NIST: Incompetent or Deliberately Covering Up Evidence of Molten Steel?

Originally posted by FDNY343
ALL of the unprotected steel failed. The stuff with the concrete, survived.

Those external "columns" were the size and shape of pipes and had to burn for a full 24 hours for that to even happen.

If anything, looking at much, much larger columns and yet only a

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
ALL of the unprotected steel failed. The stuff with the concrete, survived.

Those external "columns" were the size and shape of pipes and had to burn for a full 24 hours for that to even happen.

If anything, looking at much, much larger columns and yet only a

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
ALL of the unprotected steel failed. The stuff with the concrete, survived.

Those external "columns" were the size and shape of pipes and had to burn for a full 24 hours for that to even happen.

If anything, looking at much, much larger columns and yet only a

Originally posted by GenRadek
First bit of math: Fire started 11AM, first collapse at 1:29AM equals about 2 1/2 hours for this to first happen. also it should be known that we do not know how long was the entire floor subjected to the flames, but by 12AM everything above the 21st floor was burning.

Next collapse: 1:37AM, south face above the 21st floor. So from fully engulfed in fires at 12AM, to first collapses at 1:29AM is about 1 1/2 hours. Notice, NO planes hit it, no bombs, no thermites, no demo charges, no 767 inside. Just a regular fire with "office supplies" and such burning.

Right, and no global collapse completely to the ground, no pulverization of all the concrete into fine dust, no throwing heavy debris outwards for hundreds of feet in all directions, no reports of multiple explosions injuring people throughout the building.... right? Gee I wonder what was so different there.

You are still talking about "steel columns" that are the size and shape of pipes.

Try to find a better photo of the Windsor Tower exterior "columns" without embarrassing yourself further:




When you compare these "columns" with the exterior columns of the WTC, a pretty obvious difference presents itself. One of these structures has larger perimeter columns. I'm not going to say which one because maybe that will actually stir some brain matter up. But one of the structures has a significantly larger mass present in each and every perimeter column. A funny thing about that is that, when it's heated, the larger object is going to take more heat energy, to heat to the same temperature. I say that's funny because you never seem to mention that. Do you think it might make a difference in heating the steel to a critical temperature? Yes? No?

Originally posted by FDNY343
The fire did not cause the collapse to begin at the columns, it started at the trusses. The trusses pulled in the exterior columns. If you had read the NIST report, you would know this.

Wow, thanks, considering what I just posted for you in another thread this is obviously news to me.


If you already knew that, and if you already knew how much different the exterior "columns" in the Windsor Tower were, then why did you bring up the fact that the outer steel failed at all?

And speaking of the trusses somehow pulling the exterior columns in, that is what I'm actually looking for papers on. Why does the truss effectively gain weight when it's sagging? Because it shouldn't. Neither should it exert any additional force on the exterior columns. At least unless you have more scientific literature that isn't just about the fact that a truss will sag.

Just a simple question for truthers:

Why do the building codes require us to insulate steel?

Thank you.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Just a simple question for truthers:

Why do the building codes require us to insulate steel?

To give the companies that make the fireproofing material some business.


Where are the studies that demonstrate how a sagging truss can suddenly exert a greater "pulling" force on the exterior columns?

Originally posted by bsbray11

To give the companies that make the fireproofing material some business.

So, fireproofing companies must have been in on it too!!!

I thought so.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
So, fireproofing companies must have been in on it too!!!

I thought so.

Right, of course. So now you have a new strawman (logical fallacy) to parade in every thread.

Fireproofing is a precaution. Precaution for what? Well that's the million-dollar question. I want to see scientific literature that proves the mechanism you think caused the WTC towers to collapse.

I asked in my last post to you above and you totally ignored it in favor of my sarcasm. I thought so, too.

Doesn't make any difference because you'll never post the science I'm asking for anyway: it doesn't exist. Enjoy your religion while it lasts.

Originally posted by bsbray11


Fireproofing is a precaution. Precaution for what? Well that's the million-dollar question.

So, you don't know why code requires fireproofing on steel?

Any other truthers know why?

Originally posted by Six Sigma
So, you don't know why code requires fireproofing on steel?

Any other truthers know why?

Go ahead and explain why you think, and have some scientific literature handy to support whatever you say too.

If you're going to say it's to avoid what happened at the WTC towers, you'd automatically be wrong since the hypothetical mechanism for that was never proven to begin with.

From everything I've read the fireproofing is only to delay the effects of heating, namely sagging and deflection due to thermal expansion. It has nothing to do with trusses exerting inward "pulling" forces on perimeter columns.

Originally posted by bsbray11
From everything I've read the fireproofing is only to delay the effects of heating, namely sagging and deflection due to thermal expansion.

Thank you sir, this is all I was looking for. You can continue your pissing contest with the others.

Have a great day.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by bsbray11
From everything I've read the fireproofing is only to delay the effects of heating, namely sagging and deflection due to thermal expansion.

Thank you sir, this is all I was looking for. You can continue your pissing contest with the others.

Have a great day.

Yeah, no problem, glad I could be of service I guess.

Just don't forget the sentence that came after it:

It has nothing to do with trusses exerting inward "pulling" forces on perimeter columns.

Otherwise there is really no point to bringing it up on the 9/11 forums.

reply to post by bsbray11


I can see its just not clicking up there for you, is it?

Why didnt Windsor Tower collapse totally? Gee didnt you notice that LARGE STEEL REENFORCED CONCRETE CORE and CONCRETE technical floors that arrested the collapse of the entire building?

Also, if you didnt notice, the fires in the Windsor started from an electrical short, NOT from a 767 impacting 5 floors, spreading burning jet fuel and damaging multiple floors and structure. Nor was Windsor impacted by another building, severing fuel lines and gouging out sections of the building. Also, The steel failed within 2 hours of engulfment. It took WTC7 nearly 7 HOURS to collapse. WTC 1 and 2 were both impacted by 767s at VERY high speeds.

Here you are given a basic display of fire destroying a steel structure, which was only saved by a LARGE CONCRETE core which was steel-reenforced. Show me where the WTCs had a large CONCRETE core.

Its like you are purposely ignoring these basic fact! Embracing ignorance much?

And you dont even know why fire code require STEEL structures to have ADEQUATE fireproofing. that tells me a lot about how much you know about fires and structure behavior in a fire. Its a precaution?? Right because no fire ever affected steel in a negative way right? Tell that to the folks at McCormick place in 1967. Care to explain what caused the large heavy steel trussed roof to fail there? And how long did it take for the roof to collapse in that fire?

Blamed on an electrical malfunction, the fire began about 2 a.m. behind one of the 1,236 exhibits awaiting the opening of the Housewares show. Many booths displayed paints and thinners (now outlawed) that acted as accelerants. Only about 10 percent of the building's 10-acre interior-mainly the trash area-was protected by a sprinkler system. More than 400 firefighters were hampered by frozen and malfunctioning hydrants in a losing effort to save the building. Steel supports in the ceiling melted. Molten aluminum flowed through expansion joints in the floor of the main exhibit level to start another fire two floors below. At 2:40 a.m., just 35 minutes after the fire was discovered by a housekeeping crew, the roof collapsed. There was one casualty, a security guard whose body was found in a stairwell.

www.exhibitoronline.com...

So please bsbray, explain to us in your great wisdom, what caused the large heavy steel trussed roof of McCormick place to fail and collapse in 35 minutes? Cause according to you, steel needs not to be protected, and it takes days for regular fires to affect steel structrues. I want to hear from you what caused it to happen?

Originally posted by GenRadek
I can see its just not clicking up there for you, is it?

Why didnt Windsor Tower collapse totally? Gee didnt you notice that LARGE STEEL REENFORCED CONCRETE CORE and CONCRETE technical floors that arrested the collapse of the entire building?

Oh yeah, attribute it all to the concrete.


This must be because I asked you if the size of the steel columns in question makes a difference as to heating them. Are you just going to keep ignoring that? I guess 10 years of ignoring it already is too long of a streak to just let it go now. Not to mention the fact that the Windsor Tower didn't explode in all directions and send massive multi-ton pieces of debris flying hundreds of feet through the air.

So please bsbray, explain to us in your great wisdom, what caused the large heavy steel trussed roof of McCormick place to fail and collapse in 35 minutes? Cause according to you, steel needs not to be protected, and it takes days for regular fires to affect steel structrues. I want to hear from you what caused it to happen?

What caused a roof of a building to fall in is not relevant to the WTC towers unless you can prove that the collapse was related to the trusses sagging and pulling the outer columns inwards, resulting in some pseudo-"pancake collapse" that isn't really a pancake collapse.

I don't know how this discussion got sidetracked onto fireproofing, which was only an auxiliary issue the NIST report also hypothesized about. You must forget that the WTC Towers had plenty of fireproofing inside and that it was never proven that it was all knocked off, or that ANY of it was knocked off by the impacts. The tests NIST did there involved shooting only the spray-on form of fireproofing with a shotgun. And you like to laugh at "truthers" who burn metal cages. Enough said.