Originally posted by JimFetzer
An adequate theory of the demolition of the Twin Towers is going to have to be consistent with these findings:
The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank
DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings
continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.
Correct. THe buildings survived the impacts. It was the resulting uncontrolled fires coupled with the structural damage that caused the collapse of
the WTC Towers.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower
and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stone cold steel, unaffected by any fires at all other than some very modest office fires that burned
around 500 degrees F, which functioned as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from building up on the steel.
You think hydrocarbon fires burn around 500 deg. F? Please. That is blatently false.
www.fire.nist.gov...
Please direct your attention to the graph on pdf page 13. Please tell me what that says? Thanks.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not
exceed 1,800 degrees under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures
above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200.
Optimal?
Were any of the samples taken from the impact zone?
Originally posted by JimFetzer
Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects, where
these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough—at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in the South Tower and one
and a half in the North—to weaken, much less melt.
Do you have a citation for that? I have NEVER heard of UL certifying steel for that long with no protection. Hell, most SFRM is only rated for 2,000
deg. F for 2 hours. And THAT is under ideal lab conditions.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical
sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed. Which means the NIST
cannot even explain the initiation of any “collapse” sequence.
Oh, you mean like the bowing of the exterior columns that were observed well before the collapse?
Originally posted by JimFetzer
The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and began to fall to the side, when the floors beneath gave way. So it was not even in the position to
exert downward pressure on the lower 80 floors. A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16
floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.
Nope, All it needed to do was affect ONE floor, not 80 floors as a whole. You're treating the lower portion as one intact solid structure, which it
is not.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the
sub-basements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and the ripping of the skin off a fellow
worker, where they filled with water that drained the sprinkler system.
And William Rodriguez was not in any position to know when the impact happened to give it a frame of reference. He also said in the days after the
collapse, that it was like someone was moving furniture around.
Now, tell me about this 50 ton hydraulic press. I am curious what that means.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
Rodriguez observed that the explosion occurred prior to reverberations from upper floors, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by
Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job,” demonstrating that these explosions actually took place as much as 14 and
17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts.
Again, Rodriguez was in no place to give a definitive frame of reference due to the fact he was in the basement. Steel transmits sound MUCH faster
than air. So, the first explosion that he "heard" was most likely the impact itself.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of “pancake collapse,” which normally occurs only with concrete
structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column
were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.
Appeal to authority noted. When does Charles plan on publishing his paper in any respectable journal? Maybe you could help him with the abstract?
I can reccomend a few good journals if you would like.
Hint: These do NOT include Bentham or J.O.N.E.S. as both those journals are sham journals.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed of free fall with only air resistance, which Judy Wood, Ph.D.,
formerly a professor of mechanical engineering, has observed is an astounding result that would be impossible without extremely powerful sources of
energy. If they were collapsing, they would have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.
Do you expect the towers to act like a tree?
Originally posted by JimFetzer
Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two
gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the government’s account cannot possibly
explain. There were no pancakes.
Really? Explain the meteorite.
Originally posted by JimFetzer
WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it,”
displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors
are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of pancakes about 5 floors high.
Context there Jim. He was talking about the firefighters. "We've had such lossof life today" What is he talking about there? The death of other
buildings?
Originally posted by JimFetzer
Had the Twin Towers collapsed like WTC-7, there would have been two stacks of "pancakes" equal to about 12% the height of the buildings or around 15
floors high. But they were actually reduced to below ground level. Since there were no "pancakes", there cannot have been any "pancake collapse"
of either building, where the buildings were destroyed by different modes of demolition.
There were some parts of that pile that were 8+ stories high. Maybe you have missed them. Also, 7WTC did not have a basement, where 1&2 had HUGE
basements. 7 stories IIRC.
Nice dodge BTW.
