Giving this one more go.... molten metal

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
SO then you have evidence that it was heated in the office fire, and not in the debris pile?

I'd like to see that.

It's highly unlikely that the steel box-column would bend itself into a horseshoe shape by laying in the debris pile.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas

2.) Witness testimony.

There is NO positive evidence of temperatures high enough to melt steel. None has been presented.

That does not matter and does not discount the evidence of witness testimony.

Of course it matters. Steel cannot melt at temperatures less than the melting point of steel. Nothing confusing about that. Since there exists no positive evidence of temperatures above 2,000 degrees F., we can say that witnesses did not realize that it was not molten steel.

If images of molten steel, confirmed to exist, are presented, then those images are of molten steel.

As you well know, no such confirmed images of molten steel exist.

If firefighters confirm that there was molten steel flowing like lava, further corroborating the images, then there was molten steel, irregardless of reported temps.

They did not "confirm" it. Some believed it, other firefighters reported max temperatures far less than the melting point of steel. No matter how you slice it, no positive evidence for molten steel existed then or now.

Molten steel existed because numerous witnesses and available media says so.

That's no different than CIT claiming AA77 did not hit the Pentagon because some witnesses believes it flew NOC.

Just admit that you cannot provide us with a single piece of positive evidence for molten steel and move on.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
SO then you have evidence that it was heated in the office fire, and not in the debris pile?

I'd like to see that.

It's highly unlikely that the steel box-column would bend itself into a horseshoe shape by laying in the debris pile.

IOW, all you have is your opinion.

Yeah, that'll convince structural engineers.

So the steel beam is, IIRC, still at the airport. Will you be doing metallurgical tests to confirm this heating? And form a hypothesis?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by okbmd
post links that are comparable as regards the 'no other high-rise has collapsed due to fires' claims that have become second-nature to you ?

Not a claim. For one, you should do some actual research and look into fire-induced collapses of steel-structured high-rises. Which you'll find none. But publications like Fire Engineering keep track of things like that:

No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire.

Source: Fire Engineering, 10/02/2002

I like how that quote is a little out of context and shows how very little thought is used behind using it as an arguement agianst the WTC's situation.

For one thing, how many highrises were hit by a commercial airliner at 400+mph? Oh, woops! They only mention a B-25 hit on the ESB, at low speed. Different story. Oh another story about another smaller aircraft hitting another building. Gee small aircraft. Not large aircraft.

Major highrises, hmmm like Sears Tower, John Hancock, Aon Building, Chrysler Building, etc etc etc. Now refreash my memoery, how many of these had a large aircraft the size of a 767 impact them at 400+ mph, had multiple fires across multiple floors, AND had NO firefighting efforts with water at all to douse the flames?? Give up? None! But yes they are correct none of THESE types of buildings collapsed from fire alone, however, other steel structures HAVE collapsed before, including the Madrid's Windsor Tower. Where did its steel go during the fire? What remained?

Fire Engineering also published an article earlier in 2002 that stated:

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.

And how right they were.

Ahh wow, and you know, you really did a good job of taking that whole part out of context. Lets see the whole thing eh? I'll be sure to add in some more informative sections of that article here as well, which will show a much different light.

911research.wtc7.net...
www.911myths.com...

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.

Ahhhh Ok, NOW we see what he is writing about. He is lamenting how the debris is being cleared out before someone can properly investigate the fireproofing, since questions about the fireproofing methods, fire protection elemtents, and design construction compnents began to arise, admist fears of substandard work. Oh! Well, huh, nothing about bombs, thermites, missiles, nukes, ninja-demo teams, space death rays.

Now before I go and start to laugh at this feeble attempt to cast more suspicions and "evidence" of coverups of siad above items by using a more professional firefighting magazine's article, let me ask you a few questions:
1) Were you aware of the author's actual intentions behind writing this article, ie demanding that they properly investigate allegations of shoddy fireproofing, shoddy construction and design of fire protection elements, and how firecodes may have been violated in the WTC's design and construction?
and
2) Do you agree with the author that there may have been some serious firecode violations, substandard fireproofing, substandard fireprotection components already a part of the WTCs prior to 9/11/01?
or
3) Do you disagree with the main theme or were not aware of the article's theme, and merrily just used that one particular paragraph to have a sort of "validation" of your claims/accusations of possible inside job conspiracy that includes bombs, thermites, death rays, etc, and by using a respectable firefighting publication to further those allegations by you were hoping to have more ammunition that is desperatly needed for the TM's laughable and unsubstantiated claims? After all, why else would you use this particular paragraph, if not for the slam against the "offical story" part?

But you see, its not about a "new investigation" about investigating thermite, bombs, death rays, pixy dust, etc, that may have brought down the WTCs. But its a call for a new investigation into the possible SUBSTANDARD fire proofing, firecodes, fireprotection systems and components. Much much more different than what the TM is calling and hoping for: full disclosure of an "inside job".

Heh, you know you almost had me there with that. But you know, I'm glad you brought that article up. I too want to make sure that our firecodes are up to standard and public safety is number one on the minds of our elected and appointed officials. I also agree that firesafety is no small issue and that care must be taken in designing new large steel highrises, and to make sure that the buildings and people are properly protect in case of large fires. And after seeing how possibly the firecodes may have been sub-par in the WTC, I would like to see more in terms of safety precautions in new buildings and older ones as well.

Nice try! Better luck next time!

[edit on 5/7/2010 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by GenRadek
For one thing, how many highrises were hit by a commercial airliner at 400+mph?

Considering the fact that the towers were designed to withstand the impacts of airliners traveling at 600mph, and considering the fact that by NIST's calculations only 15% of the structure in the impact zones was damaged, leaving 85% of the structure in the impact zones intact, the impacts of airliners on the towers were irrelevant as they only caused minor damage to the structures that were built to withstand them.

Originally posted by GenRadek
had multiple fires across multiple floors, AND had NO firefighting efforts with water at all to douse the flames?? Give up? None!

False, false, and more false. There have been far worse fires in steel-structured high-rises that have burned for far longer. And many without firefighting efforts and hadn't had firefighting efforts applied for many hours. For example:

911research.wtc7.net...

There are plenty more if you look around Google a bit.

Furthermore, don't forget about the fire in the north tower WTC 1 in 1975 that spanned 6 floors for over 3 hours, burning 65% of the 11th floor. It should also be noted that the north tower did not suffer any structural damage and no trusses had to be replaced due to the fires.

Much was learned from the 1975 WTC fire. In particular, the fact that the fire had not been contained to a single floor but spread to many floors, caused much concern. The points of entry of the fire to other floors were identified and the floors of each building were modified to make sure that this would never happen again. For some strange reason, the modifications failed to perform on September 11, 2001 and again the fires spread from floor to floor.

All of these massive fires burning for hours and hours, yet you are still going to believe that fires caused the south tower to collapse in 56 minutes, completely to rubble? Give me a friggin break.

Originally posted by GenRadek
But its a call for a new investigation into the possible SUBSTANDARD fire proofing, firecodes, fireprotection systems and components.

But the fireproofing was upgraded and in the exact areas of the plane impacts, no less. Just like the Pentagon was being upgraded, in the exact area of impact, no less:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f2896139143b.jpg[/atsimg]


And on top of that, the fireproofing "upgrade" was done by a construction/demolition company that had offices on the 38th floor of WTC 1, and the owner of which became good friends with W. Bush who appointed him a White House fellow. You can read more about that here.

Way too many coincidences on 9/11. A new independent, international investigation is needed.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by GenRadek
For one thing, how many highrises were hit by a commercial airliner at 400+mph?

Considering the fact that the towers were designed to withstand the impacts of airliners traveling at 600mph, ...

I note that you are still unable to provide any source and quote for that claim. Why not?

Originally posted by jthomas
I note that you are still unable to provide any source and quote for that claim. Why not?

It's been posted numerous times on this forum. Why do I have to keep posting it over and over again so that you can continue to ignore it?


An analysis was done in 1964 and archived with the Port Authority which stated:

It appears that the design of the WTC towers
considered the impact of 707 aircraft and analysis
indicated that such collision would result in only
local damage which could not cause collapse or
substantial damage to the building

NIST: WTC Investigation Status, pg.15

The analysis also shows the speed of the aircraft would be 600mph and impact at the 80th floor.

The analysis was dead-on. There was only local damage without substantial damage to either building. Had explosives not brought those buildings down, they'd still be standing today.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
I note that you are still unable to provide any source and quote for that claim. Why not?

It's been posted numerous times on this forum. Why do I have to keep posting it over and over again so that you can continue to ignore it?


An analysis was done in 1964 and archived with the Port Authority which stated:

It appears that the design of the WTC towers
considered the impact of 707 aircraft and analysis
indicated that such collision would result in only
local damage which could not cause collapse or
substantial damage to the building

NIST: WTC Investigation Status, pg.15

Let's see what Leslie E. Robertson and John Skilling have to say:

The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers.

"The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

[...]

"The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

"Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets."

"Reflections on the World Trade Center"
Leslie E. Robertson
Volume: 32, Number: 1 - Mar 2002
National Academy of Engineering
www.nae.edu...

"Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision"
By Eric Nalder
Seattle Times
Saturday, February 27, 1993

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...

You'll be wanting to retract your claim: "The towers were designed to withstand impacts of jetliners traveling at 600mph, and survive the resulting fires, just like every other steel-structured highrise has survived fire all throughout history."

reply to post by jthomas


There's nothing to retract. The chief engineer, John Skilling and his firm Worthington Skilling Helle and Jackson designed the towers to withstand an impact from a 707 traveling at 600mph (which is near the top speed of the 707). And an analysis showed the the resulting damage and fires would not cause the towers to collapse. There's nothing more to be said on this subject.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by jthomas

 

There's nothing to retract. The chief engineer, John Skilling and his firm Worthington Skilling Helle and Jackson designed the towers to withstand an impact from a 707 traveling at 600mph (which is near the top speed of the 707). And an analysis showed the the resulting damage and fires would not cause the towers to collapse. There's nothing more to be said on this subject.

I think others would want to know the conclusions of the link you provided which are quite different from your claims:

Context of Findings

..Buildings are not specifically designed to withstand the impact of fuel-laden commercial airliners. While documents from The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicate that the impact of a Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph, possibly crashing into the 80thfloor, was analyzed during the design of the WTC towers in February/March 1964, the effect of the subsequent fires was not considered. Building codes do not require building designs to consider aircraft impact.

..Buildings are not designed for fire protection and evacuation under the magnitude and scale of conditions similar to those caused by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

..The load conditions induced by aircraft impacts and the extensive fires on September 11, 2001, which triggered the collapse of the WTC towers, fall outside thenorm of design loads considered in building codes.

wtc.nist.gov...

End of subject.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It's highly unlikely that the steel box-column would bend itself into a horseshoe shape by laying in the debris pile.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


So BoneZ, if it wasnt about the fireproofing, which by the way was taken from your very source of that particular paragraph about "a new investigation", then why even bring it up in the first place? Dont want to admit that you used a paragraph completely out of context in order to suit your claims? Plus you never answered my questions about it, why not?

Back to the WTC fires, lets see here, first off, back in 1976, was there a 767 burning inside the 11th floor? Did that 11th floor have a 767 impact it at 400+mph? Hmm was there structural damaged that left a gaping hole vertically across five floors of exterior columns, across nearly the entire face and a few severed interior columns on that 11th floor back in 1976? Was the fireproofing, which was still new, fresh, dislodged by a freaking 767 impacting the area at 400+mph? My God you have selective memory. Only remembering what fits for your predetermined outcome, while forgetting the rest of the facts that completely obliterate your ideas. (Did you forget your little paragraph of which I debunked as nothing more than a poor attempt to use deception to further your "allegations"?) Oh and once again, now jthomas had to complete the picture for us, by completing the quote and findings and giving us the full story about the building aircraft impact. Once again YOU only gave us half the truth, while ignoring the most important part, the part which debunks your claims. Why is that? I'm loving this really, as these little deceptions are wearing thin and I can see right through them the moment you put them up. Its a fun game really.

Heh the only thing you can come away with for the 1976 fire is what GOOD fireproofing (asbestos!) did in protecting the structure. Oh and good firefighting efforts as well. Oh and what happens when there isnt a gaping hole in one end of the building and a large burning airliner inside.

I love this gem of yours BoneZ:

All of these massive fires burning for hours and hours, yet you are still going to believe that fires caused the south tower to collapse in 56 minutes, completely to rubble? Give me a friggin break.

Short term memory loss eh? Did you forget the 390,000lb airplane? Traveling at over 400mph? Give me a friggin break. This game of yours getting old and tiring. Ya just keep forgetting that aircraft impact, cause it just bugs the hell out of you being reminded about it. So next time you speak about the WTC situation, please do not forget the airliner impact. Its wasnt just the fires. There was a very large airplane crash first which started it all. If you keep omitting that IMPORTANT part (as I have shown before as you are prone to forgetting/omitting the important parts) then its obvious you are not interested in truth, but deception and twists. And be sure to also fully CHECK your sources before you try to use them to bolster your crumbling case. It really sucks when it turns out that in reality it hurts your argument. (well sucks for you, but its a gold mine for us.)

Originally posted by ohhwataloser
reply to post by iamcpc

 

stop asking for what type of metal it is, it doesn't matter what it is, I will even say stop argueing over what is molten and whats not. These derail the real issue.

what the hell made that glowing rock that temp? molten or not, (personally I think anyone who done any work with metal can obviously see thats molten, even a high school metal shop student, but w/e argue over it and ignore the real issue), the an office fire cannot do it, so what did? That is the proof that I have yet seem to be refuted.

Thank you for your reply even though you ignored my question and pointed out that it does not matter. I will attempt to give an answer to your question.

Q: what the hell made that glowing rock that temp?
A: molten aluminum

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
I note that you are still unable to provide any source and quote for that claim. Why not?

It's been posted numerous times on this forum. Why do I have to keep posting it over and over again so that you can continue to ignore it?


An analysis was done in 1964 and archived with the Port Authority which stated:

It appears that the design of the WTC towers
considered the impact of 707 aircraft and analysis
indicated that such collision would result in only
local damage which could not cause collapse or
substantial damage to the building

NIST: WTC Investigation Status, pg.15

The analysis also shows the speed of the aircraft would be 600mph and impact at the 80th floor.

the NIST report is full of information that points to the idea that the buildings were not demolished. Also the NIST report is the report that is so heavliy called into question by truthers. I go to great lengths to avoid using NIST as a source.


wtc.nist.gov...

page 5 and 6.

In wtc 1, the aircraft cause imact damage to insulation. The subsequent fires caused sagging of the floors. The damage to the core columns resulted in local load redistribution to the remaining core columns. The subsequent fire-induced high temperatures caused the core to displace downward. The downward displacement of the core resulted in load redistribuation from the core to the exterior walls. With continuously increased bowing, the entire width of the south wall buckled inward. The building above the impact zone tilted to the south as instability progressed. Global collapse occurred as potential energy of the falling upper structured exceeded the strain enegery capacity in the deforming structural members.

copy and paste for wtc2.

Do you agree with the information that NIST has published or not?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
SO then you have evidence that it was heated in the office fire, and not in the debris pile?

I'd like to see that.

It's highly unlikely that the steel box-column would bend itself into a horseshoe shape by laying in the debris pile.

I suggest you watch the discovery channel episode about 9/11. Heated steel can bend to a horseshoe shape by laying in the debris pile if it is heated and had weight bearing down on it.

The guy in the first video was clearly a liar. He knew there was molten metal but lied about it's existence. He was really proven wrong by the video evidence. His attitude was to deny and lie about the evidence in the report. A real engineer would openly admit that the molten thermite metal was there.

The guy in the first video was clearly a liar. He knew there was molten metal but lied about it's existence. He was really proven wrong by the video evidence. His attitude was to deny and lie about the evidence in the report. A real engineer would openly admit that the molten thermite metal was there.