9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

For starters, debunking911.com doesn't realize that celsius and fahrenheit are not the same thing.

So he does. Why aren't Americans on the damn metric system?

Good question .

Originally Posted by scott3x

Secondly, you will note that they only mention "typical unprotected beams". My theory is that the WTC buildings were not typical buildings. I've even heard that there is some dispute as to how much of the steel was uninsulated, but in this case, the testing done was on uninsulated steel so it's not a factor. The most important point here, ofcourse, is that the same company that allegedly says (he doesn't provide a link)

is the one that, in the particular case of the WTC buildings, says

That number is not in reference to WTC. What was the atmosphere temperature?

It's in reference to "uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires". The official story contends that uninsulated steel structures are the ones that got heated to 1800ºF, and yet Corus Construction Co. found in tests that the highest recorded steel temperatures for such steel structures was only 680ºF. As to the atmosphere, I don't know, since I haven't seen Corus Construction actually saying the above.

Let's look at some other tests I found with a quick search. These are from a conspiracy site so they are possibly going to be the least significant results.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm

There are a couple of tests there where the atmosphere temperature is around 1000C and the steel temperature is over 900C.

I believe you have confused 2 different elements in the link you quoted. For starters, it states:
***Traditional prescriptive methods of design based on fire resistance testing, require steel elements of construction to stay below a critical temperature, typically 550°C, for the fire resistance period of the structure. ***

It then goes on to cite an actual building fire:
***On the 23rd June 1990 a fire developed in the partly completed fourteen storey building in the Broadgate development. [115] The fire began in a large contractors hut on the first floor and smoke spread undetected throughout the building. The fire detection and sprinkler system were not yet operational out of working hours.

The fire lasted 4.5 hours including 2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000°C.***

In this part, it makes absolutely no mention of the temperature of the steel.

Later down, it speaks of a "British Steel Test 1" (I believe this is from Corus, which we were speaking of earlier):

***Test 1 illustrated in Figure 4.1 was carried out on the 7th floor of the 8-storey frame and involved a single 305 x 165mm beam and the surrounding concrete floor spanning 9m between a pair of 254 x 254mm columns. The beam was surrounded by a gas fired furnace but the columns and connections were left outside. The furnace was 8m long x 3m wide x 2m high; insulated with mineral wool and ceramic fibre. During the test the beam was heated at between 3-10°C/min until temperatures of 800-900°C were achieved.***

Note that in this test, absolutely no mention is made of the furnace's temperature and the furnace was both small and insulted, making it impossible for the steel to transfer the heat elsewhere.

The point is that a fire that reaches 1000C can heat steel above 590C point where it reaches approx 50% strength. According to NIST it is at less than 10% around 982C.

I don't know about 982C, but at 900C, the test building in the British Steel test certainly didn't collapse. Take a look at figure 4.2 in the link you cited:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm

Don't forget you posted a link to an overpass that collapsed simply from the fire caused by a gas tanker crashing. To say that the steel couldn't get hot enough to weaken and bend is false.

The thing is, an overpass isn't a steel frame building. Steel can certainly weaken and bend, but as you can see from the test above, at 900C at the very least, a steel framed building shouldn't collapse.

Anyway, I kept reading the link you provided and found out the type of atmospheric temperatures involved in a test of unprotected steel:
***4.3.3.1.2 British Steel Test 2: Plane frame.

The second test involved heating a series of beams and columns across the full 21m width of the building on the fourth floor using a gas furnace. A furnace 21m long x 3m wide x 4m high was constructed using 190mm lightweight concrete blockwork. It was lined with 50mm thick ceramic fibre blanket to reduce heat losses.37� 128,197 Natural gas was supplied to eight industrial burners installed along one side of the furnace. Maximum atmosphere temperatures of 7500 C were achieved. The primary and secondary beams were unprotected. The top

800mm of the columns including the connections were also unprotected. The supporting columns were squashed by 180mm (pictured in Figure 4.4) at unprotected column temperatures of 670°C.197 As a direct result of this squashing all further tests had protected columns to the underside of the slab. ***

7500°C. And the steel? 670°C. I rest my case.

 

[scott3x]

KennyJC wrote:

and others to make all the floors collapse. Remember that, beside the fireproof 'upgrade', there were also strange emergency drills for weeks before 9/11; plenty of time during this to plant more explosives and perhaps devices to explode the building from afar.

Very impressive. These imaginary men managed to rig 267 floors of busy office space to collapse within the window of some brief security checks.

There is nothing imaginary about the security company that provided electronic security for the World Trade Center and Washington's Dulles Airport prior to September 11. And they had a fair amount of time to set things up:
**************************************************************
1:04:55 Who was a director in the company that provided electronic security for the World Trade Center and Washington’s Dulles Airport – both involved in September 11th? None other than the president’s younger brother.

Text: Marvin P. Bush, Principal, Securacom/Stratesec 1993-2000

1:05:11 From 1996 to 2000, Securacom installed what was referred to as “a new security system” at the World Trade Center.
Text: Securacom $8.3 million contract, 1996-2000, new WTC “security system”

1:05:22 Wirt D. Walker III, a cousin of the Bush brothers, was CEO of Securacom from 1999 until 2002. Interestingly, these facts have not been made public. Was it only a security system that was added during those years ... or was it also the wiring for a long-awaited plan?
**************************************************************
http://www.911weknow.com/images/stories/documents/narratorscript_final.pdf

KennyJC wrote:

...how much of the 267 floors did they cover?

I think only the people who did it would know. Again, from the 911 mysteries transcript:
**************************************************************
1:05:44 Scott Forbes, an IT specialist in a firm that had leased space in the South Tower since its erection, reported an unprecedented “power down” in his building for almost the whole weekend prior to 9/11. Scott Forbes: “We were notified three weeks in advance of the power down by the Port Authority. That was relatively short notice to plan to shut down all of our banking systems. It was a big deal. It was unprecedented. We had a data center on the 97th floor, so our originating servers were all there. During that weekend, the power down meant there was no security. The doors were all open, basically. And also, the security video cameras were all off. But, there were guys in overalls carrying huge toolboxes and reels of cable ... walking around the building on that weekend.”

1:06:35 Employees were notified that Internet cables were being upgraded. But who were the strange workmen and what were they really doing?
**************************************************************

 

[KennyJC]

NIST misrepresents the physics of fires. 911research.wtc7.net points out their flaw:
***Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF ... Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100ºF ... And at 1800º it is probably at less than 10 percent. Here the article implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF.***

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

You've tried to 'debunk' this, but failed to do so:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2024162&postcount=973

shaman then gives it a go, and I now realize that I haven't responded to him. I will do so in my next post.

I was under the impression that steel had poor heat conductivity and thus the heat would have more or less been held in place of the fires. Much like a blacksmith who can hold a steel rod with one hand whilst burning the other end until it is red hot.

And since you are for some reason skeptical about the heat steel can reach in fires, I suggest you look at this website:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...trucfire/DataBase/TestData/BRETest/page47.htm

Take a look at the test data for "Primary beam , grid line E , location B14"

It reaches 600 C in just 17 minutes and 1000 C in 40 minutes.

Who is misrepresenting the "physics of fires" again?

 

[scott3x]

I was under the impression that steel had poor heat conductivity and thus the heat would have more or less been held in place of the fires.

While it's not a star heat conductor like copper or silver, it's still a metal and metals tend to conduct heat fairly well. Here's a chart on the conductivity of various materials:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html

Much like a blacksmith who can hold a steel rod with one hand whilst burning the other end until it is red hot.

Yes, but first you have to get the one side red hot...

And since you are for some reason skeptical about the heat steel can reach in fires, I suggest you look at this website:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...trucfire/DataBase/TestData/BRETest/page47.htm

Take a look at the test data for "Primary beam , grid line E , location B14"

It reaches 600 C in just 17 minutes and 1000 C in 40 minutes.

In a furnace I'm guessing. According to NIST, The WTC fires were supposedly uncontrolled fires. Fires of that type shouldn't be able to get much beyond 1200F, which is a little less then 650C.

Who is misrepresenting the "physics of fires" again?

NIST, without a doubt .

 

[KennyJC]

In a furnace I'm guessing.

Go back to the website I directed you to and look at the heading:

TEST 4 : OFFICE FIRE TEMPERATURE DATA

Not a furnace.

NIST, without a doubt .

I think I have just proven otherwise.

 

[scott3x]

Go back to the website I directed you to and look at the heading:

TEST 4 : OFFICE FIRE TEMPERATURE DATA

Not a furnace.

Anyone can call something an 'office fire', but I'd like to see what they're using for combustibles, the size of the space, and whether heat was allowed to escape as it was in the WTC buildings (instead of a furnace like setting, which is insulated in order to prevent this). Also, it makes no mention of the fire temperature, only of the metal temperature.

 

[KennyJC]

Anyone can call something an 'office fire', but I'd like to see what they're using for combustibles, the size of the space, and whether heat was allowed to escape as it was in the WTC buildings (instead of a furnace like setting, which is insulated in order to prevent this). Also, it makes no mention of the fire temperature, only of the metal temperature.

I think this should satisfy all of your questions:

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...BRETest/BehaviourMultiStoreySteelBuilding.pdf

The initial link I gave you already answered questions about the atmospheric temperature. It reached as high as 1072 (at least on the beam I was focused on), and you can see that the temperature of the steel was never far behind the atmospheric temperature. In some cases the steel was hotter than the atmospheric temperature as it retained the heat as the fires around it reduced.

 

[GeoffP]

No, it's not. You seem to cut out the part where I substantiate, so once more for those who didn't see it and I'll add a few more links too (in truth, just a fuller copy of the post I'm quoting from):
***
***have you considered nano alumino-thermic explosives technology manufactured as "frozen smoke"?

I have not. Why would this be necessary in any event?

Aerogels/frozen-smoke is an amazing insulator too, excellent for fireproofing.

But you misunderstand: the Lizardoid cabal responsible had no actual interest in real insulation.

Try 1999/2000:
***Two blueprints for the 1999, 2000 construction upgrades to WTC 2, provided by a supporter, indicated that the work was done at almost exactly the point of impact and failure in that tower. That is, the southeast quadrant of WTC 2 was the focus of the work, at least on the 78th floor (the blueprints provided were for floors 77 and 78 only). It was the southeast quadrant of WTC 2, at and just above floor 78, where flight 175 hit.***

Two problems:

1) I've never seen these blueprints, and so I can't go on the word of the likes of Dylan Avery, who believes in Pentagon missiles. Habeus corpus.

2) Assuming - a broad, generous assumption - is it not an even simpler explanation that the repair work was simply faulty?

We've answered it many times. Nanothermite is not thermite.

Another thing about the Troofer hypotheses - why would the Lizardoid cabal want any explosions at all? I'm sure it's very impressive that the sound travels at Mach 3, but why would they want any explosions? Surely one could simply cut the beams using regular thermite? And why didn't the thermite go off when the explosion hit? And why did it then go off at all the different points that you say it did, up and down the tower?

 

[GeoffP]

Yeah, hah hah. I have a feeling you may never go to either link I posted. So I decided to excerpt a little piece:
***Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted (or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether).

Why? You further make the assumption "those committing the crimes": who? The 19 Saudi hijackers?

This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites

A vast, vast assumption. Why are these compounds the "most probable"? Because they seem to survive the challenge of the official story best? Does steel melt from gasoline fire?

 

[GeoffP]

fireproofing work carried out in the towers seemed to match the exact floors where the planes impacted

I've just realized why this is so fishy (I got it the first time but didn't see the importance): your initial claim was that the explosions were heard all up and down the Towers - yet your claim (or someone's claim, if we even assume that to be true) is that the work was done only at the impact site. So which is it: there were explosions all up and down the Towers, including the basement, or that the collapse was controlled right at the impact site? Are you planning to switch your hypothesis again?

 

[GeoffP]

The question is, did it remain unignited?

Apparently, yes. For quite some time.

The question is: are you going to be impartial about any of this, or keep citing the meanderings of part-time pizza delivers from offsite as though they were the words of Bhudda? You are attempting to create some kind of mystique about your sources, as if they weren't biased to begin with. It's intellectually dishonest, and I resent it. Either you argue fairly, under your own merits, or you don't bother. Period.

 

[GeoffP]

Yeah, hah hah. I have a feeling you may never go to either link I posted.

Say, did you ever look at my links on steel melting from gasoline fires, or did you decide you didn't like those? What's your comment on that?

 

[GeoffP]

To "create the appearance of a fire-induced collapse"

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2032182&postcount=1078

Another problem: you're avoiding Mac's question. Mac is saying that the size of the reaction is the same. So how are you going to hide that? On the one hand you praise the sonic boom because you think it fits your hypothesis about the explosions, but in the other you're telling us that the Lizardoid cabal wanted it to look like a fire.

 

[GeoffP]

The author of the aforementioned blog also feels that it may account for the molten metal pouring from WTC2:
***We have also seen video of molten metal pouring from WTC 2 prior to its destruction. The relationship between fireproofing upgrades and the pouring metal is close but not exact, as the molten metal seen in videos appears to be coming from floors 80 and 81. Communication to the NIST team from Frank Lombardi of the Port Authority, in 2002, indicated that only floor 78 of the impact failure floors of WTC 2 had been upgraded. But NCSTAR 1-6A (table 4-2, p 45) lists floor 85 as an upgraded floor as well. Could it be that certain areas within floors 79 to 84 were upgraded also, and not reported because the floors were not fully upgraded?***

Then the author of the forementioned blog is a dunce. Could it not be that he is wrong? I've never seen anyone invalidate their own theory, and then perform such an extreme case of "special pleading" in my life.

***Well, the floors upgraded don't include 80 and 81...but couldn't they? Please? It would work with my theory much better! ***

 

[GeoffP]

No one said a fire from a gas tanker couldn't weaken metal. Melting it is another matter.

The piles could easily have managed that. I really don't think you've thought this through.

You're right; it could have been done by normal demolition as well, but then it would have been obvious that what brought the buildings down was demolition not the planes.

Then why not simply pack the explosives on the plane? You're arguing a vastly more intricate, complicated and widespread conspiracy than would possibly be needed to accomplish the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

"Yeah, well, I guess they can only make you believe what you want to believe". If you don't want to believe that government experts are lying, it'll be very hard to persuade you otherwise.

And the same goes for the Troof movement.

NIST misrepresents the physics of fires. 911research.wtc7.net points out their flaw:

***Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF ... Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100ºF ... And at 1800º it is probably at less than 10 percent. Here the article implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF.***

And thus, we are done. Check their figures (which are highly conservative, I might add):

Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100ºF

Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF

And, done. Jet fuel - to say nothing of the actual temperature readings taken just at the outside of the building, where air change could cool the heated structure and generate conservative estimates of temperature - is handily capable of producing sufficient heat to reduce the steel's load-bearing capacity - without mentioning the fact that it had just been hit by an airplane - by 50%.

Done. :shrug: What else is there to say?

Sigh. All my frustration is out. I feel so much better.

 

[Miragememories]

There's really nothing in Geoff's posts worth responding to.

So many unsupported comments.

A reliance on ridicule.

Opinions that are not explained or supported.

It's all lines from what could be a speech, and he's
selling the Official Theory.

You can't have a useful discussion if all you want to do is
perform for an imagined fan audience.

MM

 

[MacGyver1968]

It's not an imagined audience...it's quite real. What is imagined is your FAR fetched theories, that aren't even your own. You just parrot some other woo woo from another site.

What you don't understand is folks like Geoff and me are here to have fun at your expense. We will never convince you on a single point....but it is fun just to see how outrageous you can make the conspiracy just to fit a certain view point.

So by all means..woo woo away, so I can be entertained further.

 

[shaman_]

Good question .
It's in reference to "uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires". The official story contends that uninsulated steel structures are the ones that got heated to 1800ºF, and yet Corus Construction Co. found in tests that the highest recorded steel temperatures for such steel structures was only 680ºF. As to the atmosphere, I don't know, since I haven't seen Corus Construction actually saying the above.

That's the problem. That figure is meaningless as we don’t how high the atmosphere temperature was.

I believe you have confused 2 different elements in the link you quoted. For starters, it states:
***Traditional prescriptive methods of design based on fire resistance testing, require steel elements of construction to stay below a critical temperature, typically 550°C, for the fire resistance period of the structure. ***

It then goes on to cite an actual building fire:
***On the 23rd June 1990 a fire developed in the partly completed fourteen storey building in the Broadgate development. [115] The fire began in a large contractors hut on the first floor and smoke spread undetected throughout the building. The fire detection and sprinkler system were not yet operational out of working hours.

The fire lasted 4.5 hours including 2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000°C.***

In this part, it makes absolutely no mention of the temperature of the steel.

I was not referring to that part.

Later down, it speaks of a "British Steel Test 1" (I believe this is from Corus, which we were speaking of earlier):

***Test 1 illustrated in Figure 4.1 was carried out on the 7th floor of the 8-storey frame and involved a single 305 x 165mm beam and the surrounding concrete floor spanning 9m between a pair of 254 x 254mm columns. The beam was surrounded by a gas fired furnace but the columns and connections were left outside. The furnace was 8m long x 3m wide x 2m high; insulated with mineral wool and ceramic fibre. During the test the beam was heated at between 3-10°C/min until temperatures of 800-900°C were achieved.***

Note that in this test, absolutely no mention is made of the furnace's temperature and the furnace was both small and insulted, making it impossible for the steel to transfer the heat elsewhere.


I don't know about 982C, but at 900C, the test building in the British Steel test certainly didn't collapse. Take a look at figure 4.2 in the link you cited:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm

No we are not testing for building collapse here as there are too many differences. The point is that the temperature of the steel is not far behind that of the surrounding atmosphere.

The thing is, an overpass isn't a steel frame building.

The supports were made of steel. The principle is the same. Just because bridge is spelt differently to building doesn’t mean you can discard the example.

Steel can certainly weaken and bend, but as you can see from the test above, at 900C at the very least, a steel framed building shouldn't collapse.

Yet the steel supports on the Madrid tower did collapse. There are other precedents as well. This is the only one I can find at the moment as I’m at work but there are others.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm

If you agree that the steel can weaken why can’t you accept that the building could collapse? You do realise that the steel is there to keep the building up? Would you confidently enter a building supported by soft steel?

Anyway, I kept reading the link you provided and found out the type of atmospheric temperatures involved in a test of unprotected steel:
***4.3.3.1.2 British Steel Test 2: Plane frame.

The second test involved heating a series of beams and columns across the full 21m width of the building on the fourth floor using a gas furnace. A furnace 21m long x 3m wide x 4m high was constructed using 190mm lightweight concrete blockwork. It was lined with 50mm thick ceramic fibre blanket to reduce heat losses.37� 128,197 Natural gas was supplied to eight industrial burners installed along one side of the furnace. Maximum atmosphere temperatures of 7500 C were achieved. The primary and secondary beams were unprotected. The top

800mm of the columns including the connections were also unprotected. The supporting columns were squashed by 180mm (pictured in Figure 4.4) at unprotected column temperatures of 670°C.197 As a direct result of this squashing all further tests had protected columns to the underside of the slab. ***

7500°C. And the steel? 670°C. I rest my case.

lol, I think you will find that is meant to be 750C. Look at the graphs for the british steel tests. They are all around that range. 7500 is hotter than the surface of the sun.

But you have done a bit of selective quoting again. Let me summarize.

Atmosphere temperature and then steel temperature.
1000°C, 650°C
1000°C, 935°C
1051°C, 903°C
763°C, 691°C
1228°C, 632°C - "The steel beams and slab were shielded by the ceiling resulting in relatively low steel temperatures"

The point here is that even with these various tests of different arrangements and shielding there are examples of the steel being only marginally behind the atmosphere temperature.

Once you go past 800C the steel is down to approx 20% of the strength it should be. It doesn’t hold buildings up so well then. This isn’t really a big mystery.

 

[GeoffP]

There's really nothing in Geoff's posts worth responding to.

So many unsupported comments.

A reliance on ridicule.

Opinions that are not explained or supported.

It's all lines from what could be a speech, and he's
selling the Official Theory.

You can't have a useful discussion if all you want to do is
perform for an imagined fan audience.

MM

Since nothing you said either a) made sense or b) was true, I used my Secret Lizardoid Decoder to translate your post. This is what came out.

I am scared to comment.

He makes sense, and I'm just not into that, thanks.

MM

 

[MacGyver1968]

(Imagined fan audience claps)