Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by -PLB-

---

I will repeat it again (I wrote this 3 times or so by now), first the south perimeter wall failed.

I know you have SAID it, but "can you demonstrate it" is the real question.

Why do OS'ers consistently think that simply saying something constitutes proof? That is what causes the whole problem to begin with.

Prove it or don't bother saying it.

Contrary to their own interpretation of events, in section 6.10.4 of the Final Report, the NIST
authors note that
“….. At any given location, the duration of temperatures near 1,000 ºC was about 15 min
to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 ºC or below.”
(NCSTAR 1, 129)
The problem then is how could an entire floor truss section get to 700 ºC when “at any given
location” temperatures were only briefly very hot? Also bear in mind that multiple trusses would
have to fail simultaneously before any significant effect on the perimeter columns could be
expected. This is because the trusses are tied together by the floor structure and the external
columns are strongly interlocked by the spandrels.
Moreover, the simulation predicted other component failures at particular temperatures:
“At 566 ºC, the interior truss seat bolts sheared off, without loss of vertical support. At
670 ºC, the gusset plate at the exterior truss seat fractured, followed by shearing of the
exterior seat bolt. At 730 ºC, the truss walked off the exterior truss seat.” (NCSTAR 1-
6C, 81)
Once again, if these temperatures were sufficient to cause such destruction, why did the floor
truss tests exhibit none of these failure modes given laboratory steel temperatures and exposure
times exceeded those in the simulations? The finding in the simulation that the truss endconnections
failed is strikingly inconsistent with the claim NIST relied upon that the sagging
floor pulled the perimeter columns inward. Despite the contradiction of their simulation by the
tests, the NIST investigators made no attempt to adjust their conclusion.

“The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the
middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a
preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would
likely remain standing. The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and
Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower.” (NCSTAR 1, 144)

strange that they just for no reason choose the most severe model when their own real world tests do not replicate the model.

also this is the point that the NIST report stops.....Nist only gos up to point point of initiation.....but goes no further and then relies on Bazant to proceed through the progressive collapse senario.

Lets look at Bazant and Zhou

Bazant says that crush up would only occur after crush down.....well then they realized after video analysis this was not the case...and lo and behold they came up with something else to qualify the error they had made...

see go here for a copy....i look at all things as best i am able.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis1
Zdeneˇk P. Bazˇant, F.ASCE,2 and Yong Zhou3

now if one would care to look....but unlikely that some will....

Gordon Ross

now please go ahead and take a look at the full analysis....what harm can it do to become informed.....

lets keep it up....we may not succeed in changing things...but we just might succeed in helping proplr to question what they are being told.....then we do fail in how so many people are being mysteriously taken away from us for speaking out......As the sign says....STOP THE MADNESS

Imagination does not equal proof, samkent.

Please, prove how much core damage that you allege the planes caused to WTC 1 and 2.

You missed the point why I posted the explanation by NIST. I didn't post that to prove anything, I posted it so show that the mast moving first is in no way in conflict with the explanation given by NIST.