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.

 

Question about the officialreport. Steele heating up

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Maybe a debunker can help on this one. The Reagan on the board maybe?

The official report says that while the steele did not reach temperatures hot enough for it to melt, it reached temperatures hot enough for it to weaken to the point of collapse. So we have tons and tons of steele inside the building heating up torwards 600-800 degrees.

There was all that steele in the building burning red hot, how come there were not any fires below the impact point, at the 4th floor or so, caused by the hot steele, in fact, most of the building should have been ablaze with all that red hot burning steele. How come the people below the impact point made it out alive even several minutes after the impact? Shouldnt all that red hot steele that finally caved in have been hot enough to reduce many of them to ash?

Steele hot enough to collapse, but not hot enough to set the 5th floor ablaze?

REAGAN HELP XD .
edit on 17-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Maybe a debunker can help on this one. The Reagan on the board maybe?

The official report says that while the steele did not reach temperatures hot enough for it to melt, it reached temperatures hot enough for it to weaken to the point of collapse. So we have tons and tons of steele inside the building heating up torwards 600-800 degrees.

There was all that steele in the building burning red hot, how come there were not any fires below the impact point, at the 4th floor or so, caused by the hot steele, in fact, most of the building should have been ablaze with all that red hot burning steele. How come the people below the impact point made it out alive even several minutes after the impact? Shouldnt all that red hot steele that finally caved in have been hot enough to reduce many of them to ash?

Steele hot enough to collapse, but not hot enough to set the 5th floor ablaze?

REAGAN HELP XD .
edit on 17-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


I know you have no interest in hearing others' opinions on this matter, but what you are saying is irrelevant.

Raging fires caused steel to weaken which helped create a gravity-driven collapse. What do people below the impact point have to do with it? The fire didn't have to spread throughout the entirety of the structure for it to go down, that's why it's called "gravity-driven."



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evanescence

Originally posted by Cassius666
Maybe a debunker can help on this one. The Reagan on the board maybe?

The official report says that while the steele did not reach temperatures hot enough for it to melt, it reached temperatures hot enough for it to weaken to the point of collapse. So we have tons and tons of steele inside the building heating up torwards 600-800 degrees.

There was all that steele in the building burning red hot, how come there were not any fires below the impact point, at the 4th floor or so, caused by the hot steele, in fact, most of the building should have been ablaze with all that red hot burning steele. How come the people below the impact point made it out alive even several minutes after the impact? Shouldnt all that red hot steele that finally caved in have been hot enough to reduce many of them to ash?

Steele hot enough to collapse, but not hot enough to set the 5th floor ablaze?

REAGAN HELP XD .
edit on 17-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


I know you have no interest in hearing others' opinions on this matter, but what you are saying is irrelevant.

Raging fires caused steel to weaken which helped create a gravity-driven collapse. What do people below the impact point have to do with it? The fire didn't have to spread throughout the entirety of the structure for it to go down, that's why it's called "gravity-driven."


I am very interested in the opinion of others on this matter. Quit lying
. Id like to hear how these intelligent fires managed to heat up just the right steele parts, for the building to collapse, without causing fires on any of the other floors or burning the people inside the tower, or even the people standing inside the impact hole waving. You would think that steele hot enough to collapse would start a fire or 2, well it didnt, only the impacting plane set the top part of the building ablaze. I am very intrigued on how that is possible.

If you have any compelling evidence or even a plausible theory to support the official tale or your believe in reptillians, I am curious to hear it.
edit on 17-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

The official report says that while the steele did not reach temperatures hot enough for it to melt, it reached temperatures hot enough for it to weaken to the point of collapse. So we have tons and tons of steele inside the building heating up torwards 600-800 degrees.



The trusses reached high temps, but nowhere in the NIST report do they claim that core or perimeter columns reached 600-800 (C). The NIST explanation details moderate temp/high load creep of the core and perimeter columns. This results in load transfers to cold columns that DIDN'T experience creep, to the point that they in turn, were overloaded.

I suggest that before you come to any conclusions about what the report says, that you actually read through it. Get help from your university engineering department if necessary for what it all details. This little exercise will be very enlightening about the lies that truthers believe in. For instance, that NIST claims the columns were heated to 600-800C, which is impossible and they have no evidence for etc, etc.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

I am very interested in the opinion of others on this matter. Quit lying
. Id like to hear how these intelligent fires managed to heat up just the right steele parts, for the building to collapse, without causing fires on any of the other floors or burning the people inside the tower, or even the people standing inside the impact hole waving. You would think that steele hot enough to collapse would start a fire or 2, well it didnt, only the impacting plane set the top part of the building ablaze. I am very intrigued on how that is possible.

If you have any compelling evidence or even a plausible theory to support the official tale or your believe in reptillians, I am curious to hear it.
edit on 17-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


Well you just got a good reply from someone else and the majority of the engineering world.

Still the larger questions of why and how pertaining to the truther theories that never get answered.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Cassius666

The official report says that while the steele did not reach temperatures hot enough for it to melt, it reached temperatures hot enough for it to weaken to the point of collapse. So we have tons and tons of steele inside the building heating up torwards 600-800 degrees.



The trusses reached high temps, but nowhere in the NIST report do they claim that core or perimeter columns reached 600-800 (C). The NIST explanation details moderate temp/high load creep of the core and perimeter columns. This results in load transfers to cold columns that DIDN'T experience creep, to the point that they in turn, were overloaded.

I suggest that before you come to any conclusions about what the report says, that you actually read through it. Get help from your university engineering department if necessary for what it all details. This little exercise will be very enlightening about the lies that truthers believe in. For instance, that NIST claims the columns were heated to 600-800C, which is impossible and they have no evidence for etc, etc.


I already asked educated people for their opinion on my university and a friend of mine who studies at Aachen did the same. That university produces enginneers that develop cars that blow american models out of the water. I and he did not find anybody who called the NIST report anything than bunk.

The impact point of the building supposedly burned at 800 degrees, but people were standing inside the impact hole waving. The insulation came off, so the fire was able to heat up the steele and spread the heat to much of the structure, so yes, they did claim that the fires heated up a lot of the structure, although they might have changed their story. If the heat was mostly contained to the very top part and the difference in temperature caused much of the top part to give, it still does not explain the fashion in which the tower collapsed and that all of it collapsed. If it was gravity driven shouldnt the top part of the south tower, which was hit further below, have piled down on the lower part, around the impact point? Instead both towers collapsed in the same fashion, although their impact points were different ones.

Not to mention that this new version does not explain why ground zero was red hot for months. The fires were only sufficient now to affect and dislodge a small portion of the building, due to hot metal caving in and the cold metal coming under too much stress (you would think that a building built in the 70s that has to hold 100.000 tons can hold up well more than 100.000 tons to have some wiggle room).

But no matter what anybody says, you keep holding up the official tale wearing your tinfoil hat screaming BELIEVE !!! If it is a matter of fate to you, we will just have to respect your believes.

People have been trying to explain for 9 YEARS now, why the NIST report of bought off "experts" must be bunk. Many experts who were not payed off tried to do the same. Then there is firefightersfortruth, slimy truthters who should not have gotten away when they were on duty on 911? And aviatorsfortruth. And then there is the fact that the source code for the simulation of the collapse was not released, at which point it is just a nice animation.

It has been 9 YEARS !!! The people who are imprevious to all the facts presented and all the holes and contradictions in the official tale not to mention the things the official tale does not even try to explain, are completely immune to reason, while the people who do believe that more than plains and jetfuel was involved, DID debunk many of the theories that do not hold water. And the engineers of the NIST report are not the majority. And if I look at what chrysler sells and what Audi sells, I think I am gonna go with the German engineers.

Like I said, with most debunkers it is a matter of blind fate by now. If they want to believe in the official report thats fine, they have the liberty to put their fate into whatever they want.
edit on 17-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

I already asked educated people for their opinion on my university and a friend of mine who studies at Aachen did the same. That university produces enginneers that develop cars that blow american models out of the water. I and he did not find anybody who called the NIST report anything than bunk.


Ask them specifically about high load/mod temp creep. They will tell you that it is an engineering fact.


The insulation came off, so the fire was able to heat up the steele and spread the heat to much of the structure, so yes, they did claim that the fires heated up a lot of the structure, although they might have changed their story.


No, they never made that claim that much of the structure became heated. That is a truther lie - that much of the heat would have been "wicked"away by the steel. Examine this claim from truthers and please notice that while it's true that heat will in fact be wicked away to some degree, there is zero attempt by any of them to quantify it, even though these properties are very well known, and could be easily done by anyone genuinely interested in disputing the NIST report.

But it's all irrelevant once you confirm that nowhere in the NIST report do they make the claim that the columns got very hot, and in fact detail mod temp/high load creep. Then you'll realize that you're getting lies as information.


If the heat was mostly contained to the very top part and the difference in temperature caused much of the top part to give, it still does not explain the fashion in which the tower collapsed and that all of it collapsed.


Nowhere does NIST claim that much of the top part got hot enough to"give". Once again, mod temp/high load creep. You're reaching these conclusions and coming up with these questions based on bad info. I have no idea if these ideas are your own, or read them somewhere.

[qquote]Not to mention that this new version does not explain why ground zero was red hot for months.

The contents of the building burned, and they were unable to put it out. NIST does not get into that, but the obviousness of this should be, well, obvious.


The fires were only sufficient now to dislodge a small portion of the building, due to hot metal expanding out of cold metal


NIST says this about 7, but NOT the towers. Perhaps you are mixed up?


But no matter what anybody says, you keep holding up the official tale wearing your tinfoil hat screaming BELIEVE !!!


Well, in the face of reading about your beliefs of what the NIST report says, and how ill informed you really are, it's no wonder that you don't "believe" it.

You have based YOUR belief that the report is wrong on things that the report doesn't actually say. Correct this please.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
The fire would have gone up!
But on the news the fire had gone OUT.
For 5 minuets then it came down!



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Cassius666

I already asked educated people for their opinion on my university and a friend of mine who studies at Aachen did the same. That university produces enginneers that develop cars that blow american models out of the water. I and he did not find anybody who called the NIST report anything than bunk.


Ask them specifically about high load/mod temp creep. They will tell you that it is an engineering fact.


The insulation came off, so the fire was able to heat up the steele and spread the heat to much of the structure, so yes, they did claim that the fires heated up a lot of the structure, although they might have changed their story.


No, they never made that claim that much of the structure became heated. That is a truther lie - that much of the heat would have been "wicked"away by the steel. Examine this claim from truthers and please notice that while it's true that heat will in fact be wicked away to some degree, there is zero attempt by any of them to quantify it, even though these properties are very well known, and could be easily done by anyone genuinely interested in disputing the NIST report.

But it's all irrelevant once you confirm that nowhere in the NIST report do they make the claim that the columns got very hot, and in fact detail mod temp/high load creep. Then you'll realize that you're getting lies as information.


If the heat was mostly contained to the very top part and the difference in temperature caused much of the top part to give, it still does not explain the fashion in which the tower collapsed and that all of it collapsed.


Nowhere does NIST claim that much of the top part got hot enough to"give". Once again, mod temp/high load creep. You're reaching these conclusions and coming up with these questions based on bad info. I have no idea if these ideas are your own, or read them somewhere.

[qquote]Not to mention that this new version does not explain why ground zero was red hot for months.


The contents of the building burned, and they were unable to put it out. NIST does not get into that, but the obviousness of this should be, well, obvious.


The fires were only sufficient now to dislodge a small portion of the building, due to hot metal expanding out of cold metal


NIST says this about 7, but NOT the towers. Perhaps you are mixed up?

Well if the steele structure of tower 7 was burning red hot for it to collapse eventually, how come the red hot steele structure did not cause a fire or 2? There were only small fires in the top part of the building.

So now only the area of the impact point was affected. At least part of the steele still has to heat up for that, like around the impact point. People were still standing inside of the impact hole waving, where the steele was heating up to 800 degrees enough for it to weaken and transfer load to the cold steele (you would think a building built in the 70s had enough redundancy to deal with the additional load). If the collapse would have been gravity driven then the focal point would have been around the impact area, with the area around the impact point caving in first, instead the collapse of both towers was identical and did not seem to revolve around the impact point, where the fires raged. And if most of the core column was not affected by the heat now, how come it desintegrated? Then we had ground zero burning for months, hot enough to melt some of the steele into a ball too, something bombed out cities did not do.

Do you see now why the NIST is tinfoil hat stuff with all the holes in the story and the many things it does not tackle? It is the blurred picture of a guy wearing a white jacket that is supposed to pass for bigfoot in textform.

And its been 9 years many people have tried to explain to you, that although that out of focus pircure looks a lot like what might be bigfoot, it is just a guy dressed in white. But if you want to keep on believing in bigfoot its your right.
edit on 17-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Maybe a debunker can help on this one. The Reagan on the board maybe?

The official report says that while the steele did not reach temperatures hot enough for it to melt, it reached temperatures hot enough for it to weaken to the point of collapse. So we have tons and tons of steele inside the building heating up torwards 600-800 degrees.


No it didn't. The "official report" has always been considered to be the 9/11 commission report, and it made no attempt to document what caused the towers to collapse nor was the commission set up to document what caused the towers to collapse. It was to document who was responsible for the attack, how they did it, and what the gov't's responses were up to and during the attack, along with a few recommendations.

Despite the near universal, "the 9/11 commission report is a pack of lies" coming from you truthers, from what I'm seeing, only one out of a hundred of you have actually read the thing. How can you truthers claim the commisison report is a pack of lies when you don't even know what the lies actually are?



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Cassius666
Maybe a debunker can help on this one. The Reagan on the board maybe?

The official report says that while the steele did not reach temperatures hot enough for it to melt, it reached temperatures hot enough for it to weaken to the point of collapse. So we have tons and tons of steele inside the building heating up torwards 600-800 degrees.


No it didn't. The "official report" has always been considered to be the 9/11 commission report, and it made no attempt to document what caused the towers to collapse nor was the commission set up to document what caused the towers to collapse. It was to document who was responsible for the attack, how they did it, and what the gov't's responses were up to and during the attack, along with a few recommendations.

Despite the near universal, "the 9/11 commission report is a pack of lies" coming from you truthers, from what I'm seeing, only one out of a hundred of you have actually read the thing. How can you truthers claim the commisison report is a pack of lies when you don't even know what the lies actually are?


That is just not true, there were sources who did try to explain why the buildings collapsed from fires. Also according to you "truthers" are the only ones who seriously looked into the cause of the collapse.
edit on 17-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Well if the steele structure of tower 7 was burning red hot for it to collapse eventually


It's confirmed then. You are seriously confused about the facts. NIST does not claim that 7 got red hot either. Only around 400C, IIRC. So once again, you are basing your beliefs on your own personal confusion and misinformation.


There were only small fires in the top part of the building.


Your confusion is doubly confirmed now. 7 was burning down low, not the top.


So now only the area of the impact point was affected.


Correct.


At least part of the steele still has to heat up for that, like around the impact point.


Correct.


People were still standing inside of the impact hole waving


Correct.


where the steele was heating up to 800 degrees


Incorrect. NIST does not estimate that the steel, right where she was standing, got to 800. Please correct your confusion and replace it with correct info.


enough for it to weaken


Incorrect. Nowhere does NIST claim that core columns heated enuf for the columns to weaken enuf to the point of collapse. You're confused.


and transfer load to the cold steele


Correct.


(you would think a building built in the 70s had enough redundancy to deal with the additional load)


How much additional load? NIST gives this info. Perhaps you should read the report to inform yourself.


If the collapse would have been gravity driven then the focal point would have been around the impact area, with the area around the impact point caving in first,


Correct. And they did. So where is your objection?


instead the collapse of both towers was identical


Incorrect. NIST shows how 2's collapse was primarily due to damage and load transfersprior to the fire induced load transfers, and 1's collapse was primarily due to fire induced load transfers. Visually, they may llok similar, but that is not an engineering study in the slightest. I suggest you read the report and correct your confusion about this issue.

[quote[and did not seem to revolve around the impact point, where the fires raged.

Incorrect. They did.

PS-didn't you say above that you believed there were only small fires near the top? Explain yourself.


And if most of the core column was not affected by the heat now, how come it desintegrated?


If you mean failed at collapse initiation, NIST explains this in their report. I've given you the Cliff''s notes version. Mod temp/high load creep.

If you're talking abuot how they were inpieces in the debris pile, they broke at the welds. The welds were not to full depth penetration and were the weak point if the columns were impacted from the side .


Then we had ground zero burning for months, hot enough to melt some of the steele into a ball too,


Incorrect. The fires burned for months. There is no steel ball.


Do you see now why the NIST is tinfoil hat stuff


No, but I'm beginning to understand that must have a fine collection of them in your closet.


with all the holes in the story


I've debunked all of the "holes" in the report that you seem to have. They are without merit,and based on your confusion and poor info.


And its been 9 years many people have tried to explain to you


And to the world. 9 years of failure. And yet you persist. So do the moon hoaxers. You're in fine company.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
The answers you seek are answered in detail in the NIST report. For example:


Temperatures of 700 C to 760 C were reached over approximately 15 percent of the west floor area for less than 10 min. Approximately 60 percent of the floor steel had temperatures between 600 C and 700 C for about 15 min. Approximately 70 percent of the floor steel had temperatures that exceeded 500 C for about 45 min.


Not sure where you got the idea that the steel of the entire building was heated.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Cassius666

Well if the steele structure of tower 7 was burning red hot for it to collapse eventually


It's confirmed then. You are seriously confused about the facts. NIST does not claim that 7 got red hot either. Only around 400C, IIRC. So once again, you are basing your beliefs on your own personal confusion and misinformation.


There were only small fires in the top part of the building.


Your confusion is doubly confirmed now. 7 was burning down low, not the top.


So now only the area of the impact point was affected.


Correct.


At least part of the steele still has to heat up for that, like around the impact point.


Correct.


People were still standing inside of the impact hole waving


Correct.


where the steele was heating up to 800 degrees


Incorrect. NIST does not estimate that the steel, right where she was standing, got to 800. Please correct your confusion and replace it with correct info.


enough for it to weaken


Incorrect. Nowhere does NIST claim that core columns heated enuf for the columns to weaken enuf to the point of collapse. You're confused.


and transfer load to the cold steele


Correct.


(you would think a building built in the 70s had enough redundancy to deal with the additional load)


How much additional load? NIST gives this info. Perhaps you should read the report to inform yourself.


If the collapse would have been gravity driven then the focal point would have been around the impact area, with the area around the impact point caving in first,


Correct. And they did. So where is your objection?


instead the collapse of both towers was identical


Incorrect. NIST shows how 2's collapse was primarily due to damage and load transfersprior to the fire induced load transfers, and 1's collapse was primarily due to fire induced load transfers. Visually, they may llok similar, but that is not an engineering study in the slightest. I suggest you read the report and correct your confusion about this issue.

[quote[and did not seem to revolve around the impact point, where the fires raged.


Incorrect. They did.

PS-didn't you say above that you believed there were only small fires near the top? Explain yourself.


And if most of the core column was not affected by the heat now, how come it desintegrated?


If you mean failed at collapse initiation, NIST explains this in their report. I've given you the Cliff''s notes version. Mod temp/high load creep.

If you're talking abuot how they were inpieces in the debris pile, they broke at the welds. The welds were not to full depth penetration and were the weak point if the columns were impacted from the side .


Then we had ground zero burning for months, hot enough to melt some of the steele into a ball too,


Incorrect. The fires burned for months. There is no steel ball.


Do you see now why the NIST is tinfoil hat stuff


No, but I'm beginning to understand that must have a fine collection of them in your closet.


with all the holes in the story


I've debunked all of the "holes" in the report that you seem to have. They are without merit,and based on your confusion and poor info.


And its been 9 years many people have tried to explain to you


And to the world. 9 years of failure. And yet you persist. So do the moon hoaxers. You're in fine company.



Building 7 did not burn red hot then? It collapsed for no reason then due to fires at the base? And in the way it did? Thats pretty fantastic.

The NIST report claimed steele heated enough for it to weaken, so the transfer of load can take place, which means 600 degrees and up. Yet people were standing in the impact hole. It is a pretty fantastic fire that manages to heat the steele in just the right spot, while leaving that person standing inside the impact hole unharmed.

So the central column did not weaken, the NIST report still did not explain how a few floors losing only part of their structural integrity transferred enough load for the central column to completly desintegrate. Even that nice animation showing the pancaking effect in action, a novum by the way, leaves the central column standing.

The steele in building 7 burned at 400 degrees? That does not start fires? That was already enough for the steele to weaken enough? I have seen pictures of building 7 burning. If there were similiar fires down below it is still very very fantastic, that they collapsed the building in what looked like a controlled demolition.

You can look up the fashion in which the buildings collapsed for yourself. It did not look like the collapse revolved around the impact point.

Okay let us assume that the thing dubbed the meteorite they digged up was not a steele ball. The NIST report still did not explain how the steele in ground zero was able to burn for months, with the little oxygen that was able to get through the rubble.

I am the moonhoaxer now? The difference is, it is the moonhoaxers against the world. You will find few people with experise who support their claim. In this particular case, it is the NIST report against the world, or more specific, against anybody with experiste on the field.

Its the point I am trying to make. Supporting this fantastic tale makes YOU the moonhauxer it makes YOU the guy who is holding up a picture screaming alien invasion. It makes YOU the guy who has a pic of a guy dressed in white trying to tell us he saw bigfoot. It is everybody else who presented far more rational reasons on why building 7 collapsed the way it did.

But I guess nothing I say will make you change your "believe", so keep on folding your tinfoil hats.

edit on 17-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Building 7 did not burn red hot then?


Triple confirmed now that you are confused/ill informed.

Tell me what NIST says was the first piece in the chain of events that caused the collapse.

You won't even be able to find it in the report, for you have zero familiarity with it.


It collapsed for no reason then due to fires at the base?


Nope. You have zero knowledge of what the report says.

You are responding to your ear crickets.


Thats pretty fantastic.


Your incredulity is not unexpected, since you have zero knowledge abut what the NIST report on 7 actually says.


The NIST report claimed steele heated enough for it to weaken


The columns? This is a lie. You can of course provide a quote from the report to prove otherwise,but you will be unable.


so the transfer of load can take place, which means 600 degrees and up.


No, I already told you, mod temp/high load creep. Since you have no idea what this is, you have no other way to continue your incredulity other than to repeat your falsehoods and errors.


It is a pretty fantastic fire that manages to heat the steele in just the right spot, while leaving that person standing inside the impact hole unharmed.


Your incredulity is noted. As is your lack of quotes from NIST that the temps in that specific spot were extremely high at that specific time. This makes your incredulity irrelevant.


So the central column did not weaken,


Nobody said that. I did not say that, unless I miswrote it due to my exasperation at your inability to read with comprehension and donkey like inability to move forward when faced with info that you do not like.

The correct statement is that the columns did not heat up enuf to cause it to lose enuf strength to cause them to fail. There is a difference between steel failing due to high temps>600-800C, and steel failing due to mod temp>250C/hugh load > above 85% of ultimate yield strength creep. You have zero knowledge or understanding of what the difference is, like most truthers.


the NIST report still did not explain how a few floors losing only part of their structural integrity transferred enough load for the central column to completly desintegrate.


That's right, they didn't.

Because they don't give that explanation. You have zero knowledge and understanding of what NIST says, and so you must have come to this conclusion yourself, or read it somewhere from someone that has an equally poor understanding of it, or is lying to you.


The steele in building 7 burned at 400 degrees?


So you think that steel burns at 400C? The fires burned, and heated the steel to 400C.


That does not start fires?


The fires come first, Einstein. Then the steel heats up/


That was already enough for the steele to weaken enough?


Nope. That is not the explanation NIST gives you. It's freely available online. You should try to read it sometime, before you embarass yourself any more.


You can look up the fashion in which the buildings collapsed for yourself. It did not look like the collapse revolved around the impact point.


You have a problem differentiating between the towers and 7, I think. In the same paragraph you make a comment about both 7 and the towers. FYI, they are different buildings, and very different explanations are given for their collapse.

So let me repeat: please educate yourself about the 2 and stop making a fool of yourself.


Okay let us assume that the thing dubbed the meteorite they digged up was not a steele ball.


There's no assumption to be made. It wasn't.


The NIST report still did not explain how the steele in ground zero was able to burn for months,


The steel didn't burn, bro. The office contents did.


with the little oxygen that was able to get through the rubble.


And yet, firefighters, rescue workers, rescue dogs, etc were able to go underground and examine the "bathtub" structure that kept out the Hudson River and fix it. How did they do that if it had so little oxygen? A little common sense tells you that the "little oxygen" belief is stupid beyond belief.


In this particular case, it is the NIST report against the world, or more specific, against anybody with experiste on the field.


Anyone with demonstrable expertise agrees with NIST. Only crackpots and Google University scholars that believe they have educated themselves disagree. Hell, I even read where a truther on ATS believed that he had educated himself to such a degree that he could design a building. In case you didn't know, that's delusional.


Supporting this fantastic tale


It's an engineering report. Since you don't understand one bit of it, it seems to be a tale to you. This is your problem, not mine.


It is everybody else who presented far more rational reasons on why building 7 collapsed the way it did.



LMAO. You have zero knowledge of what the NIST report actually says, and yet you feel justified in this?

Mmmmmkay.....



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
No I did not confuse the 2. I admit I wrote it badly and was afraid you might get confused with the 2 reading it, but it looks like you kept the 2 apart just fine.

" "And yet, firefighters, rescue workers, rescue dogs, etc were able to go underground and examine the "bathtub" structure that kept out the Hudson River and fix it. How did they do that if it had so little oxygen? A little common sense tells you that the "little oxygen" belief is stupid beyond belief." "

I only talked about the oxygen, but it takes more than air to keep steele and concrete burning for months. Or to find a ruin that burned close to that long, despite firefighters attempting to hose it. But go ahead and try to set a steele beam on fire.

Like I said, I talked about people with expertise about the NIST report and they did not support it. I did not find any other people online who support the NIST report as well. Now you are saying I am the one who is not supporting the NIST report when this is not the case. Its nobody, but the people under the NIST umbreally supporting their own report.

If you want me to side with claims at the fringe of society, the NIST report will have to make a better case.

All I am left with, is a lot of special and unique events which supposedly have taken place for the events of 911 to unfold the way they did and did not happen again since, even in relation to building 7, which burned and was not hit by an ariplane and all you have is LMAO and a shady story.

I am not quite ready to belive that fantastic tale yet and wear your tinfoil hat.
edit on 17-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

I only talked about the oxygen, but it takes more than air to keep steele and concrete burning for months.


You have a serious knowledge problem to claim that anyone is saying that the steel and concrete was on fire. Only in your fevered little truther brain is this a valid description of what happened in the piles.

This is known as a strawman argument. It's a logical fallacy, and is used by truthers to bolster their viewpoint of 9/11 by bringing up issues that no rational person talks about.


Or to find a ruin that burned close to that long, despite firefighters attempting to hose it.


They don't have a problem with it. Only in your fevered little truther brain is this a problem.


But go ahead and try to set a steele beam on fire.


Why? Only in your fevered little truther brain is this a valid argument.


Like I said, I talked about people with expertise about the NIST report and they did not support it.


Then you only talkked to idiots.


I did not find any other people online who support the NIST report as well.


Then you are one.



What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Authors Bazant, Le, Greening & Benson. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 134 (2008).

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions Co-author Verdure. PDF. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 133 (2007): pp. 308–319
Discussion and replies to June 2006 Bazant & Verdure paper: James Gourley, G. Szuladinski

Bazant & Zhou, 2001-2002: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis J. Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Sept. 28, 2001, addendum March, 2002.



Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C., JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.



Dissecting the Collapses Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.


A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.



S. W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, et al. “The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers collapse”, JOM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 22-29, November 2007.



Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.

"Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers" Clifton, Charles G., HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11

"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Monahan, B., Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.


Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1" Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421



Engineering Conference Papers

"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" Marechaux, T.G. JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.



Abboud, N., M. Levy, D. Tennant, J. Mould, H. Levine, S. King, C. Ekwueme, A. Jain, G. Hart. (2003) Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 360-370

Beyler, C., D. White, M. Peatross, J. Trellis, S. Li, A. Luers, D. Hopkins. (2003) Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 371-382

Thater, G. G.; Panariello, G. F.; Cuoco, D. A. (2003) World Trade Center Disaster: Damage/Debris Assessment In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 383-392




Fire Protection and Fire Modeling Papers

How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory; Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L. Fire Safety Journal; 2003 Vol. 38, p501-533, 33p.

Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.

"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" Brannigan, F.L. Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

"Construction and Collapse Factors" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Collapse Lessons" Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Burgess, I.W., 'Fire Resistance of Framed Buildings', Physics Education, 37 (5), (2002) pp390-399.

G. Flint, A.S. Usmani, S. Lamont, J. Torero and B. Lane, Effect of fire on composite long span truss floor systems, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (4) (2006), pp. 303–315.




Fire Protection Conference Papers

"Coupled fire dynamics and thermal response of complex building structures" Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, Volume 30, Issue 2, January 2005, Pages 2255-2262 Kuldeep Prasad and Howard R. Baum

Choi, S.K., Burgess, I.W. and Plank, R.J., 'The Behaviour of Lightweight Composite Floor Trusses in Fire', ASCE Specialty Conference: Designing Structures for Fire, Baltimore, (Oct 2003) pp 24-32.

Jowsey et all, Determination of Fire Induced Collapse Mechanisms in Steel Framed Structures, 4th European Conference on Steel and Composite Structures, 10 June 05, 69-76

Usmani et all, Collapse scenarios of WTC 1 & 2 with extension to generic tall buildings, Oct-2006 Proceedings of the International Congress on Fire Safety in Tall Buildings





I am not quite ready to belive that fantastic tale yet and wear your tinfoil hat.


It's a fantastic tale to you since you lack knowledge.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Game, set, and match to Joey.

I'm pretty sure there are some educated people in those papers....better educated than the German car experts at least when it comes to civil engineering.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Or to find a ruin that burned close to that long, despite firefighters attempting to hose it.


Doesn't just this one sentence totally destroy the controlled demolition theory? Never in history a demolished building using explosives has shows such a feat.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Cassius666
Or to find a ruin that burned close to that long, despite firefighters attempting to hose it.


Doesn't just this one sentence totally destroy the controlled demolition theory? Never in history a demolished building using explosives has shows such a feat.


Well there is no better explanation for that to occour than thermite either, which could have been used to bring down the towers, which could have been planted in the months leading up to the "attack". That must have escaped the watchfull eyes of marvin bush who headed the firm that provided security for the towers.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join