should be known, i.e. the law has a well documented history of successful replication and extension to new conditions. Ideally boundary conditions, where the law fails, should also be known.


Neither evolution nor gypsum melting and corroding steel are scientific law.

Unless someone would like to site the experimental data to back it up.

Thanks for playing.




posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
you have demonstrated a clear predeliction for trolling - cherry picking evidence,


I am not cherry picking, i am quoting directly from reports.

I am waiting for any evidence you can post to debate what i have posted.

And if anyone is cherry picking and lying, it was you when you cherry picked and lied about the windows.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I would not say it was cherry picking. I would say it was making false assumptions based on what was being read by the reader. I was not misled by what was cited from the NIST report. But then I know the only possible way, based on the evidence we have concerning 9/11, they could have come up with an exact number of 1312 was to guesstimate.

NIST personnel, nor anyone else, had any way of actually knowing how many windows were broken. That is self-evident, from what we know was actually occurring on 9/11 that we could see happening, and not what we could not see happening.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Evolution is a fact theory per genetic proof. The National Academy of Sciences just recently made a formal consensus statement to that effect. Creationism is a hypothesis. Evolution has been consistently proved to theory. Evolution will never be a natural law, but the principles involved in evolution involve use of natural/physics and chemistry laws.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
NIST personnel, nor anyone else, had any way of actually knowing how many windows were broken. That is self-evident, from what we know was actually occurring on 9/11 that we could see happening, and not what we could not see happening.


Ok, so what is your stand on the plane impacts and fires causing the towers to collapse ?

[edit on 7-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Thanks for the info.

It still doesn't change the point of my response though.

Because gypsum being able to melt and corrode steel has not been proven to happen experimentally. So, it is still a hypothesis.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I agree it does not, when not including the statement evolution is a hypothesis.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I do not know what impacted the twin towers, because I could not see what impacted the twin towers or anything thereafter. I do not know what caused that hole, and cannot say with any validity it was Boeing 767s. The eye can be great deceivers in eyewitness testimony, as any police officer or court can tell anyone as evidenced by testimony of eyewitnesses.

Or as evidenced at any show put on by the world's most renowned magicians.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars The eye can be great deceivers in eyewitness testimony, as any police officer or court can tell anyone as evidenced by testimony of eyewitnesses.


Yes, i know i was a federal police officer, so i know about witnesses and court procedures.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Nice dodge, Griff. Either you believe in evolution or you do not.....

Either you believe its possible for a statistically impossible combination of events to just happen....or its not......



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


What has evolution to do with the topic of this discussion? The poster only made a comment of opinion. I do not believe he meant to take the discussion into evolution. As far as I am concerned, his personal belief in evolution vs. anything else are his own entitlement to opinion. However, no one is entilted to be wrong in fact. Griff courteously acknowledge that fact and agreed.

As far as the information being provided by Griff concerning drywall and steel, I concur with Griff's points of argument. That is on topic for this discussion.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
[
Your whole previous post can be summed up while I answer this point.

First, this is NOT a conspiracy theory. Unless you are including FEMA in the CT crowd now?

Second, NIST IS taxed with finding out what happened to the towers and 7 on 9/11. This would include the mysterious melting and corroding of WTC steel. Again, it's NOT a CT. So, yes, they are taxed with finding the answer to that mystery. NOT just Greening's coulda/shoulda/woulda.

Now, this is the last time I will say these things to you because (no offense) you are starting to sound like a troll.

NIST is taxed with finding this out for sure. They haven't bothered to figure it out. Even though gypsum drywall is used everyday in the construction of steel buildings. Now wouldn't it be of interest to determine how much of a hazard gypsum is to steel if it has the potential to melt and corrode steel?


You're totally wrong, and both of your points are wrong. NIST is tasked with determining how the buildings collapsed. After they study this, they make recommendations to guys like you about how to eliminate some of the faults they have found that contributed to the failures and ways to better protect the occupants. Recommendations like better protection of stairwells.

They are NOT tasked with determining what happened INSIDE the rubble pile AFTER the collapse. To assert otherwise, you must provide a mission statement that clearly states this, otherwise.......

Again this sounds like it should be tasked to some type of materials safety agency, or looked at within the industry. It is apparently a concern for you, as it should, given your position. So I'll ask again, are you aware of what other agencies could/should/can look into this, and are you asking them about it?

Again with the melted gypsum. Why are you hung up on this? I don't remember anyone even remotely hinting at gypsum "melting", other than you. It is reasonable to assume that the gypsum was pulverized during the collapse. This is the basis for what I've been saying/quoting. If you want to go off down the road about melting gypsum, be my guest, but you'll be taking that trip alone my friend.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   


What has evolution to do with the topic of this discussion? The poster only made a comment of opinion. I do not believe he meant to take the discussion into evolution.


Umm, I am the one that first mentioned evolution. Why?

The discussion was mentioning how gypsum, in combination with other items, could cause the issues with the steel. A random combination of factors that lead to a statistically improbable occurance.

And evolution is the ULTIMATE in random combination of factors that lead to a statistically IMPOSSIBLE occurance.

So, I want to know...those of you that think that there was a dastardly plot to blow up four buildings....do you accept the random combination of factors that is evolution...and then NOT accept that another random combination of factors could lead to a building collapse or to steel being corroded.....



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technolog) is the federal agency "tasked" with maintaining standards of materials and technology.

Yes, NIST was responsible for any and all steel and other material testing, including what FEMA would not allow them to pull from the rubble.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


What has evolution to do with drywall?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join