Stupid People like this are as big a danger to this country as any racist

[Spurtacular]

Actually no.

You haven't scrutinized it?

You haven't researched it?

You haven't studied it?

You haven't seen it?

You didn't know it existed?

lol

I'm not aware of all the gov. obscure reports. I do know that the report that was supposed to give the public answers pretended building 7 didn't happen.

[Pavlov]

I'm not aware of all the gov. obscure reports. I do know that the report that was supposed to give the public answers pretended building 7 didn't happen.:lol obscure

:cryI'm completely ignorant about a thing so it must not exist!:cry

[Spurtacular]

:lol obscure

:cryI'm completely ignorant about a thing so it must not exist!:cry

You keep making excuses for the fact that the gov. pretended building 7 didn't exist when they were presenting their findings to the public.

[Pavlov]

You keep making excuses for the fact that the gov. pretended building 7 didn't exist when they were presenting their findings to the public.The 9/11 commission report is not an engineering report. Engineers write engineering reports. You never read it anyway, just parroted some shit from a YouTube.

[RandomGuy]

Dude, you've presented no evidence to defy the facts that bely the facts. It's one big blanket denial. But if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, then explain away Larry Silverstein saying he gave the order to detonate building 7. Explain why the WTC Commission completely ignored a fucking building falling out of the blue. Go ahead; you ain't got shit.

Still no evidence.

Almost as if you don't have any.

[RandomGuy]

The 9/11 commission report is not an engineering report. Engineers write engineering reports. You never read it anyway, just parroted some shit from a YouTube.

You are giving him too much credit. He hasn't even linked a youtube.

That is a whole new level of lazy. :wow

[RandomGuy]

Even in cases of much lesser buildings collapsing, it was done in chunks. The way the towers fell were completely consistent with detonations. "SIMPLE PHYSICS"

Several demolition experts say otherwise.

The towers fell in a way that was inconsistent with detonations.

[RandomGuy]

WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

[spurraider21]

:lol why'd they bother with planes? Just blow the place up and frame bin laden

[Spurtacular]

Still no evidence.

Almost as if you don't have any.

I give you evidence and you say "no evidence" :lmao

[Spurtacular]

Several demolition experts say otherwise.

The towers fell in a way that was inconsistent with detonations.

Several demolition experts have testified that it consistent with demolition. And one ex-CIA guy even said he wired the damn building!

[Pavlov]

I give you evidence and you say "no evidence" :lmaoWhere is it?

[Pavlov]

Several demolition experts have testified that it consistent with demolition. And one ex-CIA guy even said he wired the damn building!Testified? In court?

Let me see.

[Spurtacular]

Testified? In court?

Let me see.

Speaking of court; blocking the families of 911 from suing Saudi Arabia. :lmao

[Spurtacular]

Still no evidence.

Almost as if you don't have any.

Me: Dude admitted WTC7 detonated.
You: No evidence.

You're a fucking joke at this point.

[Spurtacular]

Several demolition experts say otherwise.

The towers fell in a way that was inconsistent with detonations.

Bro, that's crap. It fell quite consistent with detonation. Even most falsers aren't saying that it isn't.

[Blake]

You're a fucking joke at this point.

Honestly, this thread has gone very bad for you. Many lols at your expense.

[Spurtacular]

Honestly, this thread has gone very bad for you. Many lols at your expense.

I'll let you know when you say something of note.

[pgardn]

I'll let you know when you say something of note.

You need to stop.

[Spurtacular]

N/M

[DarrinS]

:lol why'd they bother with planes? Just blow the place up and frame bin laden

This was always my thought. It's not like a bomb was unprecedented, i.e. 1993.

[Pavlov]

Speaking of court; blocking the families of 911 from suing Saudi Arabia. :lmaoFor what? Shouldn't they be suing Bush according to you?


Me: Dude admitted WTC7 detonated.
You: No evidence.

You're a fucking joke at this point.Which dude?

If you're trying to say Silverstien -- :lol

[Pavlov]

Bro, that's crap. It fell quite consistent with detonation. Even most falsers aren't saying that it isn't.What controlled demolition leaves the cores intact?

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32qB7On8ngM

[Spurtacular]

For what? Shouldn't they be suing Bush according to you?

Which dude?

If you're trying to say Silverstien -- :lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EyjFHJvuOM

[Pavlov]

Look everyone -- some Mormon is posting YouTubes!

[Spurtacular]

What controlled demolition leaves the cores intact?

Oh, you want to talk about cores being intact, huh?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=509xQgcoMN8

[Pavlov]

Oh, you want to talk about cores being intact, huh?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=509xQgcoMN8OK, if you watched this video, at the 2:00 mark the person who made it said WTC 6 could only have been destroyed by a laser.

Are you saying WTC 6 was destroyed by a laser?

Yes or no.

[DarrinS]

Oh, you want to talk about cores being intact, huh?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=509xQgcoMN8


So unconvincing

[Spurtacular]

OK, if you watched this video, at the 2:00 mark the person who made it said WTC 6 could only have been destroyed by a laser.

Are you saying WTC 6 was destroyed by a laser?

Yes or no.

It's yet another oddity. Very suspicious indeed. And I think it's possible that the portion of your brain designed to think critically was destroyed by a laser.

[Pavlov]

It's yet another oddity. Very suspicious indeed. And I think it's possible that the portion of your brain designed to think critically was destroyed by a laser.Do you think WTC 6 was destroyed by a laser?

Yes or no.

[Spurtacular]

Do you think WTC 6 was destroyed by a laser?

Yes or no.

I think you're trying to be a pest. Or as you would say, "trying hard."

[Pavlov]

I think you're trying to be a pest. Or as you would say, "trying hard."It's your video. The video says WTC 6 must have bee destroyed by a laser.

Do you think WTC 6 was destroyed by a laser?

Yes or no.

For the record, I say no.

See how easy that is?

[RandomGuy]

I dont need to explain nothing, you always have problems when something contradicts your theories, in this particular case you are saying the fire of the WTC has hotter than lava.

No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).Aug 1, 2017



1500 F is not enough to melt steel, you are correct.

There was no melted steel in the towers, and the collapse did not require any steel to be melted, merely hot enough to lose structural integrity, and warp/expand, both of which happen when it is heated to those temperatures.


:lmao That you think 1200 fucking degrees below the melting point is anywhere close enough for steel to lose structural integrity. Pseudo science. :lmao



Yes, I do. I not only think it, I know it does.

"As indicated in the figure, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the remaining strength is approximately half of the value at ambient temperature. "

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-A-6.gif

Maybe you can wow me with all the data you have done for your testing of the structural properties of steel under various temperatures.



This is what happens, bro, when these steel beast catch fire. Stuff collapses, not the steel framework. It takes detonation. You want to give the benefit of doubt to no detonation and quote your pseudo science? :lmao



So... you have smileys.

Got it.

Color me unimpressed.


So, the govt. does a huge commission to find out the truth of 9/11 and just pretends building 7 never happened. They don't even come up with a faux excuse. That's how dead to rights them and your cuck ass are.


I don't see any evidence in this post either.

It's almost like you don't have any.



Yup, no planes in the photographs of the Pentagon bombing.

Yup, physics verifies that the (concrete enforced) steel holds up in these fires.

Yup, the radiation levels on the ground were certainly testible and inconsistent with the govt. stories.




Yup, no evidence for any of your claims.

(slow clap)


I wouldn't even give you credit for "judging" as much as I'd say you simply serving a canned argument; and you've unraveled upon being held to a light.


You have failed to present any evidence here, and have simply, repeatedly, done nothing but repeat your unproven assertions.

Feel free to step up your game at any time, rather than falling back on canned catchphrases.



I wasn't tasked with getting to the bottom of 9/11. The govt. was. Their answer: Pretend building 7 never happened because stooges like you would just accept it. :lmao


Still no evidence.

Almost as if you don't have any.


I give you evidence and you say "no evidence" :lmao


Me: Dude admitted WTC7 detonated.
You: No evidence.

You're a fucking joke at this point.

You have yet to show how steel reacts when heated, in regards to its weight bearing capacity. This evidence is key to your claims about either building 7 or the twins.

Office fire temperatures, such as building 7 burn at a fairly predictable temperature curve.


The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C

References

[1] Fristrom, R. M., Flame Structure and Process, Oxford University Press, New York (1995).
[2] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., Some Stochastic Properties of Fire Plumes, Fire and Materials 6, 127-134 (1982).

[3] Gaydon, A. G., and Wolfhard, H. G., Flames: Their Structure, Radiation and Temperature, 3rd ed., Chapman and Hall, London (1970).

[4] McCaffrey, B. J., Purely Buoyant Diffusion Flames: Some Experimental Results (NBSIR 79*1910). [U.S.] Natl. Bur. Stand., Gaithersburg, MD (1979).

[5] Audoin, L., Kolb., G., Torero, J. L., and Most., J. M., Average Centerline Temperatures of a Buoyant Pool Fire Obtained by Image Processing of Video Recordings, Fire Safety J. 24, 107-130 (1995).

[6] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., A Study of the Deterministic Properties of Unbounded Fire Plumes, Combustion and Flame 39, 191-209 (1980).

[7] Smith, D. A., and Cox, G., Major Chemical Species in Turbulent Diffusion Flames, Combustion and Flame 91, 226-238 (1992).

[8] Yuan, L.-M., and Cox, G., An Experimental Study of Some Line Fires, Fire Safety J. 27, 123-139 (1997).

[9] Ingason, H., Two Dimensional Rack Storage Fires, pp. 1209-1220 in Fire Safety Science-Proc. Fourth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science, (1994).

[10] Ingason, H., and de Ris, J., Flame Heat Transfer in Storage Geometries, Fire Safety J. (1997).

[11] Heskestad, G., Flame Heights of Fuel Arrays with Combustion in Depth, pp. 427-438 in Fire Safety Science--Proc. Fifth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science (1997).

[12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1*7 (1979).

[13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

[14] Sullivan, A. L., Ellis, P. F., and Knight, I. K., A Review of Radiant Heat Flux Models Used in Bushfire Applications, Intl. J. Wildland Fire 12, 101-110 (2003).

Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:20pm, it had been on fire for more than 8 hours.

[RandomGuy]

...

[Blake]

I'll let you know when you say something of note.

Thanks but lols aren't really note worthy

[Spurtacular]

It's your video. The video says WTC 6 must have bee destroyed by a laser.

Do you think WTC 6 was destroyed by a laser?

Yes or no.

For the record, I say no.

See how easy that is?

WTC6 is suspicious.

[Spurtacular]

Thanks but lols aren't really note worthy

Nor are any of your posts.

[Pavlov]

WTC6 is suspicious.The video says WTC 6 must have bee destroyed by a laser.

Do you think WTC 6 was destroyed by a laser?

Yes or no.

[Blake]

Nor are any of your posts.

Right, my posts are just me mocking you. No surprise you're continously noting that you're not taking note.

[Spurtacular]

The video says WTC 6 must have bee destroyed by a laser.

Do you think WTC 6 was destroyed by a laser?

Yes or no.

WTC 6 is suspicious.

[Spurtacular]

Right, my posts are just me mocking you. No surprise you're continously noting that you're not taking note.

Your posts are gimp shit. Even you know that.

[Blake]

Your posts are gimp shit. Even you know that.


Your posts are lazy retarded shit. Not sure know it. Either way you're a fucking retard.

[Spurtacular]

Your posts are lazy retarded shit. Not sure know it. Either way you're a fucking retard.

More gimp shit. You don't respond to the serious shit. Just gimp shit pot shots that mean nothing.

[Blake]

More gimp shit. You don't respond to the serious shit. Just gimp shit pot shots that mean nothing.

See the funny part is you think your posts really mean something.

[RandomGuy]

I dont need to explain nothing, you always have problems when something contradicts your theories, in this particular case you are saying the fire of the WTC has hotter than lava.

No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).Aug 1, 2017



1500 F is not enough to melt steel, you are correct.

There was no melted steel in the towers, and the collapse did not require any steel to be melted, merely hot enough to lose structural integrity, and warp/expand, both of which happen when it is heated to those temperatures.


:lmao That you think 1200 fucking degrees below the melting point is anywhere close enough for steel to lose structural integrity. Pseudo science. :lmao



Yes, I do. I not only think it, I know it does.

"As indicated in the figure, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the remaining strength is approximately half of the value at ambient temperature. "

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-A-6.gif

Maybe you can wow me with all the data you have done for your testing of the structural properties of steel under various temperatures.



This is what happens, bro, when these steel beast catch fire. Stuff collapses, not the steel framework. It takes detonation. You want to give the benefit of doubt to no detonation and quote your pseudo science? :lmao



So... you have smileys.

Got it.

Color me unimpressed.


So, the govt. does a huge commission to find out the truth of 9/11 and just pretends building 7 never happened. They don't even come up with a faux excuse. That's how dead to rights them and your cuck ass are.


I don't see any evidence in this post either.

It's almost like you don't have any.



Yup, no planes in the photographs of the Pentagon bombing.

Yup, physics verifies that the (concrete enforced) steel holds up in these fires.

Yup, the radiation levels on the ground were certainly testible and inconsistent with the govt. stories.




Yup, no evidence for any of your claims.

(slow clap)


I wouldn't even give you credit for "judging" as much as I'd say you simply serving a canned argument; and you've unraveled upon being held to a light.


You have failed to present any evidence here, and have simply, repeatedly, done nothing but repeat your unproven assertions.

Feel free to step up your game at any time, rather than falling back on canned catchphrases.



I wasn't tasked with getting to the bottom of 9/11. The govt. was. Their answer: Pretend building 7 never happened because stooges like you would just accept it. :lmao


Still no evidence.

Almost as if you don't have any.


I give you evidence and you say "no evidence" :lmao


Me: Dude admitted WTC7 detonated.
You: No evidence.

You're a fucking joke at this point.

You have yet to show how steel reacts when heated, in regards to its weight bearing capacity. This evidence is key to your claims about either building 7 or the twins.

Office fire temperatures, such as building 7 burn at a fairly predictable temperature curve.


The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C

References

[1] Fristrom, R. M., Flame Structure and Process, Oxford University Press, New York (1995).
[2] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., Some Stochastic Properties of Fire Plumes, Fire and Materials 6, 127-134 (1982).

[3] Gaydon, A. G., and Wolfhard, H. G., Flames: Their Structure, Radiation and Temperature, 3rd ed., Chapman and Hall, London (1970).

[4] McCaffrey, B. J., Purely Buoyant Diffusion Flames: Some Experimental Results (NBSIR 79*1910). [U.S.] Natl. Bur. Stand., Gaithersburg, MD (1979).

[5] Audoin, L., Kolb., G., Torero, J. L., and Most., J. M., Average Centerline Temperatures of a Buoyant Pool Fire Obtained by Image Processing of Video Recordings, Fire Safety J. 24, 107-130 (1995).

[6] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., A Study of the Deterministic Properties of Unbounded Fire Plumes, Combustion and Flame 39, 191-209 (1980).

[7] Smith, D. A., and Cox, G., Major Chemical Species in Turbulent Diffusion Flames, Combustion and Flame 91, 226-238 (1992).

[8] Yuan, L.-M., and Cox, G., An Experimental Study of Some Line Fires, Fire Safety J. 27, 123-139 (1997).

[9] Ingason, H., Two Dimensional Rack Storage Fires, pp. 1209-1220 in Fire Safety Science-Proc. Fourth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science, (1994).

[10] Ingason, H., and de Ris, J., Flame Heat Transfer in Storage Geometries, Fire Safety J. (1997).

[11] Heskestad, G., Flame Heights of Fuel Arrays with Combustion in Depth, pp. 427-438 in Fire Safety Science--Proc. Fifth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science (1997).

[12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1*7 (1979).

[13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

[14] Sullivan, A. L., Ellis, P. F., and Knight, I. K., A Review of Radiant Heat Flux Models Used in Bushfire Applications, Intl. J. Wildland Fire 12, 101-110 (2003).

Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:20pm, it had been on fire for more than 8 hours.




More gimp shit. You don't respond to the serious shit. Just gimp shit pot shots that mean nothing.

Still doesn't look like evidence concerning the strength of steel when heated.

It's almost as if you don't have any evidence, and are too lazy to read.

Strange.

[Mikeanaro]

You have yet to show how steel reacts when heated, in regards to its weight bearing capacity. This evidence is key to your claims about either building 7 or the twins.

Office fire temperatures, such as building 7 burn at a fairly predictable temperature curve.

The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C

References

[1] Fristrom, R. M., Flame Structure and Process, Oxford University Press, New York (1995).
[2] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., Some Stochastic Properties of Fire Plumes, Fire and Materials 6, 127-134 (1982).

[3] Gaydon, A. G., and Wolfhard, H. G., Flames: Their Structure, Radiation and Temperature, 3rd ed., Chapman and Hall, London (1970).

[4] McCaffrey, B. J., Purely Buoyant Diffusion Flames: Some Experimental Results (NBSIR 79*1910). [U.S.] Natl. Bur. Stand., Gaithersburg, MD (1979).

[5] Audoin, L., Kolb., G., Torero, J. L., and Most., J. M., Average Centerline Temperatures of a Buoyant Pool Fire Obtained by Image Processing of Video Recordings, Fire Safety J. 24, 107-130 (1995).

[6] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., A Study of the Deterministic Properties of Unbounded Fire Plumes, Combustion and Flame 39, 191-209 (1980).

[7] Smith, D. A., and Cox, G., Major Chemical Species in Turbulent Diffusion Flames, Combustion and Flame 91, 226-238 (1992).

[8] Yuan, L.-M., and Cox, G., An Experimental Study of Some Line Fires, Fire Safety J. 27, 123-139 (1997).

[9] Ingason, H., Two Dimensional Rack Storage Fires, pp. 1209-1220 in Fire Safety Science-Proc. Fourth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science, (1994).

[10] Ingason, H., and de Ris, J., Flame Heat Transfer in Storage Geometries, Fire Safety J. (1997).

[11] Heskestad, G., Flame Heights of Fuel Arrays with Combustion in Depth, pp. 427-438 in Fire Safety Science--Proc. Fifth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science (1997).

[12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1*7 (1979).

[13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

[14] Sullivan, A. L., Ellis, P. F., and Knight, I. K., A Review of Radiant Heat Flux Models Used in Bushfire Applications, Intl. J. Wildland Fire 12, 101-110 (2003).

Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:20pm, it had been on fire for more than 8 hours.





Still doesn't look like evidence concerning the strength of steel when heated.

It's almost as if you don't have any evidence, and are too lazy to read.

Strange.
Enough man, it wasnt enough to melt and take down the whole 500 meter building, first of all the whole tower wasnt on fire so you cant make projections like ¨YES THE WHOLE BUILDING WAS ON FIRE FOR X HOURS AND THE CARBONARO EFFECT HAPPENED SO IT ALL WENT SOUTH!¨
Also you dont go thru the steel so easily, there is cement/bricks/concrete/ceramic sucking all that fire first, is not like fire gets the steel that quickly.

[Pavlov]

Enough man, it wasnt enough to melt and take down the whole 500 meter building, first of all the whole tower wasnt on fire so you cant make projections like ¨YES THE WHOLE BUILDING WAS ON FIRE FOR X HOURS AND THE CARBONARO EFFECT HAPPENED SO IT ALL WENT SOUTH!¨
Also you dont go thru the steel so easily, there is cement/bricks/concrete/ceramic sucking all that fire first, is not like fire gets the steel that quickly.Fire can get to the some steel pretty quickly when a plane crashes through a building.

[Mikeanaro]

Fire can get to the some steel pretty quickly when a plane crashes through a building.
Wrong, it may get some parts but then you have cement/concrete/bricks/ceramics everywhere so you cant make an easy formula like its a scientific fact.

[Pavlov]

Wrong, it may get some parts but then you have cement/concrete/bricks/ceramics everywhere so you cant make an easy formula like its a scientific fact.You certainly can't dismiss the prospect given the mass of the planes, their speed and the nature of the fireproofing, which in many cases was just sprayed directly on the steel. It's not impossible to model the results of an impact since so many factors are known.

[Mikeanaro]

You certainly can't dismiss the prospect given the mass of the planes, their speed and the nature of the fireproofing, which in many cases was just sprayed directly on the steel. It's not impossible to model the results of an impact since so many factors are known.
The mass of the planes? those were beer cans compared to a huge concrete Tower, worst case scenario you can take down one third of the building but you wont take everything down.
Now, it they could hit the towers from bottom to almost half (not the top) that would be another story because you are messing with the foundation.

[Pavlov]

The mass of the planes? those were beer cans compared to a huge concrete Tower, worst case scenario you can take down one third of the building but you wont take everything down.
Now, it they could hit the towers from bottom to almost half (not the top) that would be another story because you are messing with the foundation.:lol Tell you what. Have a beer can thrown at your face at 500 mph and tell me if it does any damage to you.

[RandomGuy]

:lol Tell you what. Have a beer can thrown at your face at 500 mph and tell me if it does any damage to you.

A beer can with some stacks of quarters taped to it. The solid, high-performance steel in the engines meant that there were several very solid 8000 pound objects slamming through the building.

Bear in mind that the physics of moving objects means that the kinetic energy goes up by the square of the speed, meaning that an 8000 pound object moving at 550 mph will have 7.5 times the kinetic energy of one moving at 200mph.

Anyone who thinks that four 8000 pound steel objects moving at 550 mph won't do any structural damage, should pick up a physics textbook.

(edit)

That 8000 pound engine (4 tons) would impact something at that speed with the force of about 2500 TONS of something at rest on the ground.
http://www.csgnetwork.com/kineticenergycalc.html

3636 kilograms
245 meters per second
=109125450 joules

109125450 joules divided by 9.8 m/s (gravity)
equals
2272500 kilograms

2272500 kilograms multiplied by 2.2 pounds per kg
4999500 pounds

4999500 pounds divided by 2000 pounds per ton

2499.75 tons.

[RandomGuy]

An empty 15 gram soda can would hit your face with about 20 pounds of force at 550 mph. enough to break your nose.

[Blake]

The mass of the planes? those were beer cans compared to a huge concrete Tower, worst case scenario you can take down one third of the building but you wont take everything down.
Now, it they could hit the towers from bottom to almost half (not the top) that would be another story because you are messing with the foundation.

I like when message board scrub knows more physics than real engineers do.

[RandomGuy]

Wrong, it may get some parts but then you have cement/concrete/bricks/ceramics everywhere so you cant make an easy formula like its a scientific fact.

You can measure the insulating quality of cement yes. But the trusses that were under the concrete floors didn't have much covering them.

Concrete, while you can put a lot of stuff on top of it, doesn't hold up to shear. That is what steel is for.

Uncontrolled fires put out a lot of heat, and even with insulation after serveral hours, you can measure how much heat any material, such as concrete will absorb. (chemistry = specific heat)

It doesn't take a lot of heat to make the steel soft enough to flex bend and stop providing enough resistive force to counteract gravity, especially the damaged parts that have to take more weight to begin with because damage has redistributed the load to fewer trusses.

This stuff is science.

[RandomGuy]

Enough man, it wasnt enough to melt and take down the whole 500 meter building, first of all the whole tower wasnt on fire so you cant make projections like ¨YES THE WHOLE BUILDING WAS ON FIRE FOR X HOURS AND THE CARBONARO EFFECT HAPPENED SO IT ALL WENT SOUTH!¨
Also you dont go thru the steel so easily, there is cement/bricks/concrete/ceramic sucking all that fire first, is not like fire gets the steel that quickly.



http://www.debunk911myths.org/

http://www.jod911.com/


PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:


v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing. :rolleyes

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.

[RandomGuy]

I like when message board scrub [thinks he] knows more physics than real engineers do [but very obviously doesn't have a fucking clue].

FIFY.

[Mikeanaro]

You can measure the insulating quality of cement yes. But the trusses that were under the concrete floors didn't have much covering them.

Concrete, while you can put a lot of stuff on top of it, doesn't hold up to shear. That is what steel is for.

Uncontrolled fires put out a lot of heat, and even with insulation after serveral hours, you can measure how much heat any material, such as concrete will absorb. (chemistry = specific heat)

It doesn't take a lot of heat to make the steel soft enough to flex bend and stop providing enough resistive force to counteract gravity, especially the damaged parts that have to take more weight to begin with because damage has redistributed the load to fewer trusses.

This stuff is science.
Is not science, you are saying if I go to the top of a building and start a fire the whole building will fall like a card house, lol it doesnt take a lot of heat, so I grab a steel column and I put him on a grill and voila! I have steel cream?
Thats inaccurate, specially that plane part, a plane cant even have a violent landing without losing turbines wings or other parts since its aluminium, but can make a massive damage to a 500 meter tower? enough to bring it down?
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/empire-state-building/esb-crash02.jpg https://todayweremember.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/1945-b-25-bomber-strikes-empire-state-building.jpg?w=620

[Blake]

You're stupid.

[Mikeanaro]

I like when message board scrub knows more physics than real engineers do.
I like when no brain people likes to discuss without questioning because it doesnt meet their agenda.

[Pavlov]

The best thing about this is poor Mikey thinks he's winning.

[Blake]

I like when no brain people likes to discuss without questioning because it doesnt meet their agenda.

What agenda would that be

[Blake]

The report has been questioned ad nauseum. The conspiracies as well.

If you still think it was something else, at this point you're lazy and/or stupid.

[Mikeanaro]

The best thing about this is poor Mikey thinks he's winning.
Yeah, specially that part where you said there was no record in human history of a plane hitting a building, there you have... empire state.
The best thing is you dont even know the history of your own country... ¨winning¨.

[Pavlov]

Yeah, specially that part where you said there was no record in human history of a plane hitting a building, there you have... empire state.
The best thing is you dont even know the history of your own country... ¨winning¨.The B-25 isn't a jumbo jet and it wasn't going over 500 mph. I know all about it.

[Pavlov]

And the Empire State building is constructed completely differently. Winning.

[RandomGuy]

Is not science, you are saying if I go to the top of a building and start a fire the whole building will fall like a card house, lol it doesnt take a lot of heat, so I grab a steel column and I put him on a grill and voila! I have steel cream?
Thats inaccurate, specially that plane part, a plane cant even have a violent landing without losing turbines wings or other parts since its aluminium, but can make a massive damage to a 500 meter tower? enough to bring it down?
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/empire-state-building/esb-crash02.jpg https://todayweremember.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/1945-b-25-bomber-strikes-empire-state-building.jpg?w=620

These two situations aren't entirely comparable.


The maximum weight of a B-25 ranged from 27,100 lb to a limit of 41,800 lb, for instance (see www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/b25mitchell.html). A 767-200 ranges from 179,080 lbs (empty) to 395,000 lb (maximum takeoff load) (www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b767), and FEMA said the 9/11 planes had “an estimated gross weight of 274000 pounds” ( http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf ).

The maximum speed of a B-25 ranged from 275 mph to 315 mph, depending on which version it was, and as the B-25 pilot was trying to avoid the building it's unlikely he'd have reached that (cruising speed was 230 mph). On 9/11, "American Airlines Flight 11 crashes at a speed of roughly 470 mph" and "United Airlines Flight 175 crashes at a speed of about 590 mph" (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside911/timeline.html), a considerable difference when you factor in the extra mass as well.

So, let's do some more math.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/kineticenergycalc.html

B-25 at roughly median weight of 35,000 pounds. 747 at 274,000 pounds.

747 is 7.828571 times as massive.

230 mph is 102 meters per second
550 mph is 245 meters per second

For sake of simplicity call the bomber 1 kg, because we are comparing two objects.
1kg moving at 102 meters per second
2178 joules


An object 7.82 times as massive moving at 245 m/s
7.8kg moving at 245 meters per second
234097.5 joules

234097.5/2178 =107

The jetliner hit the building with more than 100 times the force that the B-25 did, and that is giving more mass and speed to the bomber than it probably had.

The jetliner had more fuel, more mass, and most importantly from a physics stand point, more speed.

Double the speed and the kinetic energy goes up by a factor of four.

This ignores differences in construction as well.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.brandwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/brandwatch/kinetic.gif

[RandomGuy]

The B-25 had a "normal total fuel load of 974 US gallons" (http://www.b25.net); a proportion of this would have been used already in the plane’s flight. By comparison, "it has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted" (www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm).


The jetliners also were carrying more than 100 times the fuel as well.

[Mikeanaro]

These two situations aren't entirely comparable.


So, let's do some more math.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/kineticenergycalc.html

B-25 at roughly median weight of 35,000 pounds. 747 at 274,000 pounds.

747 is 7.828571 times as massive.

230 mph is 102 meters per second
550 mph is 245 meters per second

For sake of simplicity call the bomber 1 kg, because we are comparing two objects.
1kg moving at 102 meters per second
2178 joules


An object 7.82 times as massive moving at 245 m/s
7.8kg moving at 245 meters per second
234097.5 joules

234097.5/2178 =107

The jetliner hit the building with more than 100 times the force that the B-25 did, and that is giving more mass and speed to the bomber than it probably had.

The jetliner had more fuel, more mass, and most importantly from a physics stand point, more speed.

Double the speed and the kinetic energy goes up by a factor of four.

This ignores differences in construction as well.
And one building was made in 1945 and the other in 1973, the one made in 1973 is bigger and better built and Im pretty sure they considered what happened in the empire state during the making... a 500 meter could face a plane someday, is a possibility.

An aluminum plane could be faster and yet because I hit a baseball 100 times faster against a wall it doesnt mean it will make a hole on it, so that theory doesnt work.

Also you said it was the fire the one that caused the collapse, but at the same time the empire state never collapsed but at least it should have partially collapse and that never happened either.

9/11 buildings were far away from collapsing and because of presto they fell like a card house with no physic cohesion at all, such a big thing would take ages to fall apart but no... in just a couple of hours there was nothing, the biggest staged shit ever.

[RandomGuy]

And one building was made in 1945 and the other in 1973, the one made in 1973 is bigger and better built and Im pretty sure they considered what happened in the empire state during the making... a 500 meter could face a plane someday, is a possibility.

An aluminum plane could be faster and yet because I hit a baseball 100 times faster against a wall it doesnt mean it will make a hole on it, so that theory doesnt work.

Also you said it was the fire the one that caused the collapse, but at the same time the empire state never collapsed but at least it should have partially collapse and that never happened either.

9/11 buildings were far away from collapsing and because of presto they fell like a card house with no physic cohesion at all, such a big thing would take ages to fall apart but no... in just a couple of hours there was nothing, the biggest staged shit ever.




http://www.debunk911myths.org/

http://www.jod911.com/


PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:


v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing. :rolleyes

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.

[Pavlov]

:lol OK Mikey -- walk us through your conspiracy. How were 1, 2 and 7 rigged to collapse?

[RandomGuy]

Damage = structural columns supporting more weight than they were designed for.

Fire = slowly weakening steel

More force + less ability to withstand that force. Once the load bearing capacity of any supporting element is exceeded, it collapses, meaning that even more weight is instantly distributed to already stressed, weakened parts.

Once you get movement of mass, KE equation kicks in again.

This is basic, simple physics, testable, reproducible.

[RandomGuy]

And one building was made in 1945 and the other in 1973, the one made in 1973 is bigger and better built and Im pretty sure they considered what happened in the empire state during the making... a 500 meter could face a plane someday, is a possibility.

An aluminum plane could be faster and yet because I hit a baseball 100 times faster against a wall it doesnt mean it will make a hole on it, so that theory doesnt work.

Also you said it was the fire the one that caused the collapse, but at the same time the empire state never collapsed but at least it should have partially collapse and that never happened either.

9/11 buildings were far away from collapsing and because of presto they fell like a card house with no physic cohesion at all, such a big thing would take ages to fall apart but no... in just a couple of hours there was nothing, the biggest staged shit ever.

Empire state building was shorter, with less damage, a smaller fire, and firefighting efforts that put the fire out.

Comparing the two events doesn't work at any level.

[Blake]

...the biggest staged shit ever.

:lol

[Mikeanaro]

:lol OK Mikey -- walk us through your conspiracy. How were 1, 2 and 7 rigged to collapse?
Dont care to discuss it with you sorry.

[Pavlov]

Dont care to discuss it with you sorry.:lmao

Alright -- just forfeit and take the L then.

[Mikeanaro]

Damage = structural columns supporting more weight than they were designed for.

Fire = slowly weakening steel

More force + less ability to withstand that force. Once the load bearing capacity of any supporting element is exceeded, it collapses, meaning that even more weight is instantly distributed to already stressed, weakened parts.

Once you get movement of mass, KE equation kicks in again.

This is basic, simple physics, testable, reproducible.

Simple physics... a giant building more than capable to handle that plane and its fire received too much heat on the hundreds steel columns from 500 meters to probably 100 meters under ground on each column going thru cement/concrete/ceramics/water pipes etc etc so it was too much and it totally collapsed, not one single part could resist...

Thats the official statement, I would not trust a government that cant release the JFK files because thinks people is too stupid to understand, sorry but is a giant no no.

[Mikeanaro]

:lmao

Alright -- just forfeit and take the L then.
What L, did you win? how? by fapping in front of dat screen?

[Pavlov]

Simple physics... a giant building more than capable to handle that plane and its fire received too much heat on the hundreds steel columns from 500 meters to probably 100 meters under ground on each column going thru cement/concrete/ceramics/water pipes etc etc so it was too much and it totally collapsed, not one single part could resist...

Thats the official statement, I would not trust a government that cant release the JFK files because thinks people is too stupid to understand, sorry but is a giant no no.That isn't the official statement. You are weirdly babbling.

[Pavlov]

What L, did you win? how? by fapping in front of dat screen?I don't win -- you just lose.

[RandomGuy]

I dont need to explain nothing, you always have problems when something contradicts your theories, in this particular case you are saying the fire of the WTC has hotter than lava.

No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).Aug 1, 2017



1500 F is not enough to melt steel, you are correct.

There was no melted steel in the towers, and the collapse did not require any steel to be melted, merely hot enough to lose structural integrity, and warp/expand, both of which happen when it is heated to those temperatures.


:lmao That you think 1200 fucking degrees below the melting point is anywhere close enough for steel to lose structural integrity. Pseudo science. :lmao



Yes, I do. I not only think it, I know it does.

"As indicated in the figure, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the remaining strength is approximately half of the value at ambient temperature. "

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-A-6.gif

Maybe you can wow me with all the data you have done for your testing of the structural properties of steel under various temperatures.



This is what happens, bro, when these steel beast catch fire. Stuff collapses, not the steel framework. It takes detonation. You want to give the benefit of doubt to no detonation and quote your pseudo science? :lmao



So... you have smileys.

Got it.

Color me unimpressed.


So, the govt. does a huge commission to find out the truth of 9/11 and just pretends building 7 never happened. They don't even come up with a faux excuse. That's how dead to rights them and your cuck ass are.


I don't see any evidence in this post either.

It's almost like you don't have any.



Yup, no planes in the photographs of the Pentagon bombing.

Yup, physics verifies that the (concrete enforced) steel holds up in these fires.

Yup, the radiation levels on the ground were certainly testible and inconsistent with the govt. stories.




Yup, no evidence for any of your claims.

(slow clap)


I wouldn't even give you credit for "judging" as much as I'd say you simply serving a canned argument; and you've unraveled upon being held to a light.


You have failed to present any evidence here, and have simply, repeatedly, done nothing but repeat your unproven assertions.

Feel free to step up your game at any time, rather than falling back on canned catchphrases.



I wasn't tasked with getting to the bottom of 9/11. The govt. was. Their answer: Pretend building 7 never happened because stooges like you would just accept it. :lmao


Still no evidence.

Almost as if you don't have any.


I give you evidence and you say "no evidence" :lmao


Me: Dude admitted WTC7 detonated.
You: No evidence.

You're a fucking joke at this point.

You have yet to show how steel reacts when heated, in regards to its weight bearing capacity. This evidence is key to your claims about either building 7 or the twins.

Office fire temperatures, such as building 7 burn at a fairly predictable temperature curve.


The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C

References

[1] Fristrom, R. M., Flame Structure and Process, Oxford University Press, New York (1995).
[2] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., Some Stochastic Properties of Fire Plumes, Fire and Materials 6, 127-134 (1982).

[3] Gaydon, A. G., and Wolfhard, H. G., Flames: Their Structure, Radiation and Temperature, 3rd ed., Chapman and Hall, London (1970).

[4] McCaffrey, B. J., Purely Buoyant Diffusion Flames: Some Experimental Results (NBSIR 79*1910). [U.S.] Natl. Bur. Stand., Gaithersburg, MD (1979).

[5] Audoin, L., Kolb., G., Torero, J. L., and Most., J. M., Average Centerline Temperatures of a Buoyant Pool Fire Obtained by Image Processing of Video Recordings, Fire Safety J. 24, 107-130 (1995).

[6] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., A Study of the Deterministic Properties of Unbounded Fire Plumes, Combustion and Flame 39, 191-209 (1980).

[7] Smith, D. A., and Cox, G., Major Chemical Species in Turbulent Diffusion Flames, Combustion and Flame 91, 226-238 (1992).

[8] Yuan, L.-M., and Cox, G., An Experimental Study of Some Line Fires, Fire Safety J. 27, 123-139 (1997).

[9] Ingason, H., Two Dimensional Rack Storage Fires, pp. 1209-1220 in Fire Safety Science-Proc. Fourth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science, (1994).

[10] Ingason, H., and de Ris, J., Flame Heat Transfer in Storage Geometries, Fire Safety J. (1997).

[11] Heskestad, G., Flame Heights of Fuel Arrays with Combustion in Depth, pp. 427-438 in Fire Safety Science--Proc. Fifth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science (1997).

[12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1*7 (1979).

[13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

[14] Sullivan, A. L., Ellis, P. F., and Knight, I. K., A Review of Radiant Heat Flux Models Used in Bushfire Applications, Intl. J. Wildland Fire 12, 101-110 (2003).

Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:20pm, it had been on fire for more than 8 hours.



Simple physics... a giant building more than capable to handle that plane and its fire received too much heat on the hundreds steel columns from 500 meters to probably 100 meters under ground on each column going thru cement/concrete/ceramics/water pipes etc etc so it was too much and it totally collapsed, not one single part could resist...

Thats the official statement, I would not trust a government that cant release the JFK files because thinks people is too stupid to understand, sorry but is a giant no no.

That doesn't look like evidence to me.

That looks like you stating something as a fact, as if you simply saying it makes it true. Man if that is the case, please say I am a millionaire.

Are you a building engineer?

[Pavlov]

I dont need to explain nothingCouldn't if you tried.

[RandomGuy]

Simple physics... a giant building more than capable to handle that plane and its fire received too much heat on the hundreds steel columns from 500 meters to probably 100 meters under ground on each column going thru cement/concrete/ceramics/water pipes etc etc so it was too much and it totally collapsed, not one single part could resist...

Thats the official statement, I would not trust a government that cant release the JFK files because thinks people is too stupid to understand, sorry but is a giant no no.


This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing.

[RandomGuy]

Couldn't if you tried.

Maybe he can magically speak a 2270 story building into existence. :lol

[Pavlov]

Maybe he can magically speak a 2270 story building into existence. :lol
Simple physics
:lol

[Mikeanaro]

Couldn't if you tried.
Wow, explain me why the JFK files are not available to the public.

[Mikeanaro]

That doesn't look like evidence to me.

That looks like you stating something as a fact, as if you simply saying it makes it true. Man if that is the case, please say I am a millionaire.

Are you a building engineer?
What you say is not evidence either, is just an empty calculation like putting a naked steel column on the grill, sorry but you dont have a case either so your point is not valid, not saying mine is 100% accurate but thats how things are.

[RandomGuy]

Wow, explain me why the JFK files are not available to the public.

Wow, explain to me all the tests you did on the structural strength of steel when subjected to various high temperatures.

[Mikeanaro]

I don't win -- you just lose.
You are the biggest loser here, thats a fact.

[RandomGuy]

I dont need to explain nothing, you always have problems when something contradicts your theories, in this particular case you are saying the fire of the WTC has hotter than lava.

No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).Aug 1, 2017



1500 F is not enough to melt steel, you are correct.

There was no melted steel in the towers, and the collapse did not require any steel to be melted, merely hot enough to lose structural integrity, and warp/expand, both of which happen when it is heated to those temperatures.


:lmao That you think 1200 fucking degrees below the melting point is anywhere close enough for steel to lose structural integrity. Pseudo science. :lmao



Yes, I do. I not only think it, I know it does.

"As indicated in the figure, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the remaining strength is approximately half of the value at ambient temperature. "

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-A-6.gif

Maybe you can wow me with all the data you have done for your testing of the structural properties of steel under various temperatures.



This is what happens, bro, when these steel beast catch fire. Stuff collapses, not the steel framework. It takes detonation. You want to give the benefit of doubt to no detonation and quote your pseudo science? :lmao



So... you have smileys.

Got it.

Color me unimpressed.


So, the govt. does a huge commission to find out the truth of 9/11 and just pretends building 7 never happened. They don't even come up with a faux excuse. That's how dead to rights them and your cuck ass are.


I don't see any evidence in this post either.

It's almost like you don't have any.



Yup, no planes in the photographs of the Pentagon bombing.

Yup, physics verifies that the (concrete enforced) steel holds up in these fires.

Yup, the radiation levels on the ground were certainly testible and inconsistent with the govt. stories.




Yup, no evidence for any of your claims.

(slow clap)


I wouldn't even give you credit for "judging" as much as I'd say you simply serving a canned argument; and you've unraveled upon being held to a light.


You have failed to present any evidence here, and have simply, repeatedly, done nothing but repeat your unproven assertions.

Feel free to step up your game at any time, rather than falling back on canned catchphrases.



I wasn't tasked with getting to the bottom of 9/11. The govt. was. Their answer: Pretend building 7 never happened because stooges like you would just accept it. :lmao


Still no evidence.

Almost as if you don't have any.


I give you evidence and you say "no evidence" :lmao


Me: Dude admitted WTC7 detonated.
You: No evidence.

You're a fucking joke at this point.

You have yet to show how steel reacts when heated, in regards to its weight bearing capacity. This evidence is key to your claims about either building 7 or the twins.

Office fire temperatures, such as building 7 burn at a fairly predictable temperature curve.


The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C

References

[1] Fristrom, R. M., Flame Structure and Process, Oxford University Press, New York (1995).
[2] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., Some Stochastic Properties of Fire Plumes, Fire and Materials 6, 127-134 (1982).

[3] Gaydon, A. G., and Wolfhard, H. G., Flames: Their Structure, Radiation and Temperature, 3rd ed., Chapman and Hall, London (1970).

[4] McCaffrey, B. J., Purely Buoyant Diffusion Flames: Some Experimental Results (NBSIR 79*1910). [U.S.] Natl. Bur. Stand., Gaithersburg, MD (1979).

[5] Audoin, L., Kolb., G., Torero, J. L., and Most., J. M., Average Centerline Temperatures of a Buoyant Pool Fire Obtained by Image Processing of Video Recordings, Fire Safety J. 24, 107-130 (1995).

[6] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., A Study of the Deterministic Properties of Unbounded Fire Plumes, Combustion and Flame 39, 191-209 (1980).

[7] Smith, D. A., and Cox, G., Major Chemical Species in Turbulent Diffusion Flames, Combustion and Flame 91, 226-238 (1992).

[8] Yuan, L.-M., and Cox, G., An Experimental Study of Some Line Fires, Fire Safety J. 27, 123-139 (1997).

[9] Ingason, H., Two Dimensional Rack Storage Fires, pp. 1209-1220 in Fire Safety Science-Proc. Fourth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science, (1994).

[10] Ingason, H., and de Ris, J., Flame Heat Transfer in Storage Geometries, Fire Safety J. (1997).

[11] Heskestad, G., Flame Heights of Fuel Arrays with Combustion in Depth, pp. 427-438 in Fire Safety Science--Proc. Fifth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science (1997).

[12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1*7 (1979).

[13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

[14] Sullivan, A. L., Ellis, P. F., and Knight, I. K., A Review of Radiant Heat Flux Models Used in Bushfire Applications, Intl. J. Wildland Fire 12, 101-110 (2003).

Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:20pm, it had been on fire for more than 8 hours.



Simple physics... a giant building more than capable to handle that plane and its fire received too much heat on the hundreds steel columns from 500 meters to probably 100 meters under ground on each column going thru cement/concrete/ceramics/water pipes etc etc so it was too much and it totally collapsed, not one single part could resist...

Thats the official statement, I would not trust a government that cant release the JFK files because thinks people is too stupid to understand, sorry but is a giant no no.


That doesn't look like evidence to me.

That looks like you stating something as a fact, as if you simply saying it makes it true. Man if that is the case, please say I am a millionaire.

Are you a building engineer?


What you say is not evidence either, is just an empty calculation like putting a naked steel column on the grill, sorry but you dont have a case either so your point is not valid, not saying mine is 100% accurate but thats how things are.

You didn't answer my question.

Are you a building engineer?

[Mikeanaro]

You didn't answer my question.

Are you a building engineer?
Im not a building engineer, and I dont need to be one since not every building engineer agreed on your theory.
Are you stupid? or do you need to be stupid to answer if you are stupid?

[Mikeanaro]

Wow, explain to me all the tests you did on the structural strength of steel when subjected to various high temperatures.
Lol now you are collapsing like the building, you dont have an answer about JFK files, a liberal to the core like you dont have an answer to the assassination of the goodie two shoes of the demmies.
It was clean, its all that matter LMAO!

He was going to change the world, dont you care what happened????

[RandomGuy]

I dont need to explain nothing, you always have problems when something contradicts your theories, in this particular case you are saying the fire of the WTC has hotter than lava.

No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).Aug 1, 2017



1500 F is not enough to melt steel, you are correct.

There was no melted steel in the towers, and the collapse did not require any steel to be melted, merely hot enough to lose structural integrity, and warp/expand, both of which happen when it is heated to those temperatures.


:lmao That you think 1200 fucking degrees below the melting point is anywhere close enough for steel to lose structural integrity. Pseudo science. :lmao



Yes, I do. I not only think it, I know it does.

"As indicated in the figure, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the remaining strength is approximately half of the value at ambient temperature. "

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-A-6.gif

Maybe you can wow me with all the data you have done for your testing of the structural properties of steel under various temperatures.



This is what happens, bro, when these steel beast catch fire. Stuff collapses, not the steel framework. It takes detonation. You want to give the benefit of doubt to no detonation and quote your pseudo science? :lmao



So... you have smileys.

Got it.

Color me unimpressed.


So, the govt. does a huge commission to find out the truth of 9/11 and just pretends building 7 never happened. They don't even come up with a faux excuse. That's how dead to rights them and your cuck ass are.


I don't see any evidence in this post either.

It's almost like you don't have any.



Yup, no planes in the photographs of the Pentagon bombing.

Yup, physics verifies that the (concrete enforced) steel holds up in these fires.

Yup, the radiation levels on the ground were certainly testible and inconsistent with the govt. stories.




Yup, no evidence for any of your claims.

(slow clap)


I wouldn't even give you credit for "judging" as much as I'd say you simply serving a canned argument; and you've unraveled upon being held to a light.


You have failed to present any evidence here, and have simply, repeatedly, done nothing but repeat your unproven assertions.

Feel free to step up your game at any time, rather than falling back on canned catchphrases.



I wasn't tasked with getting to the bottom of 9/11. The govt. was. Their answer: Pretend building 7 never happened because stooges like you would just accept it. :lmao


Still no evidence.

Almost as if you don't have any.


I give you evidence and you say "no evidence" :lmao


Me: Dude admitted WTC7 detonated.
You: No evidence.

You're a fucking joke at this point.

You have yet to show how steel reacts when heated, in regards to its weight bearing capacity. This evidence is key to your claims about either building 7 or the twins.

Office fire temperatures, such as building 7 burn at a fairly predictable temperature curve.


The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C

References

[1] Fristrom, R. M., Flame Structure and Process, Oxford University Press, New York (1995).
[2] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., Some Stochastic Properties of Fire Plumes, Fire and Materials 6, 127-134 (1982).

[3] Gaydon, A. G., and Wolfhard, H. G., Flames: Their Structure, Radiation and Temperature, 3rd ed., Chapman and Hall, London (1970).

[4] McCaffrey, B. J., Purely Buoyant Diffusion Flames: Some Experimental Results (NBSIR 79*1910). [U.S.] Natl. Bur. Stand., Gaithersburg, MD (1979).

[5] Audoin, L., Kolb., G., Torero, J. L., and Most., J. M., Average Centerline Temperatures of a Buoyant Pool Fire Obtained by Image Processing of Video Recordings, Fire Safety J. 24, 107-130 (1995).

[6] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., A Study of the Deterministic Properties of Unbounded Fire Plumes, Combustion and Flame 39, 191-209 (1980).

[7] Smith, D. A., and Cox, G., Major Chemical Species in Turbulent Diffusion Flames, Combustion and Flame 91, 226-238 (1992).

[8] Yuan, L.-M., and Cox, G., An Experimental Study of Some Line Fires, Fire Safety J. 27, 123-139 (1997).

[9] Ingason, H., Two Dimensional Rack Storage Fires, pp. 1209-1220 in Fire Safety Science-Proc. Fourth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science, (1994).

[10] Ingason, H., and de Ris, J., Flame Heat Transfer in Storage Geometries, Fire Safety J. (1997).

[11] Heskestad, G., Flame Heights of Fuel Arrays with Combustion in Depth, pp. 427-438 in Fire Safety Science--Proc. Fifth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science (1997).

[12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1*7 (1979).

[13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

[14] Sullivan, A. L., Ellis, P. F., and Knight, I. K., A Review of Radiant Heat Flux Models Used in Bushfire Applications, Intl. J. Wildland Fire 12, 101-110 (2003).

Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:20pm, it had been on fire for more than 8 hours.



Simple physics... a giant building more than capable to handle that plane and its fire received too much heat on the hundreds steel columns from 500 meters to probably 100 meters under ground on each column going thru cement/concrete/ceramics/water pipes etc etc so it was too much and it totally collapsed, not one single part could resist...

Thats the official statement, I would not trust a government that cant release the JFK files because thinks people is too stupid to understand, sorry but is a giant no no.


That doesn't look like evidence to me.

That looks like you stating something as a fact, as if you simply saying it makes it true. Man if that is the case, please say I am a millionaire.

Are you a building engineer?


What you say is not evidence either, is just an empty calculation like putting a naked steel column on the grill, sorry but you dont have a case either so your point is not valid, not saying mine is 100% accurate but thats how things are.


You didn't answer my question.

Are you a building engineer?


Im not a building engineer

You have made several claims about what a building can, or can't withstand.

What testing have you done on the load-bearing capacity of steel when heated?

[tlongII]

Come on Mike give it up. 9/11 was not a government conspiracy. Those were real jetliners whose destructive force and heat took down the towers. It was obvious. I know the government does stupid shit, but even I cannot give credence to an act like you're hypothesizing.

[UnWantedTheory]

Fuck your sciences and ur physicses. It tells too much proof and data and what not. I don't like that there proof that I didn't make up pseudo sciency engineer guy. To hell with you and all your factual knowledge!

[Spurtacular]

Come on Mike give it up. 9/11 was not a government conspiracy. Those were real jetliners whose destructive force and heat took down the towers. It was obvious. I know the government does stupid shit, but even I cannot give credence to an act like you're hypothesizing.

Yea, surely the govt. wouldn't be part of a game changer in their favor.

[Pavlov]

Wow, explain me why the JFK files are not available to the public.

The CIA knew more about Oswald than they let on. It was a fuck up.

[Pavlov]

Fun fact: It's currently up to Trump to make the last JFK files public when the time comes.

[Blake]

Yea, surely the govt. wouldn't be part of a game changer in their favor.

What are you implying

[Spurtacular]

The CIA knew more about Oswald than they let on. It was a fuck up.

Merely a fuck up, huh?

[Pavlov]

Merely a fuck up, huh?Why would the CIA give that information to the investigators otherwise?

"Here you go guys. We totes murdered him. You mind keeping this under your hat til I'm dead? Then you can do whatevs. kthanksbye."

[Spurtacular]

Fun fact: It's currently up to Trump to make the last JFK files public when the time comes.

Fun fact: Trump can declassify any files.

[Pavlov]

Fun fact: Trump can declassify any files.That's the point; he would have to actively keep them classified.

[CosmicCowboy]

And one building was made in 1945 and the other in 1973, the one made in 1973 is bigger and better built and Im pretty sure they considered what happened in the empire state during the making... a 500 meter could face a plane someday, is a possibility.

An aluminum plane could be faster and yet because I hit a baseball 100 times faster against a wall it doesnt mean it will make a hole on it, so that theory doesnt work.

Also you said it was the fire the one that caused the collapse, but at the same time the empire state never collapsed but at least it should have partially collapse and that never happened either.

9/11 buildings were far away from collapsing and because of presto they fell like a card house with no physic cohesion at all, such a big thing would take ages to fall apart but no... in just a couple of hours there was nothing, the biggest staged shit ever.

Fuck. This is just stupid. The Empire State building is built out of a massive tapering masonry core. The B25 literally hit a brick wall. Steel/curtain wall structures are entirely different.

[Spurtacular]

That's the point; he would have to actively keep them classified.

What's it matter; you think the CIA keeps a real file on who killed JFK if they were involved?

[Pavlov]

What's it matter; you think the CIA keeps a real file on who killed JFK if they were involved?:lol You think they admitted it.

[dabom]

The towers fell at free-fall speed. As an engineer that is inconceivable without a demolition. Planes did hit the towers. I think it was an inside job.

[dabom]

The pentagon, literally one of the safest places in the world, gets hit by a plane. :lol

Like they don't have private airspaces? You think they would let an unidentified airplane that close? :lol

They got their own fucking defense system. :lol

Or did they government let it get hit by a missile of some sort. :lol

[dabom]

Someone tell me I'm wrong...

[dabom]

Literally on 9/10 right before 9/11.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU :lol :lol

2.3 trillion dollars guys. TRILLION :lol

And the receipts were held on the side the plane hit on the pentagon. :lmao :lmao

[Pavlov]

Someone tell me I'm wrong...You're wrong.

[dabom]

You're wrong.

On what? Pussy faggot. :lol

[Pavlov]

On what? Pussy faggot. :lolPretty much all of it. I can only imagine you're trolling. I never took you for a complete idiot.

[DarrinS]

The towers fell at free-fall speed. As an engineer that is inconceivable without a demolition. Planes did hit the towers. I think it was an inside job.

Demolition is designed to make a structure fail.

And you're saying a failed structure will fall at free-fall speed.

I agree.

[dabom]

You must be some fucking idiot if you think a plane can hit the pentagon without the government allowing it. :lmao

Intelligence is being able to read between the lines. Obviously, pablito, you aren't their yet. Arrogance is anything but. :lol :lol

[DarrinS]

So, our military allowed its headquarters to be attacked? Seems legit.

[dabom]

So, our military allowed its headquarters to be attacked? Seems legit.

I mean you think you can fly into the pentagon or whitehouse? Even more realistic. :lmao :lmao

Tell that to their defense system. :lmao :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

Have you ever been to DC you idiot? Reagan airport is so close to the pentagon there was no way anyone could have stopped an airliner suddenly deviating and taking a hard right into the pentagon.

[DarrinS]

I mean you think you can fly into the pentagon or whitehouse? Even more realistic. :lmao :lmao

Tell that to their defense system. :lmao :lol


Well, that last plane was probably headed for the WH. But, passengers.

[dabom]

Have you ever been to DC you idiot? Reagan airport is so close to the pentagon there was no way anyone could hav stoppe an airliner suddenly deviating and takibg a hard right into the pe tagon.

No you fucking idiot. It would get shot down. Simple as that. Are you fucking retarded? :lol

[Spurtacular]

:lol You think they admitted it.

I wonder if you do this on purpose, or if you're just that dumb; I never stated the CIA admitted anything.

[dabom]

The greatest nation in the world is suspect to airplanes. Now I've heard it all. :lmao

[DarrinS]

The greatest nation in the world is suspect to airplanes. Now I've heard it all. :lmao

Did you mean to use a different word?

[dabom]

Did you mean to use a different word?

Nope.

[DarrinS]

Nope.

So, we are "suspect" to airplanes? Wtf does that mean? :lol

[DarrinS]

Why do I keep stepping on turds?

You guys are free to harbor any delusion you want. It's a free country.

[dabom]

So, we are "suspect" to airplanes? Wtf does that mean? :lol

Maybe you don't know the context of the word. :lol

Try reading the sentence quicker. You might get it. :lol

[DarrinS]

Maybe you don't know the context of the word. :lol

Try reading the sentence quicker. You might get it. :lol


"Vulnerable" perhaps?

[dabom]

"Vulnerable" perhaps?

Yeah.

[Pavlov]

I wonder if you do this on purpose, or if you're just that dumb; I never stated the CIA admitted anything.I agree you can't understand the implications of the stupid things you say.

[Pavlov]

No you fucking idiot. It would get shot down. Simple as that. Are you fucking retarded? :lolIt would not. Definitely not on 9/11.

[Spurtacular]

I agree you can't understand the implications of the stupid things you say.

Because you can't show me where I said the CIA admitted anything.

[Pavlov]

Merely a fuck up, huh?That was your implication.

You know what an implication is, right?

If you have a JFK conspiracy theory, go ahead and state it.

[dabom]

It would not. Definitely not on 9/11.

:lmao :lmao

[Spurtacular]

That was your implication.

You know what an implication is, right?

If you have a JFK conspiracy theory, go ahead and state it.

The implication was that you were sperm shielding for the govt. like you always do.

[Pavlov]

:lmao :lmaoIt's not a video game.

[Pavlov]

The implication was that you were sperm shielding for the govt. like you always do.No. I actually think the CIA and FBI fuckups should have been exposed much sooner. That would have helped in later situations.

[Spurtacular]

No. I actually think the CIA and FBI fuckups should have been exposed much sooner. That would have helped in later situations.

But they weren't. It's about burying truth in the immediate aftermath. People are apathetic in time.

[Pavlov]

But they weren't. It's about burying truth in the immediate aftermath. People are apathetic in time.Lessons get unlearned every generation. The armed forces forgot how to handle an insurgency til Petraeus, Mattis and Odierno broke out the old Vietnam manuals. New presidential administrations tend to ignore outgoing ones, even though they have four to eight years of invaluable experience. Stupid college age kids think they know everything they'll ever need in life after reading Atlas Shrugged or The Book of Mormon and watching a few YouTubes.

Etc.

[RandomGuy]

Fuck. This is just stupid. The Empire State building is built out of a massive tapering masonry core. The B25 literally hit a brick wall. Steel/curtain wall structures are entirely different.

The b-25 hit will les than 1% of the force, less than 1% of the fuel, and started a fire that was controlled, and put out fairly quickly. The comparison only makes sense if one is ignorant of the physics.

[Mikeanaro]

Come on Mike give it up. 9/11 was not a government conspiracy. Those were real jetliners whose destructive force and heat took down the towers. It was obvious. I know the government does stupid shit, but even I cannot give credence to an act like you're hypothesizing.
Thats the plan, they fucked with patriotism so no one can question things, 3000 lives were taken.

[Mikeanaro]

The CIA knew more about Oswald than they let on. It was a fuck up.
I want to see those files, whats to hide? like any weekend you can read Tom Clancy, JK Rowling, I want to read the JFK files, whats wrong with that?

[Pavlov]

I want to see those files, whats to hide? like any weekend you can read Tom Clancy, JK Rowling, I want to read the JFK files, whats wrong with that?Take it up with Trump. He's the only thing standing in the way of their being made public in about six weeks.

[Mikeanaro]

The pentagon, literally one of the safest places in the world, gets hit by a plane. :lol

Like they don't have private airspaces? You think they would let an unidentified airplane that close? :lol

They got their own fucking defense system. :lol

Or did they government let it get hit by a missile of some sort. :lol
You are a smart nigga, I was saving that for other time.
It was an Opera to go to war and get Saddam´s petroleum, Sadman was an old Bush enemy, coincidence?

[spurraider21]

As an engineer
:lmao the goods

[Mikeanaro]

Take it up with Trump. He's the only thing standing in the way of their being made public in about six weeks.
It would be nice, but why Obama and Bill didnt declassify that? they are soul saviors and motivators, unlike W who was a puppet.

[Pavlov]

It would be nice, but why Obama and Bill didnt declassify that? they are soul saviors and motivators, unlike W who was a puppet.The law to declassify was passed after the JFK movie came out. Probably the best thing to come from that stupid movie. Presidents have better things to do than get involved with conspiritards.

[Mikeanaro]

The law to declassify was passed after the JFK movie came out. Probably the best thing to come from that stupid movie. Presidents have better things to do than get involved with conspiritards.
Whats better to demolish conspiracies than showing the documents?
Presidents dont want to admit Washington is/was full of shit, not even once because that would be a menace to their power and image.

[Pavlov]

Whats better to demolish conspiracies than showing the documents?
Presidents dont want to admit Washington is/was full of shit, not even once because that would be a menace to their power and image.How many of the JFK documents that have already been released have you read?

[dabom]

:lmao the goods

You got an undergraduate in teaching. Your senior math shit is my freshman shit. :lmao

[Mikeanaro]

How many of the JFK documents that have already been released have you read?
Not the ones that said why they killed him, why they covered the whole investigation, the magic bullet, they moped the fucking floor with his fucking brains.

[Pavlov]

Not the ones that said why they killed him, why they covered the whole investigation, the magic bullet, they moped the fucking floor with his fucking brains.How many of the 5 million pages that have been released have you read?

[Mikeanaro]

How many of the 5 million pages that have been released have you read?
Why? none of those 5 million pages says why they killed him, why they covered the whole investigation, the magic bullet, they moped the fucking floor with his fucking brains.

[Pavlov]

Why? none of those 5 million pages says why they killed him, why they covered the whole investigation, the magic bullet, they moped the fucking floor with his fucking brains.So you read zero pages.

Spoiler alert -- it's still just Oswald.

[Mikeanaro]

So you read zero pages.

Spoiler alert -- it's still just Oswald.
:lmao

[Pavlov]

:lmaoCool, walk us through your well-researched and documented conspiracy theory.

[Mikeanaro]

Cool, walk us through your well-researched and documented conspiracy theory.
No need, the government is hiding the files so there is nothing weird about it, you dont know what was the reason or what those files say, but you say it was Oswald so case closed.

[Pavlov]

NoOK. I'm sure you didn't have one anyway.

[Mikeanaro]

OK. I'm sure you didn't have one anyway.
You say it was Oswald so case closed, why would someone need to question anything, the evidence is clear even when no one really knows what happened.

[Pavlov]

You say it was Oswald so case closed, why would someone need to question anything, the evidence is clear even when no one really knows what happened.Lots of people know what really happened. A lot of people are just petulant children about accepting it.

[Mikeanaro]

Lots of people know what really happened. A lot of people are just petulant children about accepting it.
Who are they? I want their names and IDs.

[Pavlov]

Who are they? I want their names and IDs.The petulant children? Look in the mirror.

[Mikeanaro]

The petulant children? Look in the mirror.
Thats not adult information, you dont have a case here, Lol people knows they dont need to read anything government said no and I trust them 110%, they couldnt lie even if they wanted everything is legit so lets move onto other things, If nobody knows what happened but they just assume stuff and then is real well I hope scientists use the same approach to cure cancer and other diseases...

[Pavlov]

Thats not adult information, you dont have a case here, Lol people knows they dont need to read anything government said no and I trust them 110%, they couldnt lie even if they wanted everything is legit so lets move onto other things, If nobody knows what happened but they just assume stuff and then is real well I hope scientists use the same approach to cure cancer and other diseases...Great rant, post your ironclad conspiracy theory. Convince everyone they're wrong.

[RandomGuy]

I dont need to explain nothing, you always have problems when something contradicts your theories, in this particular case you are saying the fire of the WTC has hotter than lava.

No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).Aug 1, 2017



1500 F is not enough to melt steel, you are correct.

There was no melted steel in the towers, and the collapse did not require any steel to be melted, merely hot enough to lose structural integrity, and warp/expand, both of which happen when it is heated to those temperatures.


:lmao That you think 1200 fucking degrees below the melting point is anywhere close enough for steel to lose structural integrity. Pseudo science. :lmao



Yes, I do. I not only think it, I know it does.

"As indicated in the figure, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the remaining strength is approximately half of the value at ambient temperature. "

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-A-6.gif

Maybe you can wow me with all the data you have done for your testing of the structural properties of steel under various temperatures.



This is what happens, bro, when these steel beast catch fire. Stuff collapses, not the steel framework. It takes detonation. You want to give the benefit of doubt to no detonation and quote your pseudo science? :lmao



So... you have smileys.

Got it.

Color me unimpressed.


So, the govt. does a huge commission to find out the truth of 9/11 and just pretends building 7 never happened. They don't even come up with a faux excuse. That's how dead to rights them and your cuck ass are.


I don't see any evidence in this post either.

It's almost like you don't have any.



Yup, no planes in the photographs of the Pentagon bombing.

Yup, physics verifies that the (concrete enforced) steel holds up in these fires.

Yup, the radiation levels on the ground were certainly testible and inconsistent with the govt. stories.




Yup, no evidence for any of your claims.

(slow clap)


I wouldn't even give you credit for "judging" as much as I'd say you simply serving a canned argument; and you've unraveled upon being held to a light.


You have failed to present any evidence here, and have simply, repeatedly, done nothing but repeat your unproven assertions.

Feel free to step up your game at any time, rather than falling back on canned catchphrases.



I wasn't tasked with getting to the bottom of 9/11. The govt. was. Their answer: Pretend building 7 never happened because stooges like you would just accept it. :lmao


Still no evidence.

Almost as if you don't have any.


I give you evidence and you say "no evidence" :lmao


Me: Dude admitted WTC7 detonated.
You: No evidence.

You're a fucking joke at this point.

You have yet to show how steel reacts when heated, in regards to its weight bearing capacity. This evidence is key to your claims about either building 7 or the twins.

Office fire temperatures, such as building 7 burn at a fairly predictable temperature curve.


The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C

References

[1] Fristrom, R. M., Flame Structure and Process, Oxford University Press, New York (1995).
[2] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., Some Stochastic Properties of Fire Plumes, Fire and Materials 6, 127-134 (1982).

[3] Gaydon, A. G., and Wolfhard, H. G., Flames: Their Structure, Radiation and Temperature, 3rd ed., Chapman and Hall, London (1970).

[4] McCaffrey, B. J., Purely Buoyant Diffusion Flames: Some Experimental Results (NBSIR 79*1910). [U.S.] Natl. Bur. Stand., Gaithersburg, MD (1979).

[5] Audoin, L., Kolb., G., Torero, J. L., and Most., J. M., Average Centerline Temperatures of a Buoyant Pool Fire Obtained by Image Processing of Video Recordings, Fire Safety J. 24, 107-130 (1995).

[6] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., A Study of the Deterministic Properties of Unbounded Fire Plumes, Combustion and Flame 39, 191-209 (1980).

[7] Smith, D. A., and Cox, G., Major Chemical Species in Turbulent Diffusion Flames, Combustion and Flame 91, 226-238 (1992).

[8] Yuan, L.-M., and Cox, G., An Experimental Study of Some Line Fires, Fire Safety J. 27, 123-139 (1997).

[9] Ingason, H., Two Dimensional Rack Storage Fires, pp. 1209-1220 in Fire Safety Science-Proc. Fourth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science, (1994).

[10] Ingason, H., and de Ris, J., Flame Heat Transfer in Storage Geometries, Fire Safety J. (1997).

[11] Heskestad, G., Flame Heights of Fuel Arrays with Combustion in Depth, pp. 427-438 in Fire Safety Science--Proc. Fifth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science (1997).

[12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1*7 (1979).

[13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

[14] Sullivan, A. L., Ellis, P. F., and Knight, I. K., A Review of Radiant Heat Flux Models Used in Bushfire Applications, Intl. J. Wildland Fire 12, 101-110 (2003).

Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:20pm, it had been on fire for more than 8 hours.



Simple physics... a giant building more than capable to handle that plane and its fire received too much heat on the hundreds steel columns from 500 meters to probably 100 meters under ground on each column going thru cement/concrete/ceramics/water pipes etc etc so it was too much and it totally collapsed, not one single part could resist...

Thats the official statement, I would not trust a government that cant release the JFK files because thinks people is too stupid to understand, sorry but is a giant no no.


That doesn't look like evidence to me.

That looks like you stating something as a fact, as if you simply saying it makes it true. Man if that is the case, please say I am a millionaire.

Are you a building engineer?


What you say is not evidence either, is just an empty calculation like putting a naked steel column on the grill, sorry but you dont have a case either so your point is not valid, not saying mine is 100% accurate but thats how things are.


You didn't answer my question.

Are you a building engineer?


Im not a building engineer


You have made several claims about what a building can, or can't withstand.

What testing have you done on the load-bearing capacity of steel when heated?


Yea, surely the govt. wouldn't be part of a game changer in their favor.


It would be nice, but why Obama and Bill didnt declassify that? they are soul saviors and motivators, unlike W who was a puppet.

I will assume, since you are trying to change the subject the JFK assassination, that you have not done any testing on the load-bearing capacity of steel when heated.

Since you have presented no evidence, done no testing, and someone else has, with data that has been peer reviewed that your assertions are bullshit, easily rejected. The fires burned at normal office temperatures long enough to weaken strained steel to the point where a badly damaged obviously collapsed. Fire, damage, gravity, kinetic energy. No explosives, no melted steel.

[Mikeanaro]

I will assume, since you are trying to change the subject the JFK assassination, that you have not done any testing on the load-bearing capacity of steel when heated.

Since you have presented no evidence, done no testing, and someone else has, with data that has been peer reviewed that your assertions are bullshit, easily rejected. The fires burned at normal office temperatures long enough to weaken strained steel to the point where a badly damaged obviously collapsed. Fire, damage, gravity, kinetic energy. No explosives, no melted steel.
Not changing subject but the thing is you dont believe there is another story to 9/11 like the government was and is always 110% clean.

There is no possible way for such a giant building to collapse because it got hit by a giant beer can, worst case scenario it can lose a lot of structure, but it wont completely collapse because that shit was made with high quality stuff, but again you make it sound like you can make steel cream if you put a steel column on the grill long enough, nonsense.
Also you make it sound like it affected the whole 600 meters of steel and his hundreds of columns, each one of them until the last centimeter 100 meters under ground, crazy.

[Blake]

Not changing subject but the thing is you dont believe there is another story to 9/11 like the government was and is always 110% clean.


K, what's the other story.

[clambake]

this thread is delicious

[dabom]

I will assume, since you are trying to change the subject the JFK assassination, that you have not done any testing on the load-bearing capacity of steel when heated.

Since you have presented no evidence, done no testing, and someone else has, with data that has been peer reviewed that your assertions are bullshit, easily rejected. The fires burned at normal office temperatures long enough to weaken strained steel to the point where a badly damaged obviously collapsed. Fire, damage, gravity, kinetic energy. No explosives, no melted steel.

Shut up you fucking pussy. I got 3k architects and engineers saying otherwise. I suggest you stick to being a fucking peasant when you don't know shit on the subject. :lmao

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Those are real engineers and architects.

http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html

:lmao :lmao

[Pavlov]

Shut up you fucking pussy. I got 3k architects and engineers saying otherwise. I suggest you stick to being a fucking peasant when you don't know shit on the subject. :lmao

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Those are real engineers and architects.

http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html

:lmao :lmaohttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/13639486f5dd1c4c81.jpg

[dabom]

The real intellectuals don't buy the 911 story. Sorry guys, we ain't fucking retarded. You seriously have to close your fucking eyes and cover your fucking ears to the truth, and that's that the government was part of the whole cover up. :lol

[Pavlov]

The real intellectuals don't buy the 911 story. Sorry guys, we ain't fucking retarded. You seriously have to close your fucking eyes and cover your fucking ears to the truth, and that's that the government was part of the whole cover up. :lolOK, what do you think really happened on 9/11?

[dabom]

OK, what do you think really happened on 9/11?

I already told you pablito. Scroll back and read between the lines if you have the capacity.

[Pavlov]

I already told you pablito. Scroll back and read between the lines if you have the capacity.Not going to do that. Just state your whole theory explicitly. Don't be afraid.

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[dabom]

Not going to do that. Just state your whole theory explicitly. Don't be afraid.

What do you think really happened on 9/11?


I already told you pablito. Scroll back and read between the lines if you have the capacity.

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Shut up you fucking pussy. I got 3k architects and engineers saying otherwise. I suggest you stick to being a fucking peasant when you don't know shit on the subject. :lmao

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Those are real engineers and architects.

http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html

:lmao :lmao

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/the_theory_vs_the_facts.html

Meh.

More tired stuff, that ignores the dozens of peer-reviewed papers on the collapse.

Debunked years, and years ago.



At a certain point, though, debating science and theory and ideas is an exercise in futility, because the hypotheses of conspiracy theorists are not grounded in any kind of a larger understanding of the real world. "This sounds really mean," says Erik Sofge, a reporter on the original Popular Mechanics piece and an occasional contributor to Slate. "But really, it's like arguing over the marching speed of hobbits."

[Pavlov]

:lmaoWhy are you afraid to just say it?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

That's a smiley, not an explanation as to what happened on 9-11. Just sayin'.

[dabom]

I'm not here to push you to one side or another. You already made your decision and stick by it. I like to stay with the intellectuals.

[dabom]

That's a smiley, not an explanation as to what happened on 9-11. Just sayin'.

I replied with a previous comment, faggot. What did you not understand, pussy. :lmao :lmao

[Pavlov]

I'm not here to push you to one side or another. You already made your decision and stick by it. I like to stay with the intellectuals.I'm open to an argument if it's persuasive. What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[dabom]

I'm open to an argument if it's persuasive. What do you think really happened on 9/11?

The towers fell to controlled demolition. It was basically in free-fall speed. All those people helping out after 911 had cancer from inhaling poison from something that was not acknowledged by the government.

[dabom]

The towers fell into their own footprint. Fucking crazy if you ask me.

[clambake]

"mental picture of stone wall"

[clambake]

oops

i spoke out of turn.

well, at least you put "controlled demolition" right up there.

[dabom]

oops

i spoke out of turn.

well, at least you put "controlled demolition" right up there.

You don't have the intelligence (engineering background) to really have a ground opinion on anything. Amirite or amirite? :lol :lol

[clambake]

that controlled demolition was flawless.

[dabom]

that controlled demolition was flawless.

It was actually. It was a masterpiece.

[clambake]

the silence of those involved is the masterpiece.

[Pavlov]

The towers fell to controlled demolition.I've never seen a controlled demolition that looked like the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. How was the controlled demolition carried out?


It was basically in free-fall speed.No. It wasn't. "Basically" isn't a scientific term. If you're claiming the intellectual high ground, you're going to have to be much more detailed.


All those people helping out after 911 had cancer from inhaling poison from something that was not acknowledged by the government.Except it was.

[dabom]

Nice chatting with ya guys. I've said it a million times, if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, must be a duck.

[Pavlov]

The towers fell into their own footprint. Fucking crazy if you ask me.Since they destroyed the buildings around them when they fell, it is crazy to say they fell into their own footprints.

[Pavlov]

Nice chatting with ya guys. I've said it a million times, if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, must be a duck.You don't quack like an engineer at all tbh.

[clambake]

Nice chatting with ya guys. I've said it a million times, if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, must be a duck.

idk, thats a pretty convincing argument.

[dabom]

Ad hominem's. :lol :lol

[dabom]

The political forum is filled with trash "smartypants". :lol

[Pavlov]

Don't get defensive. Just tell us how you think this controlled demolition was carried out. WTC 1 and 2 don't look like any controlled demolition I have ever seen. Should be a piece of cake for an engineer.

[dabom]

Don't get defensive. Just tell us how you think this controlled demolition was carried out. WTC 1 and 2 don't look like any controlled demolition I have ever seen. Should be a piece of cake for an engineer.

Question after question, is this ChumpDumper or whatever that faggot is called. :lmao

[dabom]

If I got you, continue doing your thing. :lmao

[clambake]

Don't get defensive. Just tell us how you think this controlled demolition was carried out. WTC 1 and 2 don't look like any controlled demolition I have ever seen. Should be a piece of cake for an engineer.

thats because you've never seen a building that was wired with explosive during its construction.

[Pavlov]

Question after question, is this ChumpDumper or whatever that faggot is called. :lmao


If I got you, continue doing your thing. :lmaoIf you can't explain it, just say so. No crime in that.

[SpursforSix]

I've never seen a controlled demolition that looked like the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. How was the controlled demolition carried out?



Bend over, I'll fuckin show you a controlled demolition.

[dabom]

Bend over, I'll fuckin show you a controlled demolition.

:lol

[RandomGuy]

I replied with a previous comment, faggot. What did you not understand, pussy. :lmao :lmao

More smileys.

Still no actual explanation though.

[RandomGuy]

If you can't explain it, just say so. No crime in that.

Wait, let me guess...

The response will be:












[derision][smiley]

[spurraider21]

You don't have the intelligence (engineering background) to really have a ground opinion on anything. Amirite or amirite? :lol :lol


Ad hominem's. :lol :lol

[Mikeanaro]

K, what's the other story.
Waste of time, do your own research.

[Pavlov]

Waste of time, do your own research.:lmao

All the conspiracy theorists wilt under direct questioning without fail. It's your kryptonite.

[Mikeanaro]

:lmao

All the conspiracy theorists wilt under direct questioning without fail. It's your kryptonite.
You are the only one questioning others, but you never question shit around the government because you are a cult fanatic.

[RandomGuy]

Waste of time, do your own research.

I did my research. I can tell you that structural steel loses more than 50% of it strength at normal office fire temperatures.

[Pavlov]

You are the only one questioning others, but you never question shit around the government because you are a cult fanatic."The government" doesn't post here.

Besides, they have a very clear, very detailed theory of the events of 9/11. I haven't seen anything to convince me some other theory is better -- and I wanted to be a truther on some level.

Do you have a better theory? What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[dabom]

I did my research. I can tell you that structural steel loses more than 50% of it strength at normal office fire temperatures.

Are you a structural engineer? High-rise building background? :lol

Can you even understand what the symbols mean on any of these "charts"? :lmao

[dabom]

How NIST Avoided a Real Analysis of the Physical Evidence of WTC Steel (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html)
http://www1.ae911truth.org/images/M_images/printButton.png (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=)
http://www1.ae911truth.org/images/M_images/emailButton.png (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/component/mailto/?tmpl=component&link=76332b5f990707ac04751ac23db6a15bf6577a64)




Tuesday, 23 August 2011 05:00




http://www1.ae911truth.org/images/stories/nist_logo.png
Editorial Introduction by Dick Zehnle
NIST likes to point out how many scientists and engineers worked on its WTC investigation, and how much time was spent. But the number of participants and the time and money spent does not guarantee a thorough investigation.

NIST’s investigation is not in line with the most basic requirements of the scientific method. This is demonstrated by a closer look at NIST’s examination of the steel, which was based on the premise that nothing other than airplane impact damage and the subsequent fires brought down the Twin Towers. The most relevant question – why did the strong steel frames below the impact area give way? – is ignored. NIST cannot justify its failure to adequately examine the steel with its published results; examining the evidence adequately is a step that needs to be done at the beginning of an investigation.
In addition, NIST substituted for the common method of unaided visual examination of the steel a novel method of a paint-based visual examination which, by design, eliminates from consideration any steel that was heated to above 650 degrees Celsius, at which temperature the paint would have flaked off. Thus, NIST assured from the outset that it would not even investigate evidence that temperatures above 650 Celsius affected the steel.

This and further problems concerning NIST’s steel examination are discussed in an article that can be found here (http://www1.ae911truth.org/documents/How_NIST_Avoided_a_Real_Analysis_of_the_Physical_E vidence_of_WTC_Steel.pdf).

An abridged version of the article is provided here and in the newsletter.
(Abridged version)1 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#1)
NIST's exclusion of most of the steel from being adequately examined
The 236 pieces of structural WTC steel that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) "catalogued" for its WTC investigation included 55 columns that NIST discusses in paragraph 4.1 "CORE COLUMNS" in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, of which NIST analyzed only four for damage and failure modes. The remaining 51 columns were excluded from being examined for damage and failure modes based on the argument that only columns with a known as-built location2 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#2) in or near the impact and fire areas were of interest for the WTC investigation.3 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#3) A similar argument was applied by NIST to the 90 "catalogued" perimeter wall panels4 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#4) and their columns. NIST describe "in-depth" only those five of the 90 panels that were located in the airplane impact zone of WTC 1.5 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#5) Regarding the remaining 85 panels, NIST states:6 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#6) "All damage found on the panels located outside of the impact zone was ascribed to events occurring during and after the collapse, therefore, in-depth descriptions were not reported." The damage and failure modes of about 128 perimeter columns are reported in summary fashion in just a few sentences and in one table with statistical data.7 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#7) The following quote by NIST8 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#8) underlines that no adequate damage and failure analysis was conducted for those columns: ""While these damage features were observed and recorded for each individual column, no effort was made to quantify the frequency with which the modes occurred for each column …" Likewise, the damage modes of the spandrel connections and end plate connections for panels from outside the impact area and for unidentified panels are summarized in only a few sentences and in tables with statistical data.9 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#9)
Any serious investigation into the reasons why the Twin Towers were completely destroyed would attempt to find out why the strong steel frames below the impact and fire areas lost their strength and gave way. But NIST deliberately decided not to do this. NIST excluded -- quite systematically and based on the explicit argument that only the few columns with a known as-built location in the impact and fire areas were of interest for the investigation – the columns from the parts that failed and gave way so unexpectedly, i.e., the columns with as-built locations below the impact and fire areas, from being adequately examined for their damage and failure modes. Scientists and engineers in relevant fields should know that those parts of the structure that gave way need to be included in the investigation of a building failure. There are many indications that NIST's scientists and engineers have been actually well aware that the failure of the load bearing structures of the Twin Towers cannot be investigated by focusing exclusively on the collection of data concerning the impact and fire areas. For example, NIST developed a "structural database" that included the data for the structural members from bottom to top. They developed "global structural models" for both Towers that stretched over their full heights. And they analyzed the performances of the undamaged structures for three loading cases, and checked the demand/capacity ratio for the structural components.10 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#10) NIST examined (as part of the same "Project 3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel," which systematically excluded steel from outside the impact and fire areas from being adequately examined) samples of all steel qualities used throughout the buildings to check if they complied with the demanded quality standards.11 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#11)
NIST cannot justify the exclusion of the steel from being adequately examined for damage and failure modes by its published result of the investigation, i.e., the "how the point of collapse initiation was reached" models and the few lines with suggestions why "global collapse ensued". The named models and suggestions were presented by NIST as results of the investigation, so they should not have influenced decisions at the beginning of the investigation. Examining the evidence and collecting data based on the evidence was a task that NIST needed to perform before any hypotheses were formulated. But NIST excluded columns from outside the impact and fire areas, and columns with an unknown as-built location, from being adequately examined for their damage and failure modes at the very beginning of the investigation. The above quote, "that no effort was made ...," is one of the indications that show that it is not just a reporting problem in the published final report, but a problem of NIST's study design. The named steel was indeed not adequately examined, but excluded from the very beginning.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/images/stories/nist1.pngThus, by a process of circular reasoning, NIST avoided an adequate analysis of the physical evidence of the steel for data that might have answered the question why the strong steel frames below the impact and fire areas gave way as completely and quickly as they did; by proceeding on the basis of a preconceived premise, NIST compromised the validity of the investigation. In addition, the exclusion from adequate examination of columns with unknown as-built locations, and of columns from above the impact and fire areas cannot be justified. Any column could hold conclusive evidence; one cannot determine that a piece does not yield any useful clues before it has been adequately examined.12 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#12)
Indeed, NIST excluded the majority of the recovered WTC steel pieces even from being "catalogued" for the investigation. Of the large number of structural steel members collected by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), located in hangar 17 at JFK airport, only 6 whole pieces, and portions of a further 6 pieces were shipped to NIST's location in Gaithersburg and "catalogued" for NIST’s WTC investigation. NIST does not attempt to justify the exclusion of so many pieces of saved WTC steel from its investigation, but reports only that "NIST personnel visited the hangar and identified 12 additional pieces that were considered important to its investigation."13 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#13) No evidentiary justification is given why NIST’s personnel "considered" the bulk of the steel as not important. The two photographs below show the recovered WTC steel, held in hangar 17 at JFK airport. The large number of pieces that were recovered by PANYNJ, but not "catalogued" by NIST and thus excluded from having at least a chance to be examined, is not mentioned by NIST.
Photographs from http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/wtc-9-11-steel.html

http://www1.ae911truth.org/images/stories/nist2.pngThe recovered WTC steel constitutes physical evidence. It was NIST's duty to do what they claimed to have done, namely to perform an "[e]xtensive failure analysis of the recovered steel,"14 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#14) but NIST did not do so. NIST's decision to exclude most of the steel from being adequately examined, based on circular arguments in the case of the "catalogued" columns and perimeter panels, and without any evidentiary justification in the case of the PANYNJ steel, is one of the reasons that NIST's report does not comply on even a very basic level with what is widely accepted as good practice in science.
NIST's exclusion of a common examination method
Specifically for the WTC steel, NIST developed a paint based and microscope aided method of visual examination to screen perimeter panels and core columns as to whether they were subjected to high temperatures.15 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#15) (If paint is left on a steel member, the paint is examined if it shows a crack pattern typical for an exposure to temperatures between 250 and 650°C.) NIST substituted this examination for the common method of unaided visual examination of the steel (which is mainly based on examining the steel for deformations like certain kinds of buckling, bends, etc.)16 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#16) NIST's method is, per design, most likely useless on all those areas of a steel member that experienced temperatures above approximately 650ºC, and almost certainly useless on all those areas of a steel member that experienced temperatures above approximately 800ºC. As NIST reports, a scale forms from 650ºC upwards between steel and paint, and both are likely to fall off easily.17 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#17) Areas of columns that were heated above 650 or 800ºC were therefore highly unlikely to have any paint left. NIST would have been able to follow up on columns that had no paint left using other methods (paint loss can be due to various reasons), but NIST did not do this -- despite the fact that paint loss is interpreted by the common method of unaided visual examination as a sign of possible exposure to high temperatures, and despite NIST’s explicit knowledge of the fact that the paint will indeed be lost from 650ºC upwards.
Given that NIST selected only four of the 55 columns that are discussed in paragraph 4.1 "CORE COLUMNS", NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, and 21 of the 90 panels to be screened as to whether they were subjected to high temperatures,18 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#18) an inherent characteristic of the microscope aided method had the effect of being a limitation too -- one can notice indications for a possible exposure to higher temperatures only on such steel members that were selected to be examined. In contrast, the common method of unaided visual examination more or less "forces" one to notice (i.e., whether one wishes to recognize it or not) that certain steel members most likely experienced high temperatures, and works also well for steel members that have no paint left.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/images/stories/nist3.pngFor someone who wants to exclude evidence for exposure to high temperatures that has the potential to falsify NIST's premise, the limitations of the paint-cracking method are clearly advantageous. In fact, NIST went to great lengths to substitute its paint based method for the common method of unaided visual examination of the steel and to safeguard the exclusion of the common method. A contractor report where the common method was used was artfully "reviewed" so that NIST was able to act and write as if the common method would not exist as a useful method to screen columns and panels, and additionally, so that NIST did not need to follow up on certain pieces, including buckled columns from outside the impact and fire areas.19 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#19)
By excluding in this deliberate way the data that the common method of visual examination can provide in respect to high temperature exposure of steel, NIST is again (i.e. independent of the above problem of the exclusion of steel) not in line with basic requirements of the scientific method.

[dabom]

Providing data for the validation of the temperature models and for the validation of "modeling efforts" of the "collapse analysis" was among the stated goals of NIST's steel examination.20 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#20) But NIST cannot have data of sufficient quality to validate the temperature models they developed and applied for the fire areas. The paint based method fails above 650ºC and NIST did not follow up on parts like core columns C-88a and C-88b, and on all three columns of panel S-10 where the paint method yielded "no conclusion" as "results" because no paint was left.21 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#21) This means that NIST's Twin Tower "how the point of collapse initiation was reached" computer models, which are at the core of NIST’s presented results, were run by NIST without any adequate validation of their temperature input-data.22 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#22)
In addition, the named models were run without adequate validation with respect to the "fracture and failure behavior" of the steel in the models too -- at least when one wants models that are not bound by a premise that allowed only the consideration of the "fracture and failure behavior" of those steel pieces that were directly compromised by the airplane impact.
Two examples: core column C-30 and perimeter column K-16
One example of the effect of NIST's exclusionary tactics and of the poor quality of their investigation is the failure to adequately examine core column C-30. The as-built location of C-30 was in WTC 2, stories 104 to 106,23 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#23) at the north-east corner of the core. The column displays obvious signs indicating that it was bent at high temperatures and while it was still restrained in a frame. But C-30 was located far above the fire areas, and following up on these indications had the potential of falsifying NIST’s premise. Both the circular argument described above (which excluded C-30 from any examination regarding its damage and failure mode) and the exclusive use of the newly developed paint-based method "allowed" NIST to act as if they did not notice the obvious indications of possible high temperature exposure of C-30 while restrained in the frame. Any institution conducting a real investigation into the reasons for the destruction of the Twin Towers would have found the damage and failure modes of C-30 very interesting, at least for the reason that it stretched over those stories where the top part of WTC 2 started to disintegrate for no apparent reason early in the final destruction. The edge of the building showed a "sharp kink"24 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#24) in the south-east corner well above of the impact and fire area that degraded "into a gentle curve" in the north-east corner.25 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#25) The kink and the curve are documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-326 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#26)(i.e. in the part concerned with the steel examination.) The authors of the final report concerning the steel examination even expected that NIST would publish a discussion of the kink by T. McAllister (co-leader of Project 6 "Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis) as part of the final report,27 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#27) but they nevertheless neglected to examine C-30 for its damage and failure modes.
NIST was not able to apply its exclusionary tactics in the case of a heavily corroded perimeter column that was built-in well below the impact and fire areas; the piece was described already in Appendix C of the FEMA/ BPAT report that called for a more detailed study.28 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#28) NIST's metallurgical examination showed that the column, which also has an unusual corrosion scale containing iron sulfides and other compounds,29 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#29) must have been exposed to "much higher temperatures" than the "range from 700ºC to 800ºC" assumed in Appendix C.30 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#30) Even had there been office fires far below the impact and fire areas next to K-16, they would not have had much of an effect on K-16, because its fireproofing could not have been damaged by the airplane impact. NIST assumes that K-16 was affected by the high temperatures in the piles.31 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#31) But a mix of unburnable construction materials and dust covered, shredded office contents cannot sustain fires that burn hot enough to explain the high temperature exposure of K-16. This problem is not acknowledged by NIST, which treats the "incident scene" as not relevant for its investigation.32 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#32) But all available data -- including all data from the "incident scene" – are supposed to be collected and discussed, a fact of which NIST, which co-operates closely with the NFPA, and participates in the Technical Committee that develops the statements in the NFPA 921, is certainly aware.
Writer's note: I want to say thank you to Richard Zehnle from the AE911Truth Writing Team, who helped correct the English grammar and style.

1The full-length article can be found here: How NIST Avoided a Real Analysis of the Physical Evidence of WTC Steel (PDF) (http://ae911truth.org/documents/How_NIST_Avoided_a_Real_Analysis_of_the_Physical_E vidence_of_WTC_Steel.pdf)
The abridged version briefly covers most, but not all of the problems covered in the full-length version of the article. See the full length version for a more detailed discussion of the problems covered here, further references, photographs, and for screenshots from NIST's report of several of their key-statements.
2Every column was supposed to have a code (stenciled, stamped or handwritten), dating back from the time of the erection of the Twin Towers, that stated its as-built location in the building and other data.
3NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages 197 and 199; PDF-pages 247 and 249
4The term perimeter panel is used in this article (in line with NIST's use of the term) also for the pieces when only a part of the panel was recovered.
5NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 97; PDF-page 147
6NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 97; PDF-page 147
7NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages 99 and 189, PDF-pages 149 and 239
8NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 100 (PDF-page 150)
9NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages 107 and 111 (PDF-pages 157 and 161)
10See NIST NCSTAR 1-2 and NIST NCSTAR 1-2A. As one example, see the following quote from NIST NCSTAR 1-2A: PDF page 65 "Core columns and exterior wall panels (floors 9 to 106) were the greatest data-intensive challenges in the model development."
11NIST NCSTAR 1-3E, “Physical Properties of Structural Steels”
12For example, if a box-column would show evidence that incendiaries or explosives severed the bolts that connected it with the column below, it would not matter if the as-built location of this column is unknown; it would constitute nevertheless relevant evidence.
13NIST NCSTAR 1-3B, page 4 (PDF-page 32); NIST NCSTAR 1-3, page 28 (PDF-page 76)
14NIST NCSTAR 1-3, pages xxxviii and 2 (PDF-pages 40 and 50)
15NIST NCSTAR 1-3, page 94 (PDF-page 143); NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 218 (PDF-page 268)
16NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 218 (PDF-page 268)
17NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 434 (PDF-page 148 in NISTNCSTAR1-3CAppxs.pdf)
18NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 218 (PDF-page 268)
19NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, Appendix G, pages 473ff (PDF-pages 249ff in NISTNCSTAR1-3CAppxs.pdf)
20NIST NCSTAR 1-3, pages 2 and 94 (PDF-pages 50 and 142); NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages iii, xliii, 1, 217 (PDF-pages 5, 45, 51 and 267)
21NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, Appendix E, pages 447ff (PDF-pages 161ff in NISTNCSTAR1-3CAppxs.pdf); and NIST NCSTAR 1-3C “Chapter 6 FIRE EXPOSURE OF THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS”, pages 217ff (PDF-pages 267ff), especially page 226 (PDF-page 276)
22NIST’s temperature models not only lack proper validation due to NIST’s failure to adequately examine and analyze the steel, but they are also not in line with evidence ("glowing carets" that glow bright white, a "metal fire" with a "very bright white flame" "generating a plume of white smoke" and "molten flows" in the vicinity of the "metal fire") that NIST documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, Chapters 8 and 9.
23NIST NCSTAR 1-3B, page 10 (PDF-page 38)
24NIST NCSTAR 1-3, page 63 (PDF-page 111)
25NIST NCSTAR 1-6, page 169 (PDF-page 251)
26NIST NCSTAR 1-3, pages 63 and 67f (PDF-pages 111 and 115f); NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 25 (PDF-page 75)
27NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 25 (PDF-page 75); NISTNCSTAR 1-3, page 63 (PDF-page 111)
28J. Barnett, R. R. Biederman, R.D. Sisson, Jr.: "Limited Metallurgical Examination”, in FEMA/BPAT “World Trade Center Building Performance Study," 2002, Appendix C, http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf, C.6, page 13
29NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 230 (PDF-page 280)
30NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 233 (PDF-page 283)
31NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 229ff (PDF-page 279ff)
32NIST explicitly declared the “incident scene” as not relevant in their 2006 FAQ’s (quote): "The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[dabom]

Ya might wanna look through all the fucking evidence right at your fingertips.

EVIDENCE
On September 11, 2001, the three worst structural failures in modern history took place when World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 suffered complete and rapid destruction.
In the aftermath of the tragedy, most members of the architecture and engineering community, as well as the general public, assumed that the buildings’ destruction had occurred as a result of the airplane impacts and fires. This view was reinforced by subsequent federal investigations, culminating in FEMA’s 2002 Building Performance Study and in the 2005 and 2008 reports by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Since 9/11, however, independent researchers around the world have assembled a large body of evidence that overwhelmingly refutes the notion that airplane impacts and fires caused the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. This body of evidence, most of which FEMA and NIST omitted from their reports, instead supports the troubling conclusion that all three skyscrapers were destroyed in a process known as “controlled demolition,” where explosives and/or other devices are used to bring down a building.

KEY EVIDENCE


Rapid onset (http://youtu.be/nC0eQ3_FUs0?list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmc O) of destruction,
Constant acceleration (http://youtu.be/ydu9M_64lRU?list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmc O) at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
Numerous eyewitness accounts (http://youtu.be/fTglkuffB0E?list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmc O) of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel (http://youtu.be/cZ4dVo5QgYg),
Lateral ejection (http://youtu.be/CYCuAa0eFKg?list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmc O) of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
Mid-air pulverization (http://youtu.be/CYCuAa0eFKg?list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmc O) of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
Isolated explosive ejections (http://youtu.be/CYCuAa0eFKg?list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmc O) 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
Total destruction (http://youtu.be/CYCuAa0eFKg?list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmc O) and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
Several tons of molten steel/iron (http://youtu.be/9oVs_94VHk8?list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmc O) found in the debris piles,
Evidence of thermite incendiaries (http://youtu.be/9oVs_94VHk8?list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmc O) on steel beams,
Nanothermite composites (http://youtu.be/Ri9ywmzewRQ?list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmc O) and iron microspheres (http://youtu.be/l0Uww-T68E4?list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmcO) found in WTC dust samples.


Articles by AE911Truth
The following articles discuss and analyze the evidence for explosive controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. While most of these articles are intended for a general audience, the articles under “Technical Critiques of the NIST Reports” are geared toward readers with greater technical knowledge.


60 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11 (http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/29_Structural_and_Civil_Engineers.pdf)



World Trade Center Building 7


Evidence for the Explosive Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Evidence_for_the_Explosive_Demolition_of_World_Tra de_Center_Building_7_on_9-11.pdf)


Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11 (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/872-freefall-and-building-7-on-911-by-david-chandler.html)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Freefall_and_Building_7_on_9-11.pdf)


How Did They Know? Examining the Foreknowledge of Building 7’s Destruction (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/682-how-did-they-know-examining-the-foreknowledge-of-building-7s-destruction.html)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/How_Did_They_Know_Examining_the_Foreknowledge_of_B uilding_7s_Destruction.pdf)



Twin Towers


Twin Towers Evidence Blows Away Fire Collapse Theory (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/345-twin-towers-evidence-blows-away-fire-theory.html)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Twin_Towers_Evidence_Blows_Away_Fire_Collapse_Theo ry.pdf)


Lack of Deceleration of North Tower’s Upper Section Proves Use of Explosives (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/403-lack-of-deceleration-of-north-towers-upper-section-proves-use-of-explosives.html)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Lack_of_Deceleration_of_North_Towers_Upper_Section _Proves_Use_of_Explosives.pdf)


What was the Molten Metal Seen Pouring Out of the South Tower Minutes Before its Collapse? (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/899-what-was-the-molten-metal-seen-pouring-out-of-the-south-tower-minutes-before-its-collapse-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/What_Was_the_Molten_Metal_Seen_Pouring_Out_of_the_ South_Tower.pdf)


High Temperatures, Persistent Heat & 'Molten Steel' at WTC Site Contradict Official Story (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/347-high-temperatures-persistent-heat-a-molten-steel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story.html)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/High_Temperatures_Persistent_Heat__Molten_Steel_at _WTC_Site_Contradict_Official_Story.pdf)


Billions of Previously Molten Iron Spheres in WTC Dust, Reveal Use of Thermitic Materials (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/348-previously-molten-iron-spheres-were-in-wtc-dust-reveal-use-of-thermitic-materials.html)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Billions_of_Previously_Molten_Iron_Spheres_in_WTC_ Dust_Reveal_Use_of_Thermitic_Materials.pdf)


Advanced Pyrotechnic or Explosive Material Discovered in WTC Dust (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/351-advanced-pyrotechnic-or-explosive-material-discovered-in-wtc-dust.html)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Advanced_Pyrotechnic_or_Explosive_Material_Discove red_in_WTC_Dust.pdf)


Evidence Destroyed is Justice Denied (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/350-evidence-destroyed-is-justice-denied.html)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Evidence_Destroyed_Is_Justice_Denied.pdf)



Technical Critiques of the NIST Reports


25 Points of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/926-25-points-of-specific-concern-in-the-nist-wtc-reports.html)

[PDF]


The NIST Analyses - A Close Look at WTC 7

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/The_NIST_Analyses_-_A_Close_Look_at_WTC_7.pdf)


How NIST Avoided a Real Analysis of the Physical Evidence of WTC Steel (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/How_NIST_Avoided_a_Real_Analysis_of_the_Physical_E vidence_of_WTC_Steel.pdf)



Critique of Popular Mechanics


Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face up to Reality (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/604-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-1.html)

[PDF]



The Psychology of 9/11


Psychology Experts Speak Out: “Why is the 9/11 Evidence Difficult for Some to Accept?” (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/645-psychology-experts-speak-out-why-is-the-911-evidence-difficult-for-some-to-accept-.html)

[PDF]


Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11? A 20-Part Series (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/821-why-do-good-people-become-silentor-worseabout-911-.html)

[PDF]



Table of World Trade Center Tower A Drawings
Table of World Trade Center Tower A Architectural Drawings (http://www.ae911truth.org/news/370-news-media-events-world-trade-center-tower-a-drawings.html#Architectural)
Table of World Trade Center Tower A Electrical Drawings (http://www.ae911truth.org/news/370-news-media-events-world-trade-center-tower-a-drawings.html#Electrical)

Other Technical Articles


Chris Sarns Rebuts Dave Thomas Paper (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Chris_Sarns_rebuts_Dave_Thomas_paper_FINAL_3_14_16 _v2.pdf)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Chris_Sarns_rebuts_Dave_Thomas_paper_FINAL_3_14_16 _v2.pdf)


Extremely High Temperatures & Molten Metal Evidence (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/High_Temps_Molten_Metal_FINAL_3_14_16_v2.pdf)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/High_Temps_Molten_Metal_FINAL_3_14_16_v2.pdf)


Controlled Demolitions of High-Rise Buildings (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Controlled_Demos_of_High_Rises_FINAL_3_14_16_v2.pd f)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Controlled_Demos_of_High_Rises_FINAL_3_14_16_v2.pd f)


CTBUH Questions NIST Draft Report (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/CTBUH_Questions_NIST_Report_FINAL_3_14_16_v2.pdf)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/CTBUH_Questions_NIST_Report_FINAL_3_14_16_v2.pdf)


Major High-Rise Fires (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Major_High_Rise_Fires_FINAL_3_14_16_v2.pdf)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Major_High_Rise_Fires_FINAL_3_14_16_v2.pdf)


Molten Steel Witnesses (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Molten_Steel_Witnesses_FINAL_3_14_16_v2.pdf)

[PDF] (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Molten_Steel_Witnesses_FINAL_3_14_16_v2.pdf)









(http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html#)


http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

Like go through it. :lol

[Pavlov]

:lol walls of text.

So what do you think really happened on 9/11, dabom?

[dabom]

And don't fucking quote me piece-of-shit faggots. :lmao :lmao

[RandomGuy]

Providing data for the validation of the temperature models and for the validation of "modeling efforts" of the "collapse analysis" was among the stated goals of NIST's steel examination.20 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#20) But NIST cannot have data of sufficient quality to validate the temperature models they developed and applied for the fire areas. The paint based method fails above 650ºC and NIST did not follow up on parts like core columns C-88a and C-88b, and on all three columns of panel S-10 where the paint method yielded "no conclusion" as "results" because no paint was left.21 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#21) This means that NIST's Twin Tower "how the point of collapse initiation was reached" computer models, which are at the core of NIST’s presented results, were run by NIST without any adequate validation of their temperature input-data.22 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#22)
In addition, the named models were run without adequate validation with respect to the "fracture and failure behavior" of the steel in the models too -- at least when one wants models that are not bound by a premise that allowed only the consideration of the "fracture and failure behavior" of those steel pieces that were directly compromised by the airplane impact.
Two examples: core column C-30 and perimeter column K-16
One example of the effect of NIST's exclusionary tactics and of the poor quality of their investigation is the failure to adequately examine core column C-30. The as-built location of C-30 was in WTC 2, stories 104 to 106,23 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#23) at the north-east corner of the core. The column displays obvious signs indicating that it was bent at high temperatures and while it was still restrained in a frame. But C-30 was located far above the fire areas, and following up on these indications had the potential of falsifying NIST’s premise. Both the circular argument described above (which excluded C-30 from any examination regarding its damage and failure mode) and the exclusive use of the newly developed paint-based method "allowed" NIST to act as if they did not notice the obvious indications of possible high temperature exposure of C-30 while restrained in the frame. Any institution conducting a real investigation into the reasons for the destruction of the Twin Towers would have found the damage and failure modes of C-30 very interesting, at least for the reason that it stretched over those stories where the top part of WTC 2 started to disintegrate for no apparent reason early in the final destruction. The edge of the building showed a "sharp kink"24 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#24) in the south-east corner well above of the impact and fire area that degraded "into a gentle curve" in the north-east corner.25 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#25) The kink and the curve are documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-326 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#26)(i.e. in the part concerned with the steel examination.) The authors of the final report concerning the steel examination even expected that NIST would publish a discussion of the kink by T. McAllister (co-leader of Project 6 "Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis) as part of the final report,27 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#27) but they nevertheless neglected to examine C-30 for its damage and failure modes.
NIST was not able to apply its exclusionary tactics in the case of a heavily corroded perimeter column that was built-in well below the impact and fire areas; the piece was described already in Appendix C of the FEMA/ BPAT report that called for a more detailed study.28 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#28) NIST's metallurgical examination showed that the column, which also has an unusual corrosion scale containing iron sulfides and other compounds,29 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#29) must have been exposed to "much higher temperatures" than the "range from 700ºC to 800ºC" assumed in Appendix C.30 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#30) Even had there been office fires far below the impact and fire areas next to K-16, they would not have had much of an effect on K-16, because its fireproofing could not have been damaged by the airplane impact. NIST assumes that K-16 was affected by the high temperatures in the piles.31 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#31) But a mix of unburnable construction materials and dust covered, shredded office contents cannot sustain fires that burn hot enough to explain the high temperature exposure of K-16. This problem is not acknowledged by NIST, which treats the "incident scene" as not relevant for its investigation.32 (http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/547-how-nist-avoided-a-real-analysis-of-the-physical-evidence-of-wtc-steel-.html#32) But all available data -- including all data from the "incident scene" – are supposed to be collected and discussed, a fact of which NIST, which co-operates closely with the NFPA, and participates in the Technical Committee that develops the statements in the NFPA 921, is certainly aware.
Writer's note: I want to say thank you to Richard Zehnle from the AE911Truth Writing Team, who helped correct the English grammar and style.

1The full-length article can be found here: How NIST Avoided a Real Analysis of the Physical Evidence of WTC Steel (PDF) (http://ae911truth.org/documents/How_NIST_Avoided_a_Real_Analysis_of_the_Physical_E vidence_of_WTC_Steel.pdf)
The abridged version briefly covers most, but not all of the problems covered in the full-length version of the article. See the full length version for a more detailed discussion of the problems covered here, further references, photographs, and for screenshots from NIST's report of several of their key-statements.
2Every column was supposed to have a code (stenciled, stamped or handwritten), dating back from the time of the erection of the Twin Towers, that stated its as-built location in the building and other data.
3NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages 197 and 199; PDF-pages 247 and 249
4The term perimeter panel is used in this article (in line with NIST's use of the term) also for the pieces when only a part of the panel was recovered.
5NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 97; PDF-page 147
6NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 97; PDF-page 147
7NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages 99 and 189, PDF-pages 149 and 239
8NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 100 (PDF-page 150)
9NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages 107 and 111 (PDF-pages 157 and 161)
10See NIST NCSTAR 1-2 and NIST NCSTAR 1-2A. As one example, see the following quote from NIST NCSTAR 1-2A: PDF page 65 "Core columns and exterior wall panels (floors 9 to 106) were the greatest data-intensive challenges in the model development."
11NIST NCSTAR 1-3E, “Physical Properties of Structural Steels”
12For example, if a box-column would show evidence that incendiaries or explosives severed the bolts that connected it with the column below, it would not matter if the as-built location of this column is unknown; it would constitute nevertheless relevant evidence.
13NIST NCSTAR 1-3B, page 4 (PDF-page 32); NIST NCSTAR 1-3, page 28 (PDF-page 76)
14NIST NCSTAR 1-3, pages xxxviii and 2 (PDF-pages 40 and 50)
15NIST NCSTAR 1-3, page 94 (PDF-page 143); NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 218 (PDF-page 268)
16NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 218 (PDF-page 268)
17NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 434 (PDF-page 148 in NISTNCSTAR1-3CAppxs.pdf)
18NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 218 (PDF-page 268)
19NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, Appendix G, pages 473ff (PDF-pages 249ff in NISTNCSTAR1-3CAppxs.pdf)
20NIST NCSTAR 1-3, pages 2 and 94 (PDF-pages 50 and 142); NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages iii, xliii, 1, 217 (PDF-pages 5, 45, 51 and 267)
21NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, Appendix E, pages 447ff (PDF-pages 161ff in NISTNCSTAR1-3CAppxs.pdf); and NIST NCSTAR 1-3C “Chapter 6 FIRE EXPOSURE OF THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS”, pages 217ff (PDF-pages 267ff), especially page 226 (PDF-page 276)
22NIST’s temperature models not only lack proper validation due to NIST’s failure to adequately examine and analyze the steel, but they are also not in line with evidence ("glowing carets" that glow bright white, a "metal fire" with a "very bright white flame" "generating a plume of white smoke" and "molten flows" in the vicinity of the "metal fire") that NIST documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, Chapters 8 and 9.
23NIST NCSTAR 1-3B, page 10 (PDF-page 38)
24NIST NCSTAR 1-3, page 63 (PDF-page 111)
25NIST NCSTAR 1-6, page 169 (PDF-page 251)
26NIST NCSTAR 1-3, pages 63 and 67f (PDF-pages 111 and 115f); NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 25 (PDF-page 75)
27NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 25 (PDF-page 75); NISTNCSTAR 1-3, page 63 (PDF-page 111)
28J. Barnett, R. R. Biederman, R.D. Sisson, Jr.: "Limited Metallurgical Examination”, in FEMA/BPAT “World Trade Center Building Performance Study," 2002, Appendix C, http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf, C.6, page 13
29NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 230 (PDF-page 280)
30NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 233 (PDF-page 283)
31NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, page 229ff (PDF-page 279ff)
32NIST explicitly declared the “incident scene” as not relevant in their 2006 FAQ’s (quote): "The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Debunked a decade ago, while you were still learning to read.

Real-911 research thread, first post 04-24-2007

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65131

[Pavlov]

:lol Next he's going to post Loose Change.

Look at the pods under the wings!

[dabom]

There's no debating in there faggot. :lmao

[Pavlov]

There's no debating in their faggot. :lmaoNo there is no debating in the wall of text you posted.

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[dabom]

I trust the actual experts on the subject with 10s of thousands of accumulated years of knowledge over ST'ers. :lmao :lmao

[dabom]

"debunked"

"cause ST" :lol :lol

[dabom]

I can't believe someone actually said that. :lol

[Pavlov]

I trust the actual experts on the subject with 10s of thousands of accumulated years of knowledge over ST'ers. :lmao :lmaohttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_9777486fa44971ae0.jpg

But seriously, what do you think really happened on 9/11?

[RandomGuy]

The most relevant question – why did the strong steel frames below the impact area give way? – is ignored.

That most relevant question not only wasn't ignored, it was very obviously addressed. Directly. In the NIST report.

I worked it out myself.

As could you, if you wanted.




http://www.debunk911myths.org/

http://www.jod911.com/


PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:


v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing. :rolleyes

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.


They said they didn't feel it relevant, because it was really obvious. They concentrated their efforts at understanding the point of failure that started the initial collapse.

[dabom]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_9777486fa44971ae0.jpg

But seriously, what do you think really happened on 9/11?

I already replied you fucking shill. :lol

And drop the shtick. Not going through question after question. :lol

[RandomGuy]

If you can't explain it, just say so. No crime in that.




Wait, let me guess...

The response will be:












[derision][smiley]


Are you a structural engineer? High-rise building background? :lol

Can you even understand what the symbols mean on any of these "charts"? :lmao

Nailed it.

[Pavlov]

That most relevant question not only wasn't ignored, it was very obviously addressed. Directly. In the NIST report.

I worked it out myself.

As could you, if you wanted.






They said they didn't feel it relevant, because it was really obvious. They concentrated their efforts at understanding the point of failure that started the initial collapse.My theory is that 10-20 acres of office building weigh a lot, and that gravity is a thing.

[RandomGuy]

Be sure to order the DVD “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out” today in order to guarantee timely shipment. In fact, order it along with the new book , which we co-authored, “9/11: The Simple Facts – Why the official Story Cannot Possibly Be True.” Arthur Naiman came to us after signing our petition

Be sure to order the CD and the book.

Sucker.

[Pavlov]

I already replied you fucking shill. :lol

And drop the shtick. Not going through question after question. :lolYour overly simple theory requires some questions be asked.

The collapses of WTC 1 and 2 have no resemblance to any controlled demolition. If you can't explain how it was demolished, your theory is worthless.

As an engineer, this should be a piece of cake for you.

[dabom]

That most relevant question not only wasn't ignored, it was very obviously addressed. Directly. In the NIST report.

I worked it out myself.

As could you, if you wanted.






They said they didn't feel it relevant, because it was really obvious. They concentrated their efforts at understanding the point of failure that started the initial collapse.

Is that some idiotic piece of shit thing written by a 3rd grader? People eat this shit up? :lmao

That isn't anything. It doesn't describe how the stories fell. You would need a structural modeling system with the right loads to simulate the stories falling. Minimum. :lmao :lmao

Not some handkerchief doodle. :lmao

[Pavlov]

Is that some idiotic piece of shit thing written by a 3rd grader? People eat this shit up? :lmao

That isn't anything. It doesn't describe how the stories fell. You would need a structural modeling system with the right loads to simulate the stories falling. Minimum. :lmao :lmao

Not some handkerchief doodle. :lmaoGreat. Has ae911truth done that? I've only seen this model from them:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_9777486fa44971ae0.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

More derision and smilies. Reads like intellectual cowardice.

[dabom]

Great. Has ae911truth done that? I've only seen this model from them:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_9777486fa44971ae0.jpg

Are you agreeing that random faggot is wrong then? :lmao :lmao

[Pavlov]

Are you agreeing that random faggot is wrong then? :lmao :lmaoNot at all.

I'm asking you about your heroes there.

Have they done the modeling you spoke of? This is the only model I have seen from them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_9777486fa44971ae0.jpg

[dabom]

Not at all.

I'm asking you about your heroes there.

Have they done the modeling you spoke of? This is the only model I have seen from them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_9777486fa44971ae0.jpg

Yeah you did. :lmao :lmao

[dabom]

When ya get yalls heads out of each other's asses, let me know. :lol

I like schooling "supposed" "know-it-alls". :lol

[Pavlov]

Yeah you did. :lmao :lmaoNope. I'm talking to you.



Has ae911truth done any of the modeling you spoke of? This is the only model I have seen from them:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_9777486fa44971ae0.jpg

[Pavlov]

When ya get yalls heads out of each other's asses, let me know. :lol

I like schooling "supposed" "know-it-alls". :lolSchool us on how you say the collapse was initiated in WTC 1 and 2.

:lmao engineer that for us

[dabom]

Getting shook. :lmao :lmao

[Pavlov]

Getting shook. :lmao :lmaoEngineering :lmao :lmao

[dabom]

This sub-forum is below par tbh. No real thinking in here. :lmao :lmao

[Pavlov]

This sub-forum is below par tbh. No real thinking in here. :lmao :lmao:lmao :lmao stalling

Show us dem engineering skills. Tell us how the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 initiated.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006_clip_image002.jpg
Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

[dabom]

Sorry if I hurt your feelings, I need to stick to upstairs. :lol :lol

[RandomGuy]

Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings.

Actually the thickness of the columns is addressed in multiple places of the NIST report for a variety of reasons.

It is a tad beyond credible to suggest that the thickness of the columns was not considered even IF the exact dimensions were never given in the official report.

[Blake]

I already told you pablito. Scroll back and read between the lines if you have the capacity.

Lol "read between the lines"

What a pussy move