9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[SFC Ollie]

Didn't Popular Mechanics, or some similar publication, actually do an experiment with a steel beam and a jet fuel fire, and the steel beam was weakened to the point of collapse within a few minutes? Hell, I may have posted that video in here.

My point, of course, is to question why you are insistent that the fires could not have burned long or hot enough to weaken the structure to the point of collapse. I have seen repeatedly that steel loses approximately 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees, and that jet fuel burns at anywhere from 800-1500 degrees. Now, of course, the fuel would have burned away long before the collapse took place, but that would rebut the argument that jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to weaken steel beams. After that it's a question of how hot it would have gotten within the buildings after the fuel was gone. That I don't know, but it certainly SEEMS to have gotten hot enough to weaken the steel and cause a collapse. Despite repeated claims that it could not have been hot enough, I haven't seen any evidence showing that to be the case. How hot can an average fire burn? What's the difference in temperature if it's a wood fire, or different cloths, or whatever other materials were likely to be in the towers?

These definitive claims (fires COULD NOT burn hot enough to cause collapse!) never seem to be backed up with strong evidence. So, even if the NIST conclusions are wrong, the conclusions bandied about in here are rarely as persuasive.

[ame=http://youtu.be/CGsOkT__M7Y]National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 3 - YouTube[/ame]

Also notice how dark the smoke was....was this an oxygen starved fire?

 

[Mr. Jones]

If the NIST version does not quantify, and contradicts itself, AND does not even attempt to explain the actual "collapses" then it is obvious that it is wrong, and deceitful.

Oh the sweet, sweet irony is killing me Mr. Jones!!!!!!

Mr. Ken Cutler, a professor in mathematics has studies it though-and he agrees with the mechanical engineer Gordon Ross, that the time to total collapse would be much larger then 10 secs, he gives a time figure estimate of 36 secs.

They should have according to proper calculations taken around 55 seconds.

Independent analysis studies have estimated at least 60 secs. or a little longer,

Why won't you address your contradictions Mr. Jones?

What the fuck are you talking about? There are varying estimates concerning this you fucking idiot!
Dude..You have not answered anything that I have requested. This keeps going round in circles..how about we find a common ground where to re-start this?
I will attempt to show you and others why I have a problem with NIST.
I will post where I have found contradictions regarding the NIST report.

Your thoughts rest on the beliefs, that fires weakened the steel structure.
and that the towers were not designed to redistribute loads. That the steel was badly compromised, due to proof of fire retardant being knocked off etc....
What I have found will contradict what you are saying, using the NIST reports.
It casts sever doubt regarding its legitimate use of available material and data.

Your have a contradictory belief that the towers HAD to have had extreme elevated temps, BUT you deny the existence of such temps at the same time???
You are all over the place, and deny basic physical laws, so I will post in segments what I can find, and we can tackle the issues as they are presented, yes or no?

 

[Mr. Jones]

I've asked you a number of times to come up with a plausable alternative, you cannot. I guess this is the point where you start calling me names. That doesn't make your position seem strong in the least.

As depressing as it may be to think it, the only plausible alternative is a CD of some type.
What we can conclude when taking all the available info into account, is that the NIST theory can not stand up to scrutiny, for various reasons that can be pointed out.
If the NIST version does not quantify, and contradicts itself, AND does not even attempt to explain the actual "collapses" then it is obvious that it is wrong, and deceitful.

Ok, now we can actually get somewhere.

You subscribe to a theory that it had to be a controlled demolition. Well, let's apply the same keen scrutiny to that theory as you have to the NIST's report.

Problem #1 with your theory:

How did a demolition crew rig both towers to explode and drop without any office worker, floor sweeper, or maintenance man knowing about it?

Problem #2

We've all seen buildings brought down by explosives. We watch the explosives go off and the flash of each explosion as the building drops. Why didn't we see the subsequent explosions that brought the towers down?

When taking the available NIST reports, it points to just such a scenario, but you must start at that point and not jump to scenarios that you or I can not conclusively prove.
Let us start at the official explanation and see if it can stand scrutiny using the available evidence.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Didn't Popular Mechanics, or some similar publication, actually do an experiment with a steel beam and a jet fuel fire, and the steel beam was weakened to the point of collapse within a few minutes? Hell, I may have posted that video in here.

My point, of course, is to question why you are insistent that the fires could not have burned long or hot enough to weaken the structure to the point of collapse. I have seen repeatedly that steel loses approximately 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees, and that jet fuel burns at anywhere from 800-1500 degrees. Now, of course, the fuel would have burned away long before the collapse took place, but that would rebut the argument that jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to weaken steel beams. After that it's a question of how hot it would have gotten within the buildings after the fuel was gone. That I don't know, but it certainly SEEMS to have gotten hot enough to weaken the steel and cause a collapse. Despite repeated claims that it could not have been hot enough, I haven't seen any evidence showing that to be the case. How hot can an average fire burn? What's the difference in temperature if it's a wood fire, or different cloths, or whatever other materials were likely to be in the towers?

These definitive claims (fires COULD NOT burn hot enough to cause collapse!) never seem to be backed up with strong evidence. So, even if the NIST conclusions are wrong, the conclusions bandied about in here are rarely as persuasive.

[ame=http://youtu.be/CGsOkT__M7Y]National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 3 - YouTube[/ame]

Also notice how dark the smoke was....was this an oxygen starved fire?

Yeah sorta like the smoke from the towers...Your reasoning is contradictory and cherry picking. How about we try to use the NIST reports and their data to figure this out?

 

[daws101]

National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 3 - YouTube

Also notice how dark the smoke was....was this an oxygen starved fire?

Yeah sorta like the smoke from the towers...Your reasoning is contradictory and cherry picking. How about we try to use the NIST reports and their data to figure this out?

how is this contradictory ?
nothing in the nist report disagrees with the content of the clip.
the basis of your whole "theory" is jet fuel could not deform steel to the point of failure that clip is solid evidence of just how wrong you are.
you complaining about cherry picking! ever thing you've ever posted is freshly cherry picked and packaged for your convenience...


The story...

Black smoke in photos of the WTC fires showed they were oxygen-starved and could have been controlled.

Our take...

There is no absolute rule of “black smoke = an oxygen-starved fire”. It’s not as simple as that. You need to consider the materials that are burning, for instance
http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html
fyi this is the only site with 911 in it's title that's credible.

 

[GuyPinestra]

As to the temperature of the burning office contents the most repeated estimates are 8-1100 degrees, based on the material burning and the color of the smoke emitted.

The test I quoted above shows the office simulated fire reached 1200 C (2192 F) in 40 minutes.

I noticed in your simulated fire scenario that they used ONLY wooden furnishings, providing a much more robust fuel source, and your maximum temperature lasted less than 5 minutes. The temperature exceeded 1000 C for maybe 10 minutes.

I also noted that measuring air temperature doesn't mean that heat is transferred instantaneously to solid steel. Considering how long it takes for a pot to heat up on your stove while in DIRECT contact with the heat source, it's hard to imagine that steel EVER getting above 800 C. I know it takes AT LEAST that long for something in the oven to reach the temperature you set it at.

Air really sucks at heat transference.

 

[daws101]

As to the temperature of the burning office contents the most repeated estimates are 8-1100 degrees, based on the material burning and the color of the smoke emitted.

The test I quoted above shows the office simulated fire reached 1200 C (2192 F) in 40 minutes.

I noticed in your simulated fire scenario that they used ONLY wooden furnishings, providing a much more robust fuel source, and your maximum temperature lasted less than 5 minutes. The temperature exceeded 1000 C for maybe 10 minutes.

I also noted that measuring air temperature doesn't mean that heat is transferred instantaneously to solid steel. Considering how long it takes for a pot to heat up on your stove while in DIRECT contact with the heat source, it's hard to imagine that steel EVER getting above 800 C. I know it takes AT LEAST that long for something in the oven to reach the temperature you set it at.

Air really sucks at heat transference.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
WOOD IS NO MORE OR LESS ROBUST A FUEL SOURCE then plastics.
your cooking pot example is fucking hilarious and soooo wrong.
the metal in a pot is not the problem it's the temperature of water or what ever you have in the pot that regulates the heat.
try this, put an empty pot on the stove fire it up and see how long it takes to heat up.
asshat!

 

[SAYIT]

If the NIST version does not quantify, and contradicts itself, AND does not even attempt to explain the actual "collapses" then it is obvious that it is wrong, and deceitful.

Oh the sweet, sweet irony is killing me Mr. Jones!!!!!!

Independent analysis studies have estimated at least 60 secs. or a little longer,

Why won't you address your contradictions Mr. Jones?

What the fuck are you talking about? There are varying estimates concerning this you fucking idiot!

Pay attention, Princess.
One of your sources estimates 36 seconds, another says around 55 seconds and a third says at least 60 seconds or longer.
If 36 seconds is correct, the next two guesses are BS. The same can be said if you accept the 55 second or the 1 minute or more guesses. Whichever guestimate you buy into renders the others incorrect. The bottom line? They are all just guesses and they do not prove a CD.
Explosives or explosions would but 11+ years after the fact you still have no hard evidence of either.

 

[GuyPinestra]

in reality they're not.. also you're intentionally misstating what us" fools" said. jet fuel, paper, office furniture, office cubicles, plastics, gypsum, sound proofing, celling tiles, pvc, chemicals etc. all in the millions of tons kept the fire burning long enough and hot enough to weaken the floor joists.
you have no proof otherwise....

Umm no, I'm not. But regardless, let's look at your list.

1. Jet fuel - Mostly consumed at impact in the huge fireballs we witnessed, Residual amounts burned off in 10-15 minutes. Even if jet fuel burned hot enough in open air to damage steel beams and trusses (which it doesn't) it was burned off long before it could accomplish the feat.

2. Paper - Doesn't burn hot enough.

3. office furniture & cubicles - what percentage of that furniture was metal and couldn't burn, and where is your proof that wood and plastic can obtain a high enough temperature burning in open air to accomplish the necessary damage to the floor trusses?

4. Gypsum, sound proofing and ceiling tiles - Doesn't burn. Commercial applications mean code wouldn't allow them to use flammable substances in ceilings and sound proofing, and we already know that gypsum is not flammable.

5. PVC and chemicals - From what, exactly?

still wrong! the code or codes are written for maximum fire resistance not fire proof (meaning impervious to flame or high heat)
all those materials burn at a certain point some higher some lower.
if they did not burn or lose their structural integrity due to exposer to high temps then there would be no reason to have building codes or fire departments.
fun fact: high explosives do not cause fires.
Also shit head none of us "fools" ever said that fire ALONE caused the collapse.
that's you assholes attempting to minimize all the other contributing factors.

pvc for electrical conduit
chemicals for janitorial use and chemicals and solvents for maintenance..

It's against code to use pvc for electrical conduit, although it is used for waste water.

With a janitor's closet on each floor and a couple of gallons of cleaners in each closet (some flammable, some not) you've got a MAXIMUM of a couple hundred gallons spread out over 100 floors. You MIGHT get a couple 30 gallon barrels in the sub-basement, but I don't see that as being the cause of any great fire, do you?

 

[GuyPinestra]

The test I quoted above shows the office simulated fire reached 1200 C (2192 F) in 40 minutes.

I noticed in your simulated fire scenario that they used ONLY wooden furnishings, providing a much more robust fuel source, and your maximum temperature lasted less than 5 minutes. The temperature exceeded 1000 C for maybe 10 minutes.

I also noted that measuring air temperature doesn't mean that heat is transferred instantaneously to solid steel. Considering how long it takes for a pot to heat up on your stove while in DIRECT contact with the heat source, it's hard to imagine that steel EVER getting above 800 C. I know it takes AT LEAST that long for something in the oven to reach the temperature you set it at.

Air really sucks at heat transference.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
WOOD IS NO MORE OR LESS ROBUST A FUEL SOURCE then plastics.
your cooking pot example is fucking hilarious and soooo wrong.
the metal in a pot is not the problem it's the temperature of water or what ever you have in the pot that regulates the heat.
try this, put an empty pot on the stove fire it up and see how long it takes to heat up.
asshat!

But wood is much more robust than metal, is it not? Most cubicle-type offices I've been in have been furnished mostly with METAL desks, not wood ones. They're actually cheaper and last longer.

And don't even TRY to talk to me about pots, pans and cooking, I've been doing that for 50 years, and 6 of those years I was getting PAID for it. Pots and frying pans are 1/8 to 1/4 inch thick. Tell me something, shit for brains, how long would it take for a 2" thick piece of steel to attain the same temperature of the setting in your oven? Because what we're talking about is heat absorption through the AIR, not through conduction.

 

[Gamolon]

As to the temperature of the burning office contents the most repeated estimates are 8-1100 degrees, based on the material burning and the color of the smoke emitted.

The test I quoted above shows the office simulated fire reached 1200 C (2192 F) in 40 minutes.

I noticed in your simulated fire scenario that they used ONLY wooden furnishings, providing a much more robust fuel source, and your maximum temperature lasted less than 5 minutes. The temperature exceeded 1000 C for maybe 10 minutes.

I also noted that measuring air temperature doesn't mean that heat is transferred instantaneously to solid steel. Considering how long it takes for a pot to heat up on your stove while in DIRECT contact with the heat source, it's hard to imagine that steel EVER getting above 800 C. I know it takes AT LEAST that long for something in the oven to reach the temperature you set it at.

Air really sucks at heat transference.

Air sucks huh? Is that why they use fans on top of copper heat sinks for processors? Why do they have fans in computers?

 

[Gamolon]

I noticed in your simulated fire scenario that they used ONLY wooden furnishings, providing a much more robust fuel source, and your maximum temperature lasted less than 5 minutes. The temperature exceeded 1000 C for maybe 10 minutes.

I also noted that measuring air temperature doesn't mean that heat is transferred instantaneously to solid steel. Considering how long it takes for a pot to heat up on your stove while in DIRECT contact with the heat source, it's hard to imagine that steel EVER getting above 800 C. I know it takes AT LEAST that long for something in the oven to reach the temperature you set it at.

Air really sucks at heat transference.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
WOOD IS NO MORE OR LESS ROBUST A FUEL SOURCE then plastics.
your cooking pot example is fucking hilarious and soooo wrong.
the metal in a pot is not the problem it's the temperature of water or what ever you have in the pot that regulates the heat.
try this, put an empty pot on the stove fire it up and see how long it takes to heat up.
asshat!

But wood is much more robust than metal, is it not? Most cubicle-type offices I've been in have been furnished mostly with METAL desks, not wood ones. They're actually cheaper and last longer.

And don't even TRY to talk to me about pots, pans and cooking, I've been doing that for 50 years, and 6 of those years I was getting PAID for it. Pots and frying pans are 1/8 to 1/4 inch thick. Tell me something, shit for brains, how long would it take for a 2" thick piece of steel to attain the same temperature of the setting in your oven? Because what we're talking about is heat absorption through the AIR, not through conduction.

Air? Tell me goofball? Are their combustibles inside the oven? You don't know the difference between an office fire and an oven???

Wow!

 

[SFC Ollie]

Excuse me! What does an oven have to do with anything????????

 

[GuyPinestra]

The test I quoted above shows the office simulated fire reached 1200 C (2192 F) in 40 minutes.

I noticed in your simulated fire scenario that they used ONLY wooden furnishings, providing a much more robust fuel source, and your maximum temperature lasted less than 5 minutes. The temperature exceeded 1000 C for maybe 10 minutes.

I also noted that measuring air temperature doesn't mean that heat is transferred instantaneously to solid steel. Considering how long it takes for a pot to heat up on your stove while in DIRECT contact with the heat source, it's hard to imagine that steel EVER getting above 800 C. I know it takes AT LEAST that long for something in the oven to reach the temperature you set it at.

Air really sucks at heat transference.

Air sucks huh? Is that why they use fans on top of copper heat sinks for processors? Why do they have fans in computers?

Air is GREAT for cooling things. Heating them up? Not so much...

Let me ask it again, how long would it take for a SOLID piece of steel to go from room temp to 400F in your oven?

I'm guessing a helluva lot longer than your simulated office fire exceeded 800C.

 

[candycorn]

Any word on what took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77 yet? No? Carry on.

 

[Gamolon]

I noticed in your simulated fire scenario that they used ONLY wooden furnishings, providing a much more robust fuel source, and your maximum temperature lasted less than 5 minutes. The temperature exceeded 1000 C for maybe 10 minutes.

I also noted that measuring air temperature doesn't mean that heat is transferred instantaneously to solid steel. Considering how long it takes for a pot to heat up on your stove while in DIRECT contact with the heat source, it's hard to imagine that steel EVER getting above 800 C. I know it takes AT LEAST that long for something in the oven to reach the temperature you set it at.

Air really sucks at heat transference.

Air sucks huh? Is that why they use fans on top of copper heat sinks for processors? Why do they have fans in computers?

Air is GREAT for cooling things. Heating them up? Not so much...

Let me ask it again, how long would it take for a SOLID piece of steel to go from room temp to 400F in your oven?

I'm guessing a helluva lot longer than your simulated office fire exceeded 800C.

You really have no clue do you?

An oven compared to an office fire? You HAVE to be kidding me. Let me hit you with some knowledge.

1. First a little about the high thermal conductivity of steel from the ASHI (American Society of Home Inspectors). Inpormtant points in red.
Link: The Effects of Fire on Structural Systems | The ASHI Reporter | Inspection News & Views from the American Society of Home Inspectors

3 – Steel

The yield strength of steel is reduced to about half at 550 ºC. At 1000 ºC, the yield strength is 10 percent or less. Because of its high thermal conductivity, the temperature of unprotected internal steelwork normally will vary little from that of the fire. Structural steelwork is, therefore, usually insulated.

Apart from losing practically all of its load-bearing capacity, unprotected steelwork can undergo considerable expansion when sufficiently heated. The coefficient of expansion is 10-5 per degree Celsius. Young’s modulus does not decrease with temperature as rapidly as does yield strength.

Cold-worked reinforced bars, when heated, lose their strength more rapidly than do hot-rolled high-yield bars and mild-steel bars. The differences in properties are even more important after heating. The original yield stress is almost completely recovered on cooling from a temperature of 500 to 600 ºC for all bars but on cooling from 800 ºC, it is reduced by 30 percent for cold-worked bars and by 5 percent for hot-rolled bars.

The loss of strength for prestressing steels occurs at lower stressing temperatures than that for reinforcing bars. Cold-drawn and heat-treated steels lose a part of their strength permanently when heated to temperatures in excess of about 300 ºC and 400 ºC, respectively.

The creep rate of steel is sensitive to higher temperatures and becomes significant for mild steel above 450 ºC and for prestressing steel above 300 ºC. In fire resistance tests, the rate of temperature rise when the steel is reaching its critical temperature is fast enough to mask any effects of creep. When there is a long cooling period, however, as in prestressed concrete, subsequent creep may have some effect in an element that has not reached the critical condition.

2. Increase in temperature of steel due to fires.
Link: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apa.pdf

3. An article about fireproofing and restrained vs. unrestrained structural components.
STRUCTUREmag - Structural Engineering Magazine, Tradeshow: Fireproofing Steel Structures

4. How gas ovens work.
Link:How Does a Gas Oven Work? | eHow.com

Conventional and Convection Ovens
A conventional gas oven uses heating elements exclusively to heat the food. The hot air does some of the cooking, but a lot of the work is done by infrared radiation from the heating elements. Conventional ovens tend to have some hotter spots and some cooler spots, which can make it hard to cook food evenly. Convection ovens improve on this design by simply adding a fan. The fan blows the air around the oven, spreading the heat around evenly. The hot air blowing past the food tends to cook it faster as well. Even at lower temperatures, convection ovens will sometimes cook food faster than conventional ones.

I hope you feel stupid about your "oven" analogy because an oven doesn't have burning materials inside it or gases generated from those burning materials. PLUS it's enclosed and insulated.

 

[Gamolon]

Air is GREAT for cooling things. Heating them up? Not so much...

Let me ask it again, how long would it take for a SOLID piece of steel to go from room temp to 400F in your oven?

There is no radiant heat from the heating elements in the oven eh? It's strictly convection right?

 

[Gamolon]

Your thoughts rest on the beliefs, that fires weakened the steel structure.
and that the towers were not designed to redistribute loads. That the steel was badly compromised, due to proof of fire retardant being knocked off etc....
What I have found will contradict what you are saying, using the NIST reports.
It casts sever doubt regarding its legitimate use of available material and data.

Your have a contradictory belief that the towers HAD to have had extreme elevated temps, BUT you deny the existence of such temps at the same time???
You are all over the place, and deny basic physical laws, so I will post in segments what I can find, and we can tackle the issues as they are presented, yes or no?

Yeah, let;s do this Mr. Jones.

Let's start with the first thing you state above. That my thoughts rest on the belief (or one of them) that the towers were not designed to redistribute loads.

This is pure bullshit. I NEVER said anything close to that. I said the towers (or any building for that matter) were NOT designed to redistribute and resist loads created from failure of other components due to unforeseen events.

I want you to explain, in your own words, how you think a structural engineer could possibly design any structure to stay erect for any and all possible permutations of structural failures that could be possible.

Structural engineers design structures to resist the loads that they will be placed under when working at 100% efficiency. Loads such as workplace furniture, people, wind, snow, etc.

If you think that John Q. Engineer calculates every possible failure scenario that could occur and then design the structure to hold up, you are SADLY mistaken.

Let's take one of the towers for example.

Do you think that they did load/stress calcualtions for:

1. Failure of 1 core column on floor 87?
2. Failure of 2 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
3. Failure of 3 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
4. Failure of 4 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
5. Failure of 2 consecutive core columns on the east side of the core and 2 consecutive core columns on the west side of the core?
6. 30% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 10 perimeter column on floor 87?
7. 30% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 10 perimeter column on floor 87 and floor 88?
8. 40% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 15 perimeter column on floor 87, 88, 89?

And so on, and so on, and so on.............

Do you get my point yet? Did it sink in? You are assuming that engineers do the impossible.

That's why they fireproof steel and rate that fireproofing by time. Why do they give fireproofing a time limit? TO get people evacuated? To give time for the fire department to arrive?

Your turn.

 

[SAYIT]

Your thoughts rest on the beliefs, that fires weakened the steel structure.
and that the towers were not designed to redistribute loads. That the steel was badly compromised, due to proof of fire retardant being knocked off etc....
What I have found will contradict what you are saying, using the NIST reports.
It casts sever doubt regarding its legitimate use of available material and data.

Your have a contradictory belief that the towers HAD to have had extreme elevated temps, BUT you deny the existence of such temps at the same time???
You are all over the place, and deny basic physical laws, so I will post in segments what I can find, and we can tackle the issues as they are presented, yes or no?

Yeah, let;s do this Mr. Jones.

Let's start with the first thing you state above. That my thoughts rest on the belief (or one of them) that the towers were not designed to redistribute loads.

This is pure bullshit. I NEVER said anything close to that. I said the towers (or any building for that matter) were NOT designed to redistribute and resist loads created from failure of other components due to unforeseen events.

I want you to explain, in your own words, how you think a structural engineer could possibly design any structure to stay erect for any and all possible permutations of structural failures that could be possible.

Structural engineers design structures to resist the loads that they will be placed under when working at 100% efficiency. Loads such as workplace furniture, people, wind, snow, etc.

If you think that John Q. Engineer calculates every possible failure scenario that could occur and then design the structure to hold up, you are SADLY mistaken.

Let's take one of the towers for example.

Do you think that they did load/stress calcualtions for:

1. Failure of 1 core column on floor 87?
2. Failure of 2 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
3. Failure of 3 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
4. Failure of 4 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
5. Failure of 2 consecutive core columns on the east side of the core and 2 consecutive core columns on the west side of the core?
6. 30% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 10 perimeter column on floor 87?
7. 30% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 10 perimeter column on floor 87 and floor 88?
8. 40% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 15 perimeter column on floor 87, 88, 89?

And so on, and so on, and so on.............

Do you get my point yet? Did it sink in? You are assuming that engineers do the impossible.

That's why they fireproof steel and rate that fireproofing by time. Why do they give fireproofing a time limit? TO get people evacuated? To give time for the fire department to arrive?

Your turn.

Nothing illustrates the utter failure of the 9/11 "truthers" better than their need to lie and willfully distort the truth because facts just don't support their preconceived notions.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Your thoughts rest on the beliefs, that fires weakened the steel structure.
and that the towers were not designed to redistribute loads. That the steel was badly compromised, due to proof of fire retardant being knocked off etc....
What I have found will contradict what you are saying, using the NIST reports.
It casts sever doubt regarding its legitimate use of available material and data.

Your have a contradictory belief that the towers HAD to have had extreme elevated temps, BUT you deny the existence of such temps at the same time???
You are all over the place, and deny basic physical laws, so I will post in segments what I can find, and we can tackle the issues as they are presented, yes or no?

Yeah, let;s do this Mr. Jones.

Let's start with the first thing you state above. That my thoughts rest on the belief (or one of them) that the towers were not designed to redistribute loads.

This is pure bullshit. I NEVER said anything close to that. I said the towers (or any building for that matter) were NOT designed to redistribute and resist loads created from failure of other components due to unforeseen events.

I want you to explain, in your own words, how you think a structural engineer could possibly design any structure to stay erect for any and all possible permutations of structural failures that could be possible.

Structural engineers design structures to resist the loads that they will be placed under when working at 100% efficiency. Loads such as workplace furniture, people, wind, snow, etc.

If you think that John Q. Engineer calculates every possible failure scenario that could occur and then design the structure to hold up, you are SADLY mistaken.

Let's take one of the towers for example.

Do you think that they did load/stress calcualtions for:

1. Failure of 1 core column on floor 87?
2. Failure of 2 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
3. Failure of 3 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
4. Failure of 4 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
5. Failure of 2 consecutive core columns on the east side of the core and 2 consecutive core columns on the west side of the core?
6. 30% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 10 perimeter column on floor 87?
7. 30% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 10 perimeter column on floor 87 and floor 88?
8. 40% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 15 perimeter column on floor 87, 88, 89?

And so on, and so on, and so on.............

Do you get my point yet? Did it sink in? You are assuming that engineers do the impossible.

That's why they fireproof steel and rate that fireproofing by time. Why do they give fireproofing a time limit? TO get people evacuated? To give time for the fire department to arrive?

Your turn.

I think it's time to start a new thread regarding what is being discussed, as none of this is about the thread title. We hold conflicting views regarding what happened, and who we are choosing to believe, and the discussion has gotten all over the place, and distracting.
I don't know about you all, but I find it better to discuss this in some kind of orderly fashion, so I'll start a new thread that deals with what is in the NIST report, and how it conflicts with observables, and other topics pertinent to finding some answers.
We should try to stay away from assumptions as much as possible, and go by the known facts and known quantifiers.
Going from stuff like conservation of momentum, to fire retardants, to 'nobody saw anyone rigging the buildings" is just too fucking scattershot to keep track of..So I'm going to leave this thread and who ever wants to chime in on the new one is welcome, but I'm hoping you'll post things relevant to the flow that I'm going to attempt to start.
We'll only get clusterfucked again if we don't, so lets start with the temps, the steel, and what NIST has to say about it---