Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

reply to post by Griff


"The hotel tower was designed as a reinforced concrete frame plus core."

LOL. That kind of describes MOST modern skyscrapers.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


But it doesn't describe WTC 7.

A reinforced concrete frame has concrete columns, beams and slabs that are reinforced with steel. Not very thick steel, but enough of them to redistribute the tension forces in the concrete.

I'm sorry to say that if this building was reinforced concrete, we are comparing "apples to oranges".

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by Kratos1220

 

>> Did you not notice that circular discussion about the core? Is it just me, or is it not just an either/or question: Either the floors collapsed on each other (pancake) and tore away from the Core LEAVING IT STANDING, or they did not, and therefore could not have had a total failure. Can you see any other option? The reply, always seems to be, re-explaining the initial theory of one floor not being able to hold three floors -- yeah, duh.

Yeah, they go in circles which is why it's so frustrating. Like you, I had no interest at all in conspiracy theories before 9/11. As a matter of fact, I thought they were all nutjobs, that is, until I broke down and decided to give the evidence a look. I still remember the first time I was reading through it all and my heart sunk into my stomach more than once. I could hardly believe what I was reading, it was terrifying. That's where the "truthers" differ from the "anti-truthers", I guess. I decided that finding the truth was more important than being right. I wish I didn't have to believe it happened like this, but there's really no getting around what is there, at least not for me.

>> That molten steel can't be explained -- not even by a traditional Demolition using Thermite or Thermate. I can't mess with it too much, because it would probably mean mentioning some really fancy device -- and of course, that would mean you were supporting the Chewbacca theory.

I don't know much about what could cause steel to remain red hot and molten for two months, perhaps it was insulated by everything sitting on top of it and kept the temperature up?

>> I've seen other seismic activity charts -- they were obviously from further away because the collapse was not a significant blip. However -- any idea of what power those spikes represent? It's also very, very important to get the timing -- if the spike peaks before the collapse or after. Personally, I don't think there was a huge detonation -- just set off a charge to start the thermate on the core, and then another to jolt the core off its base a few minutes later to get it to PULL the building downward -- 30 seconds after the center falls, the detonations from top down begin -- so at that point, a lot of very small shaped charges to cut the remainder of supports and dice up the core.

Yeah, the status of the towers when these tremors were recorded depends who you ask and where you get the info from. I think I'll do a quick check on that and see what I can find.

>> Were you a first responder, by the way?

Not sure what you mean.

Just for fun:

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

They DID appear on the manifests....they did not appear on the "Victim list"...look it up and come back when you can get your facts straight.

>> I just checked, and you are indeed correct: Faxes of Flight Manifests
I'll give you that point

Thank you. In the future please be sure to research your claims before just repeating what someone else said.

I wouldn't be so quick to concede this point. This whole deliniation between a "victim's list" and a passenger manifest is ridiculous. There were NO hijackers listed on ANY 9/11 passenger manifest for YEARS until these mysterious documents appeared on a blog, purportedly from the Moussaoui trial.

At around the time that the Moussaoui trial exhibits appeared, a seven-page set of faxes purported to be the original flight manifests was published on a weblog claiming that they were from the Moussaoui trial exhibits.

I'm highly suspicious of the source -- an anonymous blog and the fact that these low quality faxed documents that were purportedly used as trial exhibits (never conclusively proven) could've been easily faked.

There were huge anomalies in passenger names and even total counts in ALL the 9/11 manifests.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


That stuff coming off could have been anything in the debris pile to begin with. Plastics, aluminum, heck anything. Molten is molten and solid is solid. Soft is soft, but you cannot have molten steel connected to the solid unless the whole thing is molten.

reply to post by GenRadek


Good pictures of the floor design. The outer walls are being pulled in as the floors collapse. As the floors collapse, they pull in the outer curtain wall -- pretty much collapsing like an umbrella that has lost it's cross braces.

Not a pancake collapse -- but a deck of cards collapse.

So that pulls everything down and towards he core. Which should have been still standing.

It's still either or. I do recognize the concept of the floors dropping on one another, and overcoming the floor below. I had that conversation with my wife in 1999 when I visited the WTC. She asked me if, after the first bombing, if there was a way it could be taken down -- I said; "If you had a fire, such that you completely undermined the support of at least two floors, the added weight would fall on the floor below it -- it would be a domino effect. Each succeeding floor would be incapable of holding the floors above."

I swear on a stack of bibles I said that in 1999.

So, the first time I heard this theory -- it was ME SAYING IT. Because, not to toot my own horn, I'm a smart boy.

But, having said that, I never saw that the core would be pulled down, or that it could happen with NO RESISTANCE.

This collapse would require time as each floor collided, and you would have a giant core sticking up. Everything eventually breaks off the core, leaving it free.

And I still don't see how the floor bolts failed all away around the building equally ... OK, no, the horizontal force of the floor is pushing out on the outer supports, the curtain wall is jointed -- it's socket and joint -- it loses support if it gets pulled inward, so even if some supports are still in place, the others around the circumference also lose their integrity. The whole thing stands rigid, but loses this all along the outside equally, because it was it's a popsicle stick arrangement. Only the tension this gives holds it -- POP! And then no tension, and curtain wall fails evenly all they way around.

OK, I've convinced myself of the outer wall. That can pull inward about 3 feet --- all the way around and lose strength when it loses the floor.

The issue of the equilibrium of forces can be solved for the failure of the curtain wall.

>> Why the Hell haven't any anti-truthers explained it as well as I just have?

Anyway, we have all this breaking away from the core, and we have the molten steel. We also have to wonder how not enough damage happened to the Windows near the curtain wall.

>> And then, why the cover up afterward? Is the Bush administration really more stupid and incompetent than they are evil? Should we care? Isn't there a point where you should punish people in high positions if you can't tell the difference?

IF ever, there is enough evidence to prove one thing or the other to me -- I'm going to pee my pants to imagine an administration doing everything BushCo did, because they were that damn stupid. IF they weren't hiding financial transactions, and a LIHOP, they were hiding their own incompetence -- wow. I'd double whatever punishment was meted out for that.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

That stuff coming off could have been anything in the debris pile to begin with. Plastics, aluminum, heck anything. Molten is molten and solid is solid. Soft is soft, but you cannot have molten steel connected to the solid unless the whole thing is molten.

Wow, there goes all the movie stock I've ever seen of a steel sword being shoved in a fire and beaten into form by a blacksmith. You know, with one end dark, then red hot?

Yes, I know the thermal load is transmitted -- it's part of the issue with not enough heat in the office fire to bring it down.

We've covered this before -- if you melt aluminum, it glows WHITE HOT. Metals are very distinctive, and their temperature is very precisely known by the color they glow.

No, you haven't said anything it could be. Still the best bet is molten steel. What could keep it that hot days later -- a month?

The only thing I could think of is a ruptured gas line that was still burning feeding into the building. You would think all of that would be burnt out or shut off -- it's the only possible "non conspiracy" explanation I can think of.

>> Again, know way to know -- it's too bad this wasn't treated like a crime scene. They should be imprisoned for crimes and hung for the stupidity.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

They DID appear on the manifests....they did not appear on the "Victim list"...look it up and come back when you can get your facts straight.

>> I just checked, and you are indeed correct: Faxes of Flight Manifests
I'll give you that point

Thank you. In the future please be sure to research your claims before just repeating what someone else said.

I wouldn't be so quick to concede this point. This whole deliniation between a "victim's list" and a passenger manifest is ridiculous. There were NO hijackers listed on ANY 9/11 passenger manifest for YEARS until these mysterious documents appeared on a blog, purportedly from the Moussaoui trial.

At around the time that the Moussaoui trial exhibits appeared, a seven-page set of faxes purported to be the original flight manifests was published on a weblog claiming that they were from the Moussaoui trial exhibits.

I'm highly suspicious of the source -- an anonymous blog and the fact that these low quality faxed documents that were purportedly used as trial exhibits (never conclusively proven) could've been easily faked.

There were huge anomalies in passenger names and even total counts in ALL the 9/11 manifests.

OK, I'll admit it, I was beaten into submission.

I kind of explained that I thought the Moussaoui trial was a farce. But unfortunately, we have to give a nod to court cases standing for SOMETHING -- even though we know they don't in this case. I'm surprised they didn't say; "Actual Genuine 9/11 Flight Manifest" on them. Karl Rove and his like probably cut their teeth on forged documents.

this entire incident is filled with "convenient evidence" in briefcases, or they let you see it in a darkened room, but you can't take photos or touch it. All the hallmarks of a con game.

>> I was merely throwing a bone. There are UNOFFICIAL Flight Manifests from certain sources -- so I can't say NO EVIDENCE. I can just say, crappy evidence from crooks.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


Hold on now. Is that blacksmith's sword molten when he is beating it to the proper shape, or is it soft and malleable? Ahhhhh. Big difference there. How can you shape something molten with a hammer? Unless you want it splashing around.
I did post another reason why the steel would be so hot, maybe you can take a look at it and see another lesser known, but plausible scenario. Its the "Molten Iron" link I posted.

[edit on 2/13/2009 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by Griff


But it doesn't describe WTC 7.

A reinforced concrete frame has concrete columns, beams and slabs that are reinforced with steel. Not very thick steel, but enough of them to redistribute the tension forces in the concrete.

I'm sorry to say that if this building was reinforced concrete, we are comparing "apples to oranges".

Griff = The true meaning of Truther. He sees the facts and uses that information to draw his conclusion.



WTC-7 and the Madrin Hotel are two totally different buildings.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

1-That would pretty much support the demolition theory.

2-Only in a total fantasy world can two 14' engines, tear through 17 steel tubes larger than they are

3-Even if you pull down the core -- you've got twenty stories collapsing 10 to 20 feet. That isn't a significant amount of the building to cause failure.

4-You aren't adding any weight with a collapse of a few floors to the core.

5-I seriously cannot understand how people can visualize such a non-possible event.

6-You are balanced on a pole, the top of the pole breaks for some reason and you fall off the pole to one side or another

7-But even to weaken it with a big fire, it would take many more hours. Steel doesn't weaken until near its melting point -- and damn sure not critically.

8-Notice again the China office fire

1- no, it wouldn't. It shows that there is indeed another way.

2- since this is YOUR fantasy scenario, I say run with it.....

3- funny, I can think of a structural engineer, here on ATS, that doesn't believe the collapse initiation scenario in the NIST report, that agrees that it can.....

4- the core would become unbraced when the floors come off, leaving them prone to buckling and/or breaking at the welded connections.

5- that's because you aren't representing a realistic scenario. IOW, you're constructing a strawman...

6- and if the floors don't fall off ( or you hang onto the pole ) the columns ( pole ) fall to one side. The falling columns would hit the bracing that was internal to the core, and they would be compromised/break, leaving the core columns yet MORE prone to buckling and/or breaking at the welded connections.

7- not really.

"Since the thermally
activated decrease of yield stress is a time-dependent process, the yield strength decrease must
have been even greater for the heating durations in the towers, which were of the order of one
hour. These effects of heating are further documented by the recent fire tests of Zeng et al.
(2003), which showed that structural steel columns under a sustained load of 50% to 70% of
their cold strength collapse when heated to 250C. "

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

BTW, the above mentioned SE agrees with this too.

8- notice Griff's post above where he agrees that this is an apples/oranges comparison.....

Here id say since peope wamt to argue about controlled demolition. Might want to look at this video



Here is the answer to several post talking about thermite being used And it explains those angle cuts everyone keeps refering to:



And last but not least what happens to steel under load when it is heated i think this vidoe does a fairly good job of explaining structural failure of steel



And one last thing there was very little concrete was used in wtc these were a light weight design and in retrospect not a good idea. Apparently the thermal coating over the steel beams regularly came off and was constantly reapplied because it didn't stick to the steel well at all. Its a shame when engineers screw up because people can die. But I will say my sister is an engineer and apparently they went over this in her classes so they are at least learning not to make the same mistakes twice.




[edit on 2/13/09 by dragonridr]

[edit on 2/13/09 by dragonridr]

Originally posted by dragonridr
Here id say since peope wamt to argue about controlled demolition. Might want to look at this video

I like the CG simulation at :50 that shows floors collapsing while the central support columns remain -- exactly how it would've looked if the WTC towers really had collapsed!

And I liked the explanation of how we were really seeing window blinds instead of demolition squibs shoot out the windows of WTC 7! Very humorous. Nice music too.

Here is the answer to several post talking about thermite being used And it explains those angle cuts everyone keeps refering to:

Fascinating explanation. Except a professional salvage worker posted yesterday that they would NEVER cut beams at an angle because it would make them highly unstable and extremely dangerous, not to mention having to cut through 50% more steel. But his presentation wasn't nearly slick as your video.

And last but not least what happens to steel under load when it is heated i think this vidoe does a fairly good job of explaining structural failure of steel.

Yeah, it's fairly good... for propaganda. Didn't mention the fact that those oxygen-starved WTC fires belching black smoke only generated a fraction of the heat necessary to weaken massive steel beams. It also failed to mention that the WTC towers were designed and built to absorb the impact of multiple 707s, a plane comparable in weight and fuel capacity to the 767. But again, nice graphics and music.

And one last thing there was very little concrete was used in wtc these were a light weight design and in retrospect not a good idea.

Of course, a building designed to absorb the impact of multiple 707s is clearly insufficient. Strange how no other steel-framed building in history has collapsed due to fire. They must've had those modern "concrete" upgrades.

Apparently the thermal coating over the steel beams regularly came off and was constantly reapplied because it didn't stick to the steel well at all.

Apparently. I just love the "blown-off insulation" explanation! That reminds me -- I've gotta get new insulation for the grates on my stove.

Its a shame when engineers screw up because people can die.

Damned cut-rate American engineers. I hope they've learned their lesson.

P.S. Great sig: "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."

Very noble.



[edit on 14-2-2009 by GoldenFleece]

I found something interesting. I was looking to see if there were any other instances of a plane flying into a skyscraper and what happened as a result. Lo and behold, I found this on Wikipedia.

1945 plane crash

At 9:40 a.m. on Saturday, July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber, piloted in thick fog by Lieutenant Colonel William F. Smith, Jr., crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building, between the 79th and 80th floors, where the offices of the National Catholic Welfare Council were located. One engine shot through the side opposite the impact and flew as far as the next block where it landed on the roof of a nearby building, starting a fire that destroyed a penthouse. The other engine and part of the landing gear plummeted down an elevator shaft. The resulting fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. Fourteen people were killed in the incident. Elevator operator Betty Lou Oliver survived a plunge of 75 stories inside an elevator, which still stands as the Guinness World Record for the longest survived elevator fall recorded. Despite the damage and loss of life, the building was open for business on many floors on the following Monday. The crash helped spur the passage of the long-pending Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, as well as the insertion of retroactive provisions into the law, allowing people to sue the government for the accident.

As for the B-25 Mitchell Bomber:



Although it is lighter, it's a plane and it flew into a skyscraper. There was surely jet fuel burning and it took 40 minutes to extinguish the fire and most of the floors were open for business on Monday. Far cry from a collapse in a similar circumstance plus this was in 1945, but the fire didn't burn as long either.

Still interesting though, I didn't expect to find anything.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Kratos1220]

Originally posted by Kratos1220
Like you, I had no interest at all in conspiracy theories before 9/11. As a matter of fact, I thought they were all nutjobs, that is, until I broke down and decided to give the evidence a look. I still remember the first time I was reading through it all and my heart sunk into my stomach more than once.

That makes three of us. Amazing what happens when you break away from the corporate media and take responsibility for being informed. And I hear ya on the sick feeling you get when it all sinks it. Kinda like, holy $#!&*, where the $%#@ am I? It changes the way you view the world, so I understand how it can be too much for some people. Self-delusion is much easier and a hell of a lot more pleasant.

I'm just curious.
To all those who believe the government was involved in 9/11,
what are you going to do about it?

I'm not being a smart @ss here. I'm just curious.

The "truthers" here are defending there idea's like a lion would defend it's kill so I just want to know where you all are planning on taking this? Is this just a bunch of chest thumping about how bad the government is or do you all have a real plan to bring these "traitors" to justice?

Back to the angled cuts,if you can bear reiteration of endless minutae.When a torch cut is made by hand,the slag that results will tell the angle and speed of cut.Also the fuel/O2 mix.The slower the cut,the more perpendicular the cut lines and slag trail,in relation to the surface operated upon. Cutting machine cuts,in production situations,tend to be at more of an angle because they generally use more fuel and hence can be set to run faster.The beginning of a hand cut will be slower and speed up as the piece heats up ahead of the cut zone.Most cuts these days,as a side note are by a plasma cutter,which leaves very little adherent slag as the temperature is much higher and vaporizes the steel.
So we would see,in the case of after collapse salvage cuts,a slow beginning,at the top which is the point of origin of the slag trail here,followed by a gradually increasing rate of cut,hence increasing angle to the ripples left on the surface resulting from the cut,which would go straight-ish into the core area..One ought to be able to see the start area,as it tends to be somewhat messier as the cut enters and stabilizes.And as mentioned previously,the slag would have gone on through into the center of the box section.A hand cut under duress would bear the marks of ''craftsmanship of risk" and be wavy perhaps with some stops and starts.(Analogous to handsaw marks as opposed to machine sawing,slightly different angles to the kerf as the sawyer changed position as the cut progressed.You look for these things when determining authenticity in antique furniture.)I would ,if the cut were needed to be as this was a 60degree angle,first cut the bottom horizontal,then the top horiz. then the two sides,leaving an attachment to cut last to completely sever as I skedaddled.That would show as an overlapping series of slag drips with cut marks in the previous slag deposits in sequence.This shows none of that,no sequence,just one melt.
How convenient the slag was left in the case of the one clear photo referred to here,for without,it would be more of a guess.Looking closely at the slag,you can see that it was not blown straight inward as a hand torch cut would be,but rather the slag flows along the cut line,and actually doesn't seem to go through at all,but rather flows along the cut line to the lowest point where it drops in a mass.To me,this looks like a weakening partial cut,designed to snap free when the whole mass moved,the extreme angle assuring rapid movement and particular desired direction assured.A very close look see would confirm or deny.No wonder the scrap was whisked away.Don't they always do forensics?(We can add the lack of forensics to the list of first-and-only-on-that-day events.)A final word on the video,the angled cut shown is a thirty degree cut,hardly comparable to the extreme angle referred to here.An extreme situation,having a crane or some above attachment point to support the off-cut when it went.The operator is in a cherry picker,to assure rapid get away when movement commenced.I can assure you he was being hawk-eyed by the crane operator and cherry picker op. for safety,who would yank him one way and the steel the other at the slightest movement.The cut shown behind the fire fighter was in the open in very uneven ground,no crane there,nor platform access visible,unless a helicopter.Also the narrators in the vid are too clean to be in the mix.No dust masks,safety glasses,ear plugs a-dangling.I'd say they were narrating a film to look like they were there at the scene.Certainly impLIEd they were.Gorsh,I never thought torch cutting could be so interesting...

reply to post by jfj123

Like I'd tell you!!!
What will you do when it all sinks in and you realize what masters you are serving,eh?
There's a certain kind of anger money can't buy.

Originally posted by trueforger
reply to post by jfj123

 

Like I'd tell you!!!
What will you do when it all sinks in and you realize what masters you are serving,eh?
There's a certain kind of anger money can't buy.

Thanks for not answering the question.

You make it sound so dire so why don't you have any interest in doing anything about it? Surely if it's as bad as you say, you and other "truthers" have a plan to bring your evidence to court and have those responsible jailed ?

reply to post by GenRadek

In reality,a high carbon sword,shoved into a coal fire will burn and not melt.To melt high carbon steel it must be protected from O2,that is what flux is for.It melts and coats the surface.Different steels act in different ways to fire.At the same temp,one steel will stand work and hold an edge even,while another will not only weaken,but it will always show signs of overheating,and be unfit for use.Then,if salvaged, it is smelted to cast iron and reformulated.Sulfur is especially injurious to hot steel,which is why it is in THERMATE not thermite.Thermite is for welding,say RR track.That is what the powdered iron is for.