WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I beg to differ. Office-fires causing 3 perfect demo-jobs, you know

What demo jobs? No one heard demo explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed and no explosive hardware was ever found at ground zero, which means, zero evidence for explosives.

To sum it up, demo explosives and thermite claims at ground zero were fabricated tales.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Frankly? The fun-fact was that Nist had some issues proving their claims, as in "explosions dislocated fireproofing" for ex.. Thanks for clarification anyway!

Actually, the aircraft impacts dislodged the fire protection from the steel columns.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Just a little reminder: we were talking about your example from Mexiko.

What happened in Mexico City proved that truthers were not telling the truth when they claimed that only explosives could have caused a steel frame building to collapse.

And of course, there were three steel frame buildings in Thailand that collapsed due to fire.

Kader Toy Factory Fire

At about 4pm on May 10th, 1993, a small fire was discovered on the first floor of part of the E-shaped building. Workers were instructed to keep working as the fire was thought to be minor. The fire alarm in this building did not sound.

The building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed. This part of the building was dedicated to the storage of finished products and the fire spread quickly. Other parts of the factory were full of raw materials which also burnt very fast.

Workers in the first building who tried to escape found the ground floor exit doors locked, and the stairwells soon collapsed. Many workers jumped from the second, third and fourth floor windows in order to escape the flames, resulting in severe injuries or death. Fire-fighters arrived at the factory at about 4:40pm, to find Building One about to collapse.

The Kader buildings,...collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures. A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.

en.wikipedia.org...

Which further proves that truthers were not telling the truth when they claimed that no steel frame building ever collapsed due to fire. I have a compiled long list of truther claims that have crashed in flames over the years.

a reply to: waypastvne

Did you ever notice the layer of fire proofing laying on the ground after the impact but before the collapse.

Take a look at the poorly applied fire protection and exposed steel frame of this WTC building during an inspection process.

FIREPROOFING" AT THE WTC TOWERS

APPLICATION DEFICIENCIES

Fireproofing was applied directly to the long joists that supported each of the floors. Inspections of the floors with asbestos-containing fireproofing (up to the 38th floor in the North Tower) found that there were numerous areas where the fireproofing had never been applied. Top and bottom chords and truss web members were exposed, and the red lead on the trusses was clearly visible in many locations. Photo 1 shows a truss with fireproofing missing from its end where it meets the outside wall. Also, the fireproofing was frequently thinner than the 3/4 inch described in the Federal Emergency Management Agency-funded ASCE BPAT report on the collapse of the towers. Many of the problems observed were clearly the result of poor workmanship.

However, the nature of the structures that were fireproofed and application methods used could also contribute to the problem. Applying fireproofing to a long-span or any type of joist construction is difficult. The round rods and small angles making up a truss are difficult targets for the installer. Spray fireproofing materials are typically applied from the floor with an extended spray nozzle. The installer may be unable to reach or see certain areas of the trusses that must be covered. This frequently results in thin or absent fireproofing on surfaces hidden from the floor by the bottom of steel members (photo 2). In the WTC, this resulted in sections of the top surface of the bottom chord of the trusses receiving an inadequate coat of fireproofing. These are deficiencies that would have been easily discovered by the ASTM field quality assurance tests for adhesion, cohesion, thickness, and density had these test methods existed at the time of construction.

LACK OF QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING

The WTC was built before there were accepted standards for determining if the fireproofing as applied in the field would perform properly. Would the material remain on the steel (adhesion), resist physical damage (cohesion), insulate properly (thickness and density), and behave as a fire retardant? Architects relied on the "testing" undertaken by Underwriters Laboratories. However, without field quality assurance tests, there was no way of knowing if the properties of the applied fireproofing matched those of the material subjected to the UL test.

The previously discussed tests would not become available until years after the completion of the WTC. For example, the ASTM test for adhesion would have detected the bonding defects of the fireproofing on core columns. This test and the ASTM test for thickness and density would have determined the adequacy of the spray fireproofing on the floor joists.

The WTC should not be considered unique in this regard. The fireproofing in any building constructed before the ASTM standards became available in 1977 should be considered suspect.

Photo 1: WTC Poorly Applied Fire Protection

Photo 2: WTC Poorly Applied Fire Protection

ACCUMULATED DAMAGE TO FIREPROOFING

There is another important aspect to this issue. There is no existing requirement in any building or occupancy code to inspect the fireproofing in a building periodically to determine if it has degraded through gradual physical damage. This is even true for new construction where the fireproofing is installed and tested early in the construction process. Successive work by many trades often damages and removes whole sections of fireproofing. In the WTC, the fireproofing coatings had been damaged by later construction and renovation in many locations.

LESSONS LEARNED

In considering the possible causes of the collapse of the WTC towers, the possibility that the initial application of fire-resistive coatings was deficient must be considered. The implications of this are far ranging. The fire safety of buildings depends on the fire-resistance ratings' successfully resulting in buildings that stay standing despite fire damage. Prior to the collapse of the WTC towers, it was thought that adherence to the fire-resistance ratings in the building codes would result in buildings that were safe for occupants and for those who fight fires. However, the entire scheme currently used to make these determinations must be called into question. If the WTC towers were properly protected but fell anyway, then this would indicate that the fire-resistance ratings and structural reliability of buildings as they are now built are insufficiently protective. However, if the buildings failed because the fireproofing was improperly applied, then the standards for fireproofing application and maintenance need to be strengthened. Peoples' lives depend on properly analyzing these issues and then taking appropriate corrective action.

Deficient firestopping

Deficient firestopping provides an avenue for fire spread. Columns, girders and beams are commonly protected with spray asbestos insulation or a composition material. Spray insulation has been tested to offer four-hour test ratings on columns, three hours on beams and girders.

Test conditions, however, do not match actual conditions in the field. Insulation adhesion may be ineffective because of rust. Frequently, insulation is applied to rusted metal that has not been properly treated before application; the insulation's consistency may vary; its application may be inconsistent; or it may be dislodged during original and new construction and maintenance.

www.fireengineering.com... wtc-towers.html

Now, you know the rest of the story.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

... that's a hell lot of fireproofing in the dust. As if all that asbestos was blown out en masse. Here is the thing: if it was ripped from the steel cores during the impact... why should it still be found abundantly after the buildings collapsed, which effectively brought big chunks of concrete on top of it? Correct, another sign for more explosions during collapse.

How much of the fireproofing was knocked off and where ?

The answers are in the videos.



If you watch the impact videos you can see the fireproofing comes mainly from the impact area.
The fire proofing is the stuff that looks like smoke that falls to the ground and just lays there.

It seems like after a wile, truthers sould become smart enough, to actually look in the actual places where the actual answers can actually be found.


I won't hold my breath.

a reply to: waypastvne

What are you talk'n about? I swear it's like you think just knowing
how to post a video on ATS. Is all you have to know, just grab
any photo shopped image and post it. Thare's you're danged old
proof riighchare! You're not even serious are you dude? You're prolly
LyourAO all day at the truthers getting sucked in by you huh?
That's pretty good esse. If that's what's go'n on?

a reply to: randyvs

WTF are you talk'n about? I swear it's like you think just knowing how to post a video on ATS. Is all you have to know, just grab
any photo shopped image and post it.

It is peculiar that you would say such a thing when you got caught posting hoaxed videos.

a reply to: randyvs

I often hear that a steel beam was thrown hundreds of feet by an explosion, but can you explain why this explosion failed to dislodge this camera?

Could one of you wonderful people provide some more details on the specific type of fireproofing used on the WTC1&2 core columns? Like particular type, design thickness and method of application (if known).

originally posted by: pfishy
Could one of you wonderful people provide some more details on the specific type of fireproofing used on the WTC1&2 core columns? Like particular type, design thickness and method of application (if known).

You could google it or go to some conspiracy site.

Here's an interesting article.

A review of the history of the buildings shows that even as the steel columns first rose into the sky, problems arose. Wind-driven rains stripped the fireproofing from the framework it was meant to protect, and construction workers had to improvise dams and diverters to channel the water away. The workers then reapplied the fireproofing.

and

The company that applied the wool-like sheathing was run by a reputed Gambino crime family member, Louis DiBono, who in 1990 was gunned down on orders of John Gotti. The manner in which Mr. DiBono obtained the work was then included in a criminal investigation into Port Authority construction contracting.

Sounds like typical NYC business as usual.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

When this first happened, obviously many pictures were taken. I am at the mercy of the media, as are most people. One of those pictures showed a piece of the exoskeleton of a tower impaled into what was then known as the American Express building. I think it's name has been changed since. The piece was a random and crude version of a Chinese Throwing Star, if you know what I mean.

I suspect that photo was quickly withdrawn from the public view, though I did see it once again a few years ago in a piece by Jeff Prager. He claimed the original photo was taken by FEMA.

So to answer your question, no, it was not part of the core but was part of the exoskeleton.

a reply to: waypastvne

The answers are in the videos.

Err... no, they are not. Again:

... that's a hell lot of fireproofing in the dust. As if all that asbestos was blown out en masse. Here is the thing: if it was ripped from the steel cores during the impact... why should it still be found abundantly after the buildings collapsed, which effectively brought big chunks of concrete on top of it? Correct, another sign for more explosions during collapse.

Answer the darn question and don't concentrate on the impact, we know what happened.
And now back to your picturesque evidence: where did you get it, don't wanna share the source? Thought so...

a reply to: pfishy

Some interesting information:

Berlau recounts how the effectiveness of asbestos fireproofing was proven during an intense Feb. 13, 1975 fire that burned for more than three hours in the elevator and utility shafts from the ninth to nineteenth floors of the first WTC tower – an area where asbestos fireproofing was still intact at the time. Despite the fire’s intensity – it burned nearly everything, including telephone panels and wiring, and got hot enough to blow out windows – the asbestos fireproofing contained the fire so that it did minimal damage to the rest of the building.

www.foxnews.com...

Yeah, Foxnews. I know.

I investigated the fireproofing in both World Trade Center towers over approximately a 10-year period between the early 1990s and early June 2000, the last time I was in the towers.

There were problems with the fireproofing in the World Trade Towers that may have rendered them vulnerable to fire. These problems are not unique to the WTC; I have observed similar problems with the fireproofing in many high-rise buildings in the United States and Europe.

stevenwarranresearch.blogspot.de...

Interesting read. I would still doubt that the fire might've been able to change the structure of said steel, but that's just me being in my head.

a reply to: skyeagle409

It is peculiar that you would say such a thing when you got caught posting hoaxed videos.

And I would bet 100$ that you just didn't get his point, as usual. Everybody who doesn't comply is a hoaxer? What are you talking about, Mexican earthquakes? Yeah, right. You were the one who really thought pictures could prove microstructural changes in steel, which resulted allegedly from pre-collapse-fires. That spoonbending is your problem, not mine. Hoaxing desinfo, eh?

a reply to: samkent

I'm already half way there, then.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Ok, that's what I figured was used. The mineral wool and cement mix is still pretty standard for internal structural components. And the hard coat overspray, while no longer containing asbestos, is also frequently used for the same reasons listed in your link. In underground car parks where the structural beams are steel instead of concrete the hard coat version is actually the more common type. But it is a bit misleading. While it is certainly harder than the blown version which uses a smaller percentage of cement merely as a binder, the hard coat is still relatively brittle. In terms of cement strength it is comparable to a CLSM (Controlled Low-Strength Material), with a compressive strength of less than 100 psi.
The other, lower cement content material is far more fragile. It can easily be brushed off a steel beam, leaving only a fraction of the material remaining. This is why it is used mostly in areas where it isn't likely to be exposed to damaging influences, or even swift air currents. In both, the cement is only for binding and adhesion, having very little practical flame resistant value in those quantities.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

And I would bet 100$ that you just didn't get his point, as usual. Everybody who doesn't comply is a hoaxer?

To put it simply, you got caught posting a hoaxed video that I made a reference to earlier.

What are you talking about, Mexican earthquakes?

It just happens that particular steel frame building collapsed without explosives, which proved that truthers were not telling the truth and that was the point of my argument.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Interesting read. I would still doubt that the fire might've been able to change the structure of said steel, but that's just me being in my head.

What do you think caused this?

Fire Weakens Steel Structure of Overpass

a reply to: Salander

I suspect that photo was quickly withdrawn from the public view, though I did see it once again a few years ago in a piece by Jeff Prager. He claimed the original photo was taken by FEMA.

He also claimed that nukes took down the WTC buildings. In other words, he is not credible at all.