William Rodriguez Vindicated by Newly Released 9/11 Commission Notes

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Of course you wanted to mislead. You worded it very carefully to do so.

My impression ist hey were pretty much going to go when the perimeter columns went since that's what happened at all the levels below the heated one. If you would like to show some calculations showing they would not, I'm waiting.



I am completely allowing for the heating of the central columns. I'm not convinced they were integral to the sagging of the floors. They almost certainly happened at the same time -- so there is really nothing to debate here.

I never backed off that assertion because there was only one stairwell that was not blocked at some point. Stairwell A, south tower. You didn't understand that I was repeating my assertion, only being more specific the second time I said it.

I'm saying that it is not necessary for one stairwell to be 1000 degrees for enough of the other building to be hot enough to be weakened to the point of collapse. You are.

I am sitting about 5 yards from the presence of superheated gas in the oven. I am not aflame.

On what floor? Fires were not limited to the impact floors.

So you are saying I should be on fire right now.

And?

You are saying that people reported seeing fires on the impact floors from stairwell A of the south tower mere minutes before its collapse. Again, I don't you have any idea:

1) What stairwell worked from top to bottom of either tower.

2) How tall the building is and how long it takes to descend 74 floors.

Those are from EXTERIOR panel sections.

Now you don't know what "exterior" means.

This just gets better and better.

Are you seriously going to bring Kevin Ryan into this?

Fantastic!

Please give us all his quotes and include his qualifications from his job at UL.

I am not sure how I even worded it. Like I said you can guess my intent but you would be wrong. If you were misled then I really do apologize. That should have been apparent when I without provacation explained what it is that I do. You apparently have an axe to grind and I annoy you so you resort to this. Whatever.

Too bad a stove does not operate in the manner like a building fire does. the NIST model doesn't even operate under the premise of a building fire because building fires do not reach 1000 degrees typically I will use simple terms to explain the difference.

In a stove, you send a current through a highly resistant material. As such the material, the heating element, generates heat in the enclosure until it reaches your desired temperature. Air flow in no way shape or form is necessary. In fact, it is discouraged because if the air is escaping it deters the ability to heat the enclosure. A building fire requires oxygen to burn and thus produce heat. In this scenario air flow is not only encouraged, it is necessary. Trying to compare the two is quite frankly stupid.

The NIST report does not talk about fire temperature. It talks about air temperatures in layers and levels. IOW the air on entire floors was that temperature. But hey according to you its possible that these layers were everywhere to weaken the trusses and supports but somehow were kept out of the stairwells despite all the smoke and visible flames from within the stairwells as they were going thru the floors in question.

Actually, reports are that debris had pierced the stairwells and that people descending could see the fires and feel the heat. That being the case there is no ing way it was 1000 degrees. Like I sadi go ahead and put your face in the oven at a broil and see how long it lasts. That would be half the temp they are claiming.

Whats becoming VERY apparent is thatr you do not think for yourself. Your arguments are basically verbatim from debunking911.com. Your 'incredulity' argument is almost verbatim. Whats really telling here is how you kept on with saying NIST was not reliant on the central columns lsoing integrity. I was reading the NIST chronology and thinking to myself that any dimwit could gather that with ease.

It was not until I started reading 911debunker.com that I realized why. One of that guys central arguments is that the central columns could not be needed for the collapse because his opposition relied on that. He claimed that NIST supported that. Well you bought that as gospel and wouldn't see what NIST was really saying when it was spelled out in plain english for everyone to see. As I am reading that site, I am seeing more an more where your exact train of logic comes from.

You claim to 'know' all about the WTC tragedy. In reality you do not know beyond what people tell you is the case. Its apparent that you could not begin to discuss basic terms like vectors and torque or heat transfer or latent heat versus radiant heat. you cannot even tell the difference between a fire and a heating element.

I know a lot about what the 'truthers' claim is faulty. The sulfur they keep crowing about can be explained easily from the gypsum. I do not take anything as gospel.

[Blake]

IWhats becoming VERY apparent is thatr you do not think for yourself.

what's been VERY apparent from post #1 is that you think you are smarter than the NIST.

You criticize their findings with your sloppy logic, yet have failed to come up with models of your own to explain it.

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Ins ute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research ins ute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4

who to believe..........real world engineers and professors or fuzzy.....

tough call

[Blake]

Nov 25, 2008
The National Ins ute of Standards and Technology has released its final report on the fires and building collapses caused by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. Skeptics continue to argue burning jet fuel could not have felled the buildings, but this report -- "strengthened by clarifications and supplemental text suggested by organizations and individuals worldwide" in response to the draft report on the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, released for public comment on Aug. 21, the agency said -- concludes fire alone caused WTC 7 to fall. "The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down," NIST concluded.

http://ohsonline.com/articles/2008/1...tes-study.aspx

[ChumpDumper]

I am not sure how I even worded it. Like I said you can guess my intent but you would be wrong. If you were misled then I really do apologize. That should have been apparent when I without provacation explained what it is that I do. You apparently have an axe to grind and I annoy you so you resort to this. Whatever.

So to be clear, you are not a mechanical engineer.

Too bad a stove does not operate in the manner like a building fire does. the NIST model doesn't even operate under the premise of a building fire because building fires do not reach 1000 degrees typically I will use simple terms to explain the difference.

So to be clear, you never looked at the fire data from the tests done before 9/11. Your claim that fires don't get that hot is your saying fires don't get that hot.

In a stove, you send a current through a highly resistant material. As such the material, the heating element, generates heat in the enclosure until it reaches your desired temperature. Air flow in no way shape or form is necessary. In fact, it is discouraged because if the air is escaping it deters the ability to heat the enclosure. A building fire requires oxygen to burn and thus produce heat. In this scenario air flow is not only encouraged, it is necessary. Trying to compare the two is quite frankly stupid.

The NIST report does not talk about fire temperature. It talks about air temperatures in layers and levels. IOW the air on entire floors was that temperature. But hey according to you its possible that these layers were everywhere to weaken the trusses and supports but somehow were kept out of the stairwells despite all the smoke and visible flames from within the stairwells as they were going thru the floors in question.

So to be clear, you are saying people saw fires from stairwell A in the south tower on the 74 floor minutes before it collapsed.

Actually, reports are that debris had pierced the stairwells and that people descending could see the fires and feel the heat. That being the case there is no ing way it was 1000 degrees. Like I sadi go ahead and put your face in the oven at a broil and see how long it lasts. That would be half the temp they are claiming.

So to be clear, you are saying people saw fires from stairwell A in the south tower on the 74 floor minutes before it collapsed.

Whats becoming VERY apparent is thatr you do not think for yourself. Your arguments are basically verbatim from debunking911.com. Your 'incredulity' argument is almost verbatim. Whats really telling here is how you kept on with saying NIST was not reliant on the central columns lsoing integrity. I was reading the NIST chronology and thinking to myself that any dimwit could gather that with ease.

No I'm saying I think the floors could sag whether the core columns were weakened or not -- but it doesn't matter since the columns were likely weakened anyway. That's pretty independent.

It was not until I started reading 911debunker.com that I realized why. One of that guys central arguments is that the central columns could not be needed for the collapse because his opposition relied on that. He claimed that NIST supported that. Well you bought that as gospel and wouldn't see what NIST was really saying when it was spelled out in plain english for everyone to see. As I am reading that site, I am seeing more an more where your exact train of logic comes from.

Uh, no. That's not where it came from at all, and it doesn't matter anyway. You have done nothing to refute the NIST theory.

You claim to 'know' all about the WTC tragedy.

Just more than you. Doesn't take much.

In reality you do not know beyond what people tell you is the case. Its apparent that you could not begin to discuss basic terms like vectors and torque or heat transfer or latent heat versus radiant heat. you cannot even tell the difference between a fire and a heating element.

So you are saying I am currently on fire.

I know a lot about what the 'truthers' claim is faulty.

I know what you are claiming is faulty. You just don't know that much about it. That's ok, but pretending you do gets you in trouble.

Now, tell me about the people who saw flames on the impact zone from Stairwell A of the south tower minutes before it collapsed.

I am asking you for quotes and links.

[MavTalker]

It took me an hour to read this whole topic and it looks like Chump may have finally met his match!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So to be clear, you are not a mechanical engineer.

So to be clear, you never looked at the fire data from the tests done before 9/11. Your claim that fires don't get that hot is your saying fires don't get that hot.



So to be clear, you are saying people saw fires from stairwell A in the south tower on the 74 floor minutes before it collapsed.

So to be clear, you are saying people saw fires from stairwell A in the south tower on the 74 floor minutes before it collapsed.

No I'm saying I think the floors could sag whether the core columns were weakened or not -- but it doesn't matter since the columns were likely weakened anyway. That's pretty independent.

Uh, no. That's not where it came from at all, and it doesn't matter anyway. You have done nothing to refute the NIST theory.

Just more than you. Doesn't take much.

So you are saying I am currently on fire.

I know what you are claiming is faulty. You just don't know that much about it. That's ok, but pretending you do gets you in trouble.

Now, tell me about the people who saw flames on the impact zone from Stairwell A of the south tower minutes before it collapsed.

I am asking you for quotes and links.

If you do not understand that I am a senior studying mechanical engineering by now then you are pretty damn stupid. It should have been very clear the first day we were talking about this. I explained it and quite frankly I am not even sure how I phrased it that has you so confused.

There are an assload of quotes all over the place of people seeing smoke and flames descending down to floor 78 where often times they were stonewalled because of the idiotic 'security' measures in the building. Look them up yourself. There are an assload of reports of debris penetrating the shafts in the area. There are an assload of reports of smoke entering the shaft.

Given the fact that NIST claims superheated air at 1000 degrees was circulating a the central columns and trusses. I don't need to claim that fires get to any temperature. I am very well aware of what temperatures of diffuse hydrocarbon fires are. NIST knows as well. Thats why they came up with this model of superheated air.

I know what you are trying to do. You are hoping that I will rely on some single report that you can use your cookie cutter response from your favorite debunking website. Sorry, chump, isnt going to happen.

At least you admit that you get your canned answers from these debunk sites. I still cannot get how you keep clinging to the independence of the sagging floors. I know why you do it. Your canned answers rely on it and you have no technical knowledge to adjust. Tell us more about scale, jackass.

Heres a hint: if the floors had only sagged, the building would not have fallen. I mean NIST even talks about how it was an inward collapse. They rejected there initial hypothesis which they initially fed to PM. They changed it to an inward collapse. In order for it to be an inward collapse the inner columns would have to be weakened. If you had any ing clue about force vectors it would be intuitive for you. If you had any clue you would realize that no part of the chronology of events that NIST claims led to the collapse was independent. Quite frankly its really damn stupid to think that. Its almost as if you think they put in the interior columns losing their ability to support a load in aforementioned chronology for fun.

And its hilarious that you keep babbling about how I am acting like I know more than I do. If anyone is doing that it is you. Quite frankly, I imagine that the last time you learned anything about physics was back in high school. Seeing that you hold The Breakfast Club in esteem I would put that at about 20 years ago. When there is technical jargon in the NIST reports you don't have the first ing clue what they are talking about. Your discussions of scale and parroting debunking websites clearly show that you just do not have the background to understand.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This message is hidden because Blake is on your ignore list.

I have no interest in listening to your psychotic ravings. Take your insecure ass somewhere else. How about you try and drum up a convo with Darrin or Chump. Oh yeah they haven't given a about anything youve said either.

I am going to bed.

[ChumpDumper]

If you do not understand that I am a senior studying mechanical engineering by now then you are pretty damn stupid. It should have been very clear the first day we were talking about this. I explained it and quite frankly I am not even sure how I phrased it that has you so confused.

As long as we are clear that you are not an engineer, it's cool.

There are an assload of quotes all over the place of people seeing smoke and flames descending down to floor 78 where often times they were stonewalled because of the idiotic 'security' measures in the building. Look them up yourself. There are an assload of reports of debris penetrating the shafts in the area. There are an assload of reports of smoke entering the shaft.

That's not what I asked you for.

I am asking you for quotes from people who said they saw the flames in the impact floors on the way down the only stairwell that was passable from top to bottom -- stairwell A, south tower -- minutes before the south tower fell. I ask you for that specific a quote because that is the only thing that will support your argument.

So find it and give us all a link.

Given the fact that NIST claims superheated air at 1000 degrees was circulating a the central columns and trusses. I don't need to claim that fires get to any temperature. I am very well aware of what temperatures of diffuse hydrocarbon fires are. NIST knows as well. Thats why they came up with this model of superheated air.

So where is you fire data? I told you where you could find the fire test.

Please give me a link to your office fire data.

I know what you are trying to do. You are hoping that I will rely on some single report that you can use your cookie cutter response from your favorite debunking website. Sorry, chump, isnt going to happen.

I have asked you for two pieces of information to prove you are just not making up. If you do not produce them, I will conclude you are making up.

At least you admit that you get your canned answers from these debunk sites.

But I didn't do that with the sagging floors. That's merely my own conclusion. I don't know what website theory you are talking about.

I still cannot get how you keep clinging to the independence of the sagging floors.

I don't cling to it -- I merely think it's possible. I said it didn't matter either way. It's not critical to any claim I am making, and I don't know why you are stuck on it.

I know why you do it. Your canned answers rely on it and you have no technical knowledge to adjust. Tell us more about scale, jackass.

It makes no difference to me whether the core columns weakening contributed to the floor sagging.

No difference.

No difference.

No difference.

I'll post it more times if it helps you understand.

Heres a hint: if the floors had only sagged, the building would not have fallen. I mean NIST even talks about how it was an inward collapse. They rejected there initial hypothesis which they initially fed to PM. They changed it to an inward collapse. In order for it to be an inward collapse the inner columns would have to be weakened. If you had any ing clue about force vectors it would be intuitive for you. If you had any clue you would realize that no part of the chronology of events that NIST claims led to the collapse was independent. Quite frankly its really damn stupid to think that. Its almost as if you think they put in the interior columns losing their ability to support a load in aforementioned chronology for fun.

I now stipulate the core columns were weakened.

How does that help you now?

It actually helps my argument more than anything, so yeah, I stipulate that the core columns were weakened.

And its hilarious that you keep babbling about how I am acting like I know more than I do. If anyone is doing that it is you. Quite frankly, I imagine that the last time you learned anything about physics was back in high school. Seeing that you hold The Breakfast Club in esteem I would put that at about 20 years ago. When there is technical jargon in the NIST reports you don't have the first ing clue what they are talking about. Your discussions of scale and parroting debunking websites clearly show that you just do not have the background to understand.

Please provide the links I asked for.

I asked for a quote from someone who saw the fires in the impact zonefrom stairwell A minutes before its collapse.

I asked for your sources of information about the temperatures of office fires.

I have stipulated that the core columns were weakened by the temperatures cause by the fires, thereby bolstering my argument.

Thanks for helping my argument and for the links you will provide to the quotes and fire temperatures.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, and use your expertise to address this issue you have tied to avoid with arguments over minutiae:

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

issue in bold.

Give us those links and address that issue.

[Blake]

I have no interest in listening to your psychotic ravings. Take your insecure ass somewhere else. How about you try and drum up a convo with Darrin or Chump. Oh yeah they haven't given a about anything youve said either.

I am going to bed.

Really?

Is that why you mentioned the NIST talking to "PM" right after I posted the article from Popular Mechanics?

...I mean NIST even talks about how it was an inward collapse. They rejected there initial hypothesis which they initially fed to PM......

When you get out of bed today maybe you will provide a model or link or source to back up what you are claiming.

Most likely not.

[RandomGuy]

Good gravy this is something even *I* don't want to get in the middle of.

The NIST got a lot of talented people to look into the mechanics of the failure, used a lot of resources, and did a good chunk of credible science on this. All of that science is available for anybody to pour over on their website.

I doubt any one person has the resources or the expertise to really go over it with a fine tooth comb and give it a fair examination as to whether they did a good job or not.

One can argue over the minutae, but the NIST very very probably got it right or at least very close as to the exact mechanics of the building collapse.

[Blake]

One can argue over the minutae, but the NIST very very probably got it right or at least very close as to the exact mechanics of the building collapse.

Actually no they didn't.

Any college senior that majors in mechanical engineering can see that.

[RandomGuy]

See this is what I mean by you and youre red herrings. I explain how the collapse of the building was dependent on the central columns being weakened and how given the fact that peoplewere able to walk through the central portion of the building which would be impossilbe at 1000 degrees. Go stick your face in a broiler and see how long you can keep it there. That is half the temp they are claing that was being radiated onto the central columns.

You say this is not the case and quote a part of the NIST FAQ without context. You claim it was only the floors and that I do not know what I am talking about and thus should go away. When I put in the context that led up to your quote which states the columns weakening led to the floors sagging. At this point you resort to smilies and insulting me. Well at thispoint its clear that you try and hide your lack of understanding physical law behind bluster and insults.

Now you are trying to toss out another red herring: whats our alternative hypothesis. Who gives a ? At the end of the day just because I have no alternative explanation does not make it such that the eyewitness testimony of those from the upper floors does not directly contradict the NIST model.

From what I am given to understand, the NIST didn't claim that the fires burned at that temperature in any one place for very long, and the peak temperatures cited were generally along the very top of the ceilings.

If one watches the time lapse photography of the temperature simulations, one can see the fires moving from place to place.

One cannot rightly conclude that just because people found places where fires weren't that the fires really weren't all that hot.

Further, the NIST model does not state that fires were everywhere within every floor. If you base your statements on the misconception that what the firefighters saw on the lower floors was prevalent on the floors that they couldn't reach, then your perception of what the NIST version contradicting the actual eyewitness testimony seems to be flawed.

Since the NIST, for its report, interviewed hundreds of survivors, I find the statement that somehow their version of events contradicts that of those same survivors to be a bit of a stretch. They said they fully took into account those statements, and said those statements seemed to support their models.

Assuming they aren't lying about that, it would seem to me that your perception of contradiction is probably based on a mistaken perception of some sort on your part.

[RandomGuy]

Actually no they didn't.

Any college senior that majors in mechanical engineering can see that.

(shrugs)

I am not one of those, so I have to assume that the hundreds of PhDs and professionals that contributed to the report probably got fairly close.

If one has an alternative theory, then one should provide that to the NIST or appropriate regulatory agency that deals with fires.

[RandomGuy]

Skeptics continue to argue burning jet fuel could not have felled the buildings

That isn't what the NIST said happened. Funny thing about those skeptics is that they probably didn't read the NIST report either.

If you are going to criticize a theory, it is best to understand what that theory says first.

[DarrinS]

It took me an hour to read this whole topic and it looks like Chump may have finally met his match!

Based on what?

[Blake]

Based on what?

based on mouse saying so

[Blake]

(shrugs)

I am not one of those, so I have to assume that the hundreds of PhDs and professionals that contributed to the report probably got fairly close.

If one has an alternative theory, then one should provide that to the NIST or appropriate regulatory agency that deals with fires.

That isn't what the NIST said happened. Funny thing about those skeptics is that they probably didn't read the NIST report either.

If you are going to criticize a theory, it is best to understand what that theory says first.

Not if you are fuzzy. If you are a mechanical engineering major still in school, you are an expert on what happened.

[ChumpDumper]

If you are going to criticize a theory, it is best to understand what that theory says first.

Amen.

Fuzzy, brimming with the hubris of youth and the know-it-all arrogance of the college student, has made assumptions that just don't make any sense in the face of the NIST theory but should be easily proved by him if they are indeed true.

First he says this:

The NIST report does not talk about fire temperature. It talks about air temperatures in layers and levels. IOW the air on entire floors was that temperature. But hey according to you its possible that these layers were everywhere to weaken the trusses and supports but somehow were kept out of the stairwells despite all the smoke and visible flames from within the stairwells as they were going thru the floors in question.

and

There are an assload of quotes all over the place of people seeing smoke and flames descending down to floor 78

In this he makes several assumptions. He assumes that:

1) All stairwells in the impact zone were passable.

2) An "assload" of people passed the impact zone on the way down.

3) An "assload" of people observed the fires in the impact zones at their most intense, minutes before the collapse of either tower.

Let's take a look at his assumptions one at a time.

[B]1) All stairwells in the impact zone were passable.[/B

Well this one is easy enough. One need only peruse the NIST report detailing the evacuation of the WTC:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-7.pdf

In WTC 1, all three stairwells and the elevators were destroyed in the impact region. No occupant evacuated from above the 91st floor.

Above the 91st floor, all three stairwells are grouped closely together inside the core. There is a picture of what the NIST believes to be the damage done to the core on page 74 of the report.

That decisively makes the case that no one from above the 91st floor in WTC 1 could have passed the impact zone and later reported on what he saw or felt in the impact zone. If fuzzy has any information contradicting that, he should feel free to post it.

As for WTC 2:

For the hundreds of occupants who remined above the skylobby when WTC 2 was hit, two of the buildings three stairwells had been destroyed by the impact. Only the staircase furthest away from the plane's impact was passable (Stairwell A), and even this stairwell was severely damaged in places.

There is a picture on page 99 that illustrates the damage they believe was done to the south tower on an impact floor. Notice how the stairwells are much spaced much farther apart than in the impact zone in the north tower.

So we have thoroughly established that only one out of six total stairwells in both WTC towers was passable. If Fuzzy has any information to dispute this, he should post it.

Let's look at the next Fuzzy assumption:

2) An "assload" of people passed the impact zone on the way down.

Well having only one passable stairwell through the impact zone really helps narrow this down. The NIST did a pretty thorough job of interviewing the evacuees and found that only 18 people from floors 78 or above at the time of impact in the south tower were able to make their way down stairwell A past the impact zone. A table of their locations is available on page 106 of the above linked report.

One of those evacuees died shortly after 9/11, so Fuzzy's definition of an assload is 17.

Which brings us to his third assumption:

3) An "assload" of people observed the fires in the impact zones at their most intense, minutes before the collapse of either tower.

Having established his assload as 17, Fuzzy now claims that those 17 people observed the fires in the south tower at their most intense from Stairwell A when they passed by.

Based on telephone interviews, the NIST figured the average speed at which evacuees in the north tower moved from floor 91 to the exit was 1.3 floors per minute. Don't ask me why this wasn't done for the south tower -- but I'm going to make my own assumption and say the times were likely similar.

So let's take a floor in the impact zone -- floor 80 -- nice round number. How long would it take a person to get to the exit from the 80th floor? Using the north tower figures, about an hour. Seeing as the south tower only stood for 56 minutes after being struck, the "assload" of people from the impact zone and above certainly had to be able to move more quickly (more than likely since the evacuation of that building had begun with the earlier hit on the north tower). Even then can Fuzzy claim that his assload of 17 people saw and reported the fires at the impact floors at their most intense when it had to take them the better part of an hour to get out of the building?

I expect Fuzzy to be able to back up all his claims. He is, after all, a mechanical engineering student and all his claims are based upon solid science.

His assload of people has been clearly defined.

What they had to see and report has been clearly defined.

When they had to see what they reported has been clearly defined.

Please respond with the sort of detail and links I have provided.

Thank you.

[Phase-T]

It took me an hour to read this whole topic and it looks like Chump may have finally met his match!

I see Chump kicking ass! I haven't seen an ass waxing like this since the Obama vs McCain election.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is lovely Chump you are trying to force NIST reports and debunker theories into the argument as if they could even apply.

1) I never said all stairwells near the top of the building were available. Your a moron to think that.

Another thing is that you obviously have no idea what the routes down were like. I'll give you a hint: there was not a single stairwell that went from the top all the way to the bottom. That is actually what caused some people to take so long they would go from hallways and lobbies to other stairwell only to reach the bottom and run into locked doors etc.

2) These were the only the people the NIST were able to get onto the telephone. NIST was not even commissioned until 2002I realize that if the debunkers or NIST do not put into simple terms that even you can understand that you do not believe it but if you were to look a bit deeper intot he media reportsx and interviews in the hours days and months following the aftermath you might actually get somewhere. I mean this is so mind numbingly stupid. Its almost as if you think that if NIST did not report it then it didn't happen.

One such report has a lady talking about the smoke entering the area around the impact zones and that she felt like she was melting. Now I am sure that it was hot but if smoke and thus the 1000 degree air were getting into the well then she literally would have been burnt to a crisp. Skin burns at 130 degrees. I have been in attics that are about that hot working on the AC and you can only stay there about ten minutes at a time or you begin to swoon. You are talking about air that was supposedly 6 times hotter than that.

3) I read this a couple of times and thought to my self, ' he really cannot be this stupid.' This is a prime example of you quoting NIST or a debunker site and hoping the proverbial sticks hit the wall the wall. Who gives a how long it took? I mean really I would love to see you try and explain this.



Really the crown jewel is when you once again copy and paste the bowing outer columns pictures from your fave debumk site and then turn around and give the same ing canned argument. The guy was ing wrong. Yes NIST gave a chronology of events that included the outer bowing of the exterior columns. I am not disputing that.

Where he got it wrong and thus you because you are too ignorant to even begin to understand how the forces wrk in the modelis that NIST in plain ing english which has been quoted for you about a dozen times by now stated that the interior columns weakening and losing their load bearing capacity was also key. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I mean really they describe the process by which it fell is an 'inward collapse' where are the exterior columns? Oh yeah that right the 'outer' part of the building. I mean really it should be intuitive to a mongoloid. For some reason you cannot just grasp the concept. Try using your own noggin rather than parroting the debunk site of your choice.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh, and use your expertise to address this issue you have tied to avoid with arguments over minutiae:issue in bold.

Give us those links and address that issue.

The inner columns losing their load bearing capacity would do the same thing. ITs called when columns lost their ability to carry the load, the hypotenuse of the length the trusses had to cover would become greater and greater thus increasing the load on the outer columns and pulling them inward.

I do nt need a link to show that it should be self evident.

Oh and NIST doesnt even claim that the fires on the outer columns did that. They explain it as the metal in the trusses expanding and the inner columns losing their ability to carry loads. You are too ignorant to understand that anyway.

[ChumpDumper]

This is lovely Chump you are trying to force NIST reports and debunker theories into the argument as if they could even apply.

1) I never said all stairwells near the top of the building were available. Your a moron to think that.

Another thing is that you obviously have no idea what the routes down were like. I'll give you a hint: there was not a single stairwell that went from the top all the way to the bottom. That is actually what caused some people to take so long they would go from hallways and lobbies to other stairwell only to reach the bottom and run into locked doors etc.

Incorrect. The stairwells followed a continuous route from the top or within a few floors of the top floor of the buildings to at least the mezzanine level or several floors underground.

I already stated that the stairwells were grouped more closely together on floors where they were not being routed around mechanical floors or skylobbies.

Like so:



This proves you didn't even bother to read my post.

Thanks for showing your ignorance once again.

2) These were the only the people the NIST were able to get onto the telephone. NIST was not even commissioned until 2002I realize that if the debunkers or NIST do not put into simple terms that even you can understand that you do not believe it but if you were to look a bit deeper intot he media reportsx and interviews in the hours days and months following the aftermath you might actually get somewhere. I mean this is so mind numbingly stupid. Its almost as if you think that if NIST did not report it then it didn't happen.

I asked you for the quotes and the links to them. What is mind numbingly stupid is that you refuse to do so.

One such report has a lady talking about the smoke entering the area around the impact zones and that she felt like she was melting. Now I am sure that it was hot but if smoke and thus the 1000 degree air were getting into the well then she literally would have been burnt to a crisp. Skin burns at 130 degrees. I have been in attics that are about that hot working on the AC and you can only stay there about ten minutes at a time or you begin to swoon. You are talking about air that was supposedly 6 times hotter than that.

That is neither a quote nor a link. This is your making up with zero context.

3) I read this a couple of times and thought to my self, ' he really cannot be this stupid.' This is a prime example of you quoting NIST or a debunker site and hoping the proverbial sticks hit the wall the wall. Who gives a how long it took? I mean really I would love to see you try and explain this.

So you are saying you have no such quotes and no links to back up anything you have ever said here.

No problem.

Really the crown jewel is when you once again copy and paste the bowing outer columns pictures from your fave debumk site and then turn around and give the same ing canned argument. The guy was ing wrong. Yes NIST gave a chronology of events that included the outer bowing of the exterior columns. I am not disputing that.

So what are you disputing?

Where he got it wrong and thus you because you are too ignorant to even begin to understand how the forces wrk in the modelis that NIST in plain ing english which has been quoted for you about a dozen times by now
that the interior columns weakening and losing their load bearing capacity was also key. The two are not mutually exclusive.

You are still stuck on that?

You're a complete idiot.

I readily agreed to the weakening of the core columns because it only strengthens any argument I have. Since we both agree on that, why do keep pretending we don't?

I mean really they describe the process by which it fell is an 'inward collapse' where are the exterior columns? Oh yeah that right the 'outer' part of the building. I mean really it should be intuitive to a mongoloid. For some reason you cannot just grasp the concept. Try using your own noggin rather than parroting the debunk site of your choice.

We cannot help but notice you have not provided any specific challenge to any of the points I made above.

One can only conclude you have none.

Please get back to us when you can specifically challenge any points made above.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From what I am given to understand, the NIST didn't claim that the fires burned at that temperature in any one place for very long, and the peak temperatures cited were generally along the very top of the ceilings.

If one watches the time lapse photography of the temperature simulations, one can see the fires moving from place to place.

One cannot rightly conclude that just because people found places where fires weren't that the fires really weren't all that hot.

Further, the NIST model does not state that fires were everywhere within every floor. If you base your statements on the misconception that what the firefighters saw on the lower floors was prevalent on the floors that they couldn't reach, then your perception of what the NIST version contradicting the actual eyewitness testimony seems to be flawed.

Since the NIST, for its report, interviewed hundreds of survivors, I find the statement that somehow their version of events contradicts that of those same survivors to be a bit of a stretch. They said they fully took into account those statements, and said those statements seemed to support their models.

Assuming they aren't lying about that, it would seem to me that your perception of contradiction is probably based on a mistaken perception of some sort on your part.

Good post.

I know that NIST doesn't say the fires directly caused the weakening of the steel. Instead they say the fires heated gas to 1000 degrees which was the heat transfer device. The problem with hot air is that is diffuses easily and rapidly and moves to displace cold air masses.

And do not get me wrong. I many pages ago stated that I do not believe that NIST was operating in bad faith. Darrin pointed out to me a long time ago that NIST worked jointly with the American Society of Structural Engineers and the AS or Civil Engineers. I know they have the expertise.

What I stated before is that I firmly believe they ran out of time and were forced to present a final report. They were under an intense amount of political pressure because the 9/11 commission went off like a fart in church a year before and after all it had been 6 years since they were commissioned with the project.

One thing that I wish they would have looked at a bit deeper was the poor state of maintence the building was in. One man described it as a maintenece nightmare. Yearly autumnal windstorms would dislodge fireproofing and weaken supports and wouldn't be repaired. The building was under a different code than the NY Municipal building code and thus was not subject to the same oversight etc.

NIST claims that the plane impacts dislodged fireproofing but I have read several reports that much much more had been dislodged from deterioration.

After all as the bridge collapse in Wisconsin a year or more ago showed the state of repair of the general infrastructure in this country is .

I do not buy the controlled demolition argument for one bit. There were over 10000 people that worked in the buildings that fell and not a single person has come forward to indicate su ious activity of work crews etc that would have placed 1000s of charges to pull something like that off. You would think that Chump or one of the other debunk suckers would have thought of that. Its pretty intuitive.

[ChumpDumper]

I do not buy the controlled demolition argument for one bit. There were over 10000 people that worked in the buildings that fell and not a single person has come forward to indicate su ious activity of work crews etc that would have placed 1000s of charges to pull something like that off. You would think that Chump or one of the other debunk suckers would have thought of that. Its pretty intuitive.

Of course we have. It's in pretty much every thread related to 9/11.

Of course, that begs the question -- what do you think really happened on 9/11?