Ollie I watched your video and contains so much unproven BS it really is amazing. It is based on the NIST report, that yous seem to not understand, but feel that the crap that is in it is somehow substantiated because it is being parroted in a video.
It is answered, exposed as BS and destroyed with the following--
Many many people who were considered authorities, initially came out and said that the fires from the jetfuel were simply too hot and too extreme for the steel in the buildings to handle. This was touted all over the papers, TV and the MSM in general. This immediately gave the public a sense that it was truly the case and seemed to provide an adequate explaination to many people who never worked with fire, steel or torches.
Even knowing that this initial knee jerk explanation was false, I considered the weakening of the steel as a pssible explanation. But again, having worked with steel and other metals, and using a torch as a primary tool for years, I knew that the high temperature that was needed to weaken steel, especially the kind used in massive hirises, had to be applied at relevant positions of the supporting structures, for enough duration, at the same time to cause the kind of more or less symmetrical collapse that was witnessed.
I also know from experience that steel transfers heat away from the flame contact point, and distributes the heat to the cooler parts of it.
Example...take a piece of metal...even a frying pan, and heat it up, and you will burn your hands just by grabbing the handle. The longer the "handle" the cooler it will be at its end, because of it having more mass (handle) to distribute the heat...
Weakening of the steel in these massive buildings, when the above facts are taken into consideration, would take time in order to properly apply the nessesary heat and the corresponding high temps required to overcome the steels properties. If anything we should have witnessed, a gradual weakening evidenced by tilting, or toppling to the side of the building that was being most effected at the time.
NIST claiming that the fires and the temps were sufficiently attained in these massive structures, is one thing, but proving it is another thing that they failed to do.
They also claimed that a rapid collapse, especially one that could come anywhere near FF or FF acceleration, would be impossible due to the building providing a natural resistance to the collapsing parts...
If one is serious about this, you must take into account tha fact that these buildings,like many others were designed with a safety factor that went above and beyond they stated capabilities, and will provide further resistance and strength against such damage.
As well, NISTs scientific data contradicted their own theory: This is not science; its Bush science!
· Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) despite pre-collapse exposure to fire[55]
· Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)[56]
· Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging[57]
· NIST found that there was no floor collapse[58]
· The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th.[59]
NIST claims that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the steel, yet their own tests showed that it was not. This evidence strongly indicates that the WTC towers should have remained standing, and is supported by the claims of the building designers.
The video then gets into the claim that the WTC 's steel was not encased in concrete. However, anyone who has ever tried to cut steel that had concrete around it or near it, would know that when concrete is poured, it dries with moisture trapped within it.
Take a torch to it and it will gall and explode, and if you're not wearing eye protection, you run a huge risk of damaging your eyes with the exploding debris.
Concrete is used when a thinner gauge of steel, or rebar is being used. When the extreme heat of the fire attacks the concrete, it explodes and exposes the weak steel or rebar underneath it.
This steel, being thinner can be overcome much more readily compared to a larger more robust piece that was used in a building like the WTC towers.
This is why you will see in thevideo of the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story tower framed in steel reinforced concrete.
At its peak, the fire, which burned for almost a day, completely engulfed the upper ten stories of the building. This building is used to try to dispell historical facts, that steel buildings do not experience complete global collapses when attacked by fires.
During the night the building shedded larged pieces, which crashed to the ground.
The fire apparently caused the collapse of the top floor spans surrounding the still-standing core structure of the ten uppermost floors. As in the case of the other large skyscraper fire since 9/11/01, fears of total building collapse in the case of the Windsor fire were widely reported. Those fears would again prove unfounded.
In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses.
In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. The concrete pillars in the Windsor building are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed by the collapsed facade. The very light construction of the perimeter, described below, makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building.
Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.
Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.
The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours, can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.
The partial collapse events of this particular building, spread over several hours (which burned for almost a day), contrast with the implosion of WTC Building 7 in 7 seconds, and the total explosive collapses of each of the Twin Towers in under 17 seconds.
The video states, and agrees with the NIST claim that the foam fireproofing was blown away from the steel due to the planes impact.
NIST tests its theory by fireing a shotgun at a piece of metal in a box covered with fireproofing.
NIST provides no argument to support the idea that the jet impact would act like so many shotgun blasts.
Tests demonstrate that the fireproofing would not be knocked off. It would have to be sheared off.
NIST claims that fire-proofing was widely dislodged by the planes. This is a central argument of the NIST study. How did they prove this? They fired multiple shot-gun blasts at fireproofing samples. Kevin Ryan shows it actually disproved their theory:
It took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been [like] thousands of shotgun blasts [to cover] the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel.[74]
NISTs own photographs clearly show that the shotgun blasts only removed the fireproofing where the bullets had hit.[75] This deceptive experiment actually leads to evidence which contradicts one of the primary arguments of their theory![76] Unfortunately for NIST, there are no classes taught in Bush science.[77] This example shows that on occasion, NIST cant even prove their own theory with fake and misleading experiments!
The video goes on to state how many columns were damaged, but fails to mention that NIST examined the column loss from the planes as part of their theory.[60] However, leaves out that [NIST] admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.[61]
Buildings are designed to redistribute loads; this was even more so in the WTC towers: NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.[62]
So far this video assumes that no one will fact check their claims, which apparently you did not.
Your video also claims that
"Unlike most office fires, the crashes piled debris up against the furthest walls and corners, providing fuel for persistent fires, right at the most vulnerable points in the building"
Seriously, the corners of the towers consisted of massive perimeter walls comprised of dense grids of vertical steel columns and horizontal spandrel plates. These, along with the core structures, supported the towers.
the perimeter wall structures were assembled from pre-fabricated units consisting of 3 column sections and 3 spandrel plate sections welded together. Adjacent units were bolted together: column sections were bolted to adjacent columns above and below, and spandrel plate sections were mated with adjacent sections on either side with numerous bolts.
There were 59 perimeter columns on each face of the towers, and one column on each corner bevel, making a total of 240 perimeter columns in each tower.
Like the core columns, the thickness of the perimeter columns tapered from the bottom to the top of the towers.
You can hardly call these the "most vulnerable points of the building" To do so is a bald face lie. and again assumes you are too stupid to research the construction and fabrication of these behemoths..
Notice the imprtant facts that these buildings , like most others are constructed in a tappered fashion, with the stronger, more thicker and robust components starting at the bottom, then the middle, and finally the thinnest of the steel and components at the tops..
So to think that these stronger parts,, that were not effectted by plane impacts or fires, would just move out of the way and wilt allowing such rapid decents is extremely ignorant.
The posted video has a fire temperature simulation pre collapse of the south tower that when you look at what NIST reports about fire temps such as--
Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) despite pre-collapse exposure to fire[55] and
Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)[56]
The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th.[59]
NIST claims that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the steel, yet their own tests showed that it was not. This evidence strongly indicates that the WTC towers should have remained standing, and is supported by the claims of the building designers.
So we know that steel doesn't begin to melt until it reaches 2750 D. F, but loses half its strenght around 1100D F.
But the temps are not substantiated and even discounted by they're own testing.
Furthermore, it only the impacted parts of the buildings did attain the required temps to cause this damage, then how is it explained that the thinner weaker parts fell into the more stronger robust, unaffectted parts, with no resistance???
NIST responds:
the momentum of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass [Note: this claim contradicts a basic law of physics]. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.[64]
According to NIST a building which supported its own weight for 30 years cant resist the momentum from the collapse even a little. NIST claims a small portion of the building is enough to result in crushing the rest the building at free fall speedas if the bottom portion of the building provided no more resistance than the air in the sky. This is called creating your own scientific reality.[65] You cant ignore fundamental laws of physics simply because they are inconvenient to your theory! Normally, (although not in Bush science) you are supposed to abandon your theory when it is this easily disproved.
We observe no jolt when the 2 masses impact each other, and we see a rapid decent and collapse front, when physical laws dictate there most asuradly would have been.
NIST's assertion that the Tower's intact structure was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass is absurd. It:
Requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air.
Ignores the fact that the majority of rubble fell outside the towers' footprints, and hence could not contribute to crushing.
Is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.[67]
Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors and intact steel support columns the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.[68]
You don't have to be a physics expert to understand that,
It is clear that NIST didnt even attempt to explain how the towers completely collapsed[69] because they couldn'tthey would have to make reference to conservation of momentum, which would completely disprove their entire theory. This is a perfect example for why the NIST report is unscientific and is completely worthless.
NIST tells us that steel heats up in a hurry when exposed to fire, but expects us to not consider steels thermal conducyivity which draws heat away and would be expected to spread around the 90,000 tons of steel that each tower consisted of.
They allude to fireproofing as being highly essential, but don't want you to consider that fireproofed or not, no hirise steel building fire has ever caused a total collapse anywhere, anytime in history. Their own "shotgun" testing doesn't conclude their claims, they exageratted their fuel fire loads, and the their own report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.
The first section of the report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
And you idiots that have been saying that rubble fires were asisted by gypsum boards will be surprised to know that
according to NIST the gypsum board actually is mentioned as being a protecting influence-
"Aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of this upper layer were at about 500 ºC, and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperatures reached 1,000 ºC. The aircraft fragments had broken through the core walls on the 94th through the 97th floors, and temperatures in the upper layers there were similar to those in the tenant spaces. (p 28/78)"
Note the absurdity of asserting that the fires in the core were as intense as those in the tenant spaces when the core:
Had very little fuel
Was far from any source of fresh air
Had huge steel columns to wick away the heat
Does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos!!!
Furthermore, NIST's suggestion of extremely high core temperatures is contradicted by its own fire temperature simulations, such as the one illustrated on the right, which show upper-level air temperatures in the core of mostly below 300 ºC.
NIST Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers
NIST apparently ignored thermal conduction within its model of the steel structure. Since steel is a good conductor of heat, and the steel in the Twin Towers' structures was well connected, their massive steel structures would have drawn heat away from the parts that were exposed to fire. The Report describes a model of "The Fire-Structure Interface", and describes the computation of heat transfer between the air and the steel structure, but it does not mention the conduction of heat along spans of the steel structure. (p 131-2/181-2) The suspicion that NIST simply ignored the conduction of heat within the steel is corroborated by the Report's disclosure that they used heat transfer tests on isolated steel elements to calibrate their model. (p 134/184) !!!
Talk about hypocrisy...
So we get detailed computer simulations of how the planes were shredded by the impacts, but when it comes to the collapses, but yet elsewhere and mentioned above in their report they clearly state that the aluminum planes caused the destruction of supporting beams and columns????
[NIST] admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.[61]
Anyone else see their hypocrisy???
As far as the actual collapses are concerned, the most quantitative thing we get is "tremendous energy of the falling building section." Why are there no calculations of the approximate amount of energy? How can 2 masses be able to crash into each other, and the one with the least amount of debris crush the more stroner and undamaged one, in such short amount of time as to suggest it was going through air???
It is clear that NIST presupposed that its assumptions would go unnoticed and unchallenged. It attempted to jumble
and confuse, and at first glance they do a halfway good job of this, but when their theory is analyzed and its ways of reaching their conclusions are looked at in greater detail, it is clear that this was a huge undertaking at decieving the public, by hiding other more relevant conclusions and theories, in a maze of confusing scientific mumble jumbo.
But the main question one only need to keep asking when trying to decipher this mess, is how could the lowere parts of these massive steel structures that were undamaged br overcome by lighter, less mass, IN THE SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME, on 3 occasions on the same day..This NIST has never bothered to answer, because it hoped you would not even bother to ask.
The proof of their deception is mixed within their reports and analysis, and it does not make sense.
Steel buildings do not explode into dust because of fires, and produce the results that WERE WITNESSED.
The video only tries to reinforce the unprovable, and false NIST report, which I have pointed out in this post
is not scientically sound, and does not even mention the physical laws, or the properties of steel. Of course the steel
didn't melt, it only took years for you people to finnally admit to this, but your new claim that the steel only had to be weakened is just as much hogwash, and actually further disproves iminate global collapse because it takes time to weaken steel.....And not all of it was weakened...Kinetic energy can only be used once..Where did the resistance go???
NIST Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers
9/11, NIST, and ?Bush Science?: A New Standard For Absurdity | 911Blogger.com
