William Rodriguez Vindicated by Newly Released 9/11 Commission Notes

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, 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 weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

5. Why were two distinct es—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?

The seismic es for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The es began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As do ented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
8. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a 'raging inferno' in the WTC towers?

Both the NIST calculations and interviews with survivors and firefighters indicated that the aircraft impacts severed the water pipes that carried the water to the sprinkler systems. The sprinklers were not operating on the principal fire floors.

However, there were ample sources of the water in the stairwells. The water pipes ran vertically within the stairwells. Moreover, there would have been copious water from the broken restroom supply lines and from the water tanks that supplied the initial water for the sprinklers. Thus, it is not surprising that evacuating occupants encountered a lot of water.

Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building. On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quan ies of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

10. Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so excessive?

NIST believes that the persons seen were away from any strong heat source and most likely in an area that at the time was a point where the air for combustion was being drawn into the building to support the fires. Note that people were observed only in the openings in WTC 1.

According to the International Standard ISO/TS 13571, people will be in severe pain within seconds if they are near the radiant heat level generated by a large fire. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the photographs show a person standing in those gaps where there also was a sizable fire.

The fire behavior following the aircraft impacts is described in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. In general, there was little sustained fire near the area where the aircraft hit the towers. Immediately upon impact of the aircraft, large fireballs from the atomized jet fuel consumed all the local oxygen. (This in itself would have made those locations rapidly unlivable.) The fireballs receded quickly and were followed by fires that grew inside the tower where there was a combination of combustible material, air and an ignition source. Little combustible material remained near the aircraft entry gashes since the aircraft "bulldozed" much of it toward the interior of the building. Also, some of the contents fell through the breaks in the floor to the stories below.

Therefore, the people observed in these openings must have survived the aircraft impact and moved—once the fireballs had dissipated—to the openings where the temperatures were cooler and the air was clearer than in the building interior.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Since this has been done before, and the NIST has actually put a FAQ up, perhaps it is worth it to see what the NIST actually says and not rely on truther distortions to form our opinions of what the NIST said.

I read it yesterday.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, par ions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

------------------------------

This does contradict the bit that Chump posted about lead from battery back-ups. This merely points out the difficulty in identifying the material at all. CTers say it is molten steel, and the truth is, we will never conclusively know for sure.

What we can say is that the appearance of molten metal here does NOT in any way conclusively contradict the NIST theory about the building collapse.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quan ies of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

THis is the one that had me scratching my head. The response boils down to yup the smoke showed that the fires were not that hot. The answer they gave literally supports the questions premise.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quan y of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed incon uously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior par ions.

[RandomGuy]

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage
from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. 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.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain cir stances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

[RandomGuy]

THis is the one that had me scratching my head. The response boils down to yup the smoke showed that the fires were not that hot. The answer they gave literally supports the questions premise.

No, it doesn't.

[RandomGuy]

9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

....
the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions
--------------------------------------

You simply can't infer that the fires themselves were that hot simply because of the soot color, because the soot would move outside the hot zones and not have both the heat and/or oxygen to completely burn off.

[RandomGuy]

I read [the NIST FAQ] yesterday.

Well don't stop there. There is a whole world of skeptics who have genuinely looked into the "evil conspiracy used controlled demolition" theory, among others, and found little evidence to support those theories.

http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Very little of what gets posted on "truth" websites actually stands up to scrutiny, and a large part of it proves to be vapid pseudo-science.

No small part of it turns out to be outright deceptive manipulation of facts, or factually incorrect.

I gave it a fair shot when the websites first started popping up. My bull detector started going off, and after I found how the people saying they were for the "truth" were for anything but that, it really made me pissed that I was lied to like that.

[Blake]

Yup I got you pegged. Like I said you keep going with your bad self. This whole rant of yours claiming that I say I knnow mroe than the people in NIST is just absolutley delicious.

You don't know what delicious means.

You keep going with your bad posts.

Youre literally the shining example of hypercritical.

I don't think you know what hypercritical means either.

But it's the truth in this thread. I am definitely being hypercritical of your posts which amount to nothing more than crap.

But hey lets play a game? What do you think ad hominem means?

[ad hom-uh-nuhm ‑nem, ahd-]
–adjective 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

you've been claiming definition #2.

Chump has very clearly answered and owned all of your "arguments".

Game over.

Anyway I have to go for a few hours I will await expectantly to see your latest hissy fit.

I will be waiting for the latest attempt of a proven lying student to attempt to debunk more of the NIST reports and for more "pumpkin", "adorable" or "delicious" smack.

You are an idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, if one argues that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel to the point that it deformed under load, one has to come up with a plausible explanation why the steel deformed under load.



The numbers in and around the red circle represent the amount in inches that the perimeter columns have deformed by 10:23 AM. They claim to be accurate within 6 inches -- so someone tell me what else other than heat could have deformed the steel in the floors, causing them to sag and pull in the perimeter columns, deforming them to the extent, 40 or 50 inches, clearly shown in this picture.

More pictures and text here: http://www.representativepress.org/B...xplosives.html

[Dude]

Seriously, if one argues that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel to the point that it deformed under load, one has to come up with a plausible explanation why the steel deformed under load.



The numbers in and around the red circle represent the amount in inches that the perimeter columns have deformed by 10:23 AM. They claim to be accurate within 6 inches -- so someone tell me what else other than heat could have deformed the steel in the floors, causing them to sag and pull in the perimeter columns, deforming them to the extent, 40 or 50 inches, clearly shown in this picture.

More pictures and text here: http://www.representativepress.org/B...xplosives.html

But how are the columns on the other side? And I don't really care if fire brought down that building my concern is why it came down so fast with no resistance?

And who come after 9/11 not one fireman has used the words "pull it" ?

[ChumpDumper]

But how are the columns on the other side?

There are pictures of those too. Good to know you never bothered to look

And I don't really care if fire brought down that building my concern is why it came down so fast with no resistance?

There was resistance, just not enough to stop 30 acres of office building.

And who come after 9/11 not one fireman has used the words "pull it" ?

No building was pulled on 9/11.

[Alex Jones]

There was resistance, just not enough to stop 30 acres of office building.

Who says anything about stopping a collapsing building we will settle for at least a 5 to 10 second delay.

[ChumpDumper]

Who says anything about stopping a collapsing building.

I did as an answer to your question.

we will settle for at least a 5 to 10 second delay.

How does one go about settling for something like that?

If you can show me just how buildings are designed to slow down a 30 acres of building falling on them, we'll go some way towards "settling" this particular issue.

[man on wire]

I did as an answer to your question.How does one go about settling for something like that?

If you can show me just how buildings are designed to slow down a 30 acres of building falling on them, we'll go some way towards "settling" this particular issue.

Its the difference from rolling a ball down a ramp and rolling a ball down the stairs, you should notice small delays.
You would think at least one section of the building would remain standing, or one side coming down faster than the other side. But for every floor to systematically cave in on cue is su ious at best.
Why can/t you question any part of 9/11? you make it sound like you work for FEMA with your one sided views.

[DarrinS]

Its the difference from rolling a ball down a ramp and rolling a ball down the stairs, you should notice small delays.
You would think at least one section of the building would remain standing, or one side coming down faster than the other side. But for every floor to systematically cave in on cue is su ious at best.
Why can/t you question any part of 9/11? you make it sound like you work for FEMA with your one sided views.

How fast should it come down?


I'll wait for your analysis.

[Blake]

How fast should it come down?


I'll wait for your analysis.

I wouldn't wait around too long if I were you.

[DarrinS]

I wouldn't wait around too long if I were you.

It's probably just Mouse posting under another name. That one is classy. I like his use of the "falling man" avatar.


EDIT> My bad. Might be a guy walking a tightrope.