Discussion: How did the WTC buildings collapse?

[shaman_]

You had to admit that the results of the NIST microstructure tests, on the little steel they did get, did not show that the steel experience high temperatures. In fact, in 98% of the areas they tested it did not even get hot enough to lose any strength at all.

Which is completely understandable considering where the samples came from!

Now for the next part of this odyssey. Please ask yourself the questions below.

What legitimate investigation would not have looked at the steel from the areas where the collapses initiated?

They did look at the steel from those areas. I have shown you Astaneh commenting on steel which he believed was softened by the extreme heat. He estimated that the steel had to be approximately 2000F to produce what he saw. You have posted a quote of his where he was discussing the same subject. The investigation teams believed that they had plenty of evidence of high temperatures.

This is a the contradictory nature of the many claims (Not necessarily addressing you Tony). Truthers repeatedly point to evidence of high temperatures when they think it confirms an incendiary while at the same time claim the evidence points to no high temperatures.

The mere fact that it wasn't kept for the NIST to analyze says volumes. Anyone with a clear mind can see there was manipulation of the steel evidence if they DID NOT analyze the steel from the collapse initiation areas.

Why didn't the NIST get that steel Shaman? Why?

They were able to identify where every single piece came from so they probably chose pieces in the best possible condition. Those would be the pieces unaffected by the fire.

As I have conceded several times now it is disappointing that these were the pieces that received the metallurgical microanalysis. If you want to make a point of the biased or flawed selection then that is fine. But you don't do that. You present that 229 pieces were analyzed with none showing temperatures over 600C knowing full well that very few were from the area actually expected to experience high temperatures. That is what I take issue with.

If it were implausible for fires to get hot enough to weaken steel to the point of such a collapse then perhaps I would be more suspicious of these results. However it is completely reasonable that the steel reached those temperatures and is entirely consistent with previous examples of building fires, several fire tests, observed bowing(testimony not the photographs), computer simulations, reports from the scrapyards ect ect.

I have explained to you several times that deformation is not a complete indication of the temperature experienced by the steel.

I have been skeptical of your claims as they are in direct contradiction to those of Astaneh, who has experience investigating buildings affected by fires, natural disaster and terrorist attacks. I'm at work and I won’t challenge you on it at this stage.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Shaman, the notion and other evidence that incendiaries were used to initiate the collapses is not inconsistent with the fact that none of the steel that the NIST tested had experienced high temperatures. This would be precisely why NONE of the fire affected area steel was saved for the REAL testing. Astaneh did no testing at the landfill and he really couldn't tell what temperatures were experienced other than if there was melting or not. As I have shown you, deformation is NOT an indication of temperatures experienced.

Some people may not articulate the above argument very well but that does not diminish it. When it is presented cogently it makes perfect sense.

The fact that the steel from the fire affected and collapse initiation areas was not saved would appear to be a lot more than biased selection, especially in light of the fact that orange yellow flourescing molten metal was seen emanating from the collapse zone of WTC 2. It would be like a four story apartment house having a serious fire that started on the first floor, where witnesses also saw flashes emanating from, and the initial investigators only saving the evidence from the fourth floor. This kind of thing just does not happen by accident, especially not on all three buildings, as it violates standard investigatory protocol, and there were a lot of expert type people saying there was a need to save the steel to determine the actual causes of the collapses. Let's not forget that NONE of the steel from WTC 7 was saved. That certainly can't be called biased or flawed selection.

It is blatantly obvious that the steel from the fire affected and collapse initiation areas was deliberately recycled and not saved for analysis and testing due to it's bearing evidence of something other than fire heating. If you don't understand this it only means you don't want to, as it is clear as day.

 

[fedr808]

Scott can you please stop referancing the fact that the steel was not vaporized or whatever? I mean seriously, considering the amount of rubble you could never positively prove which steel bars came from what parts of the building. And maybe, just maybe, the pieces of steel that were vaporized, are vaporized and no longer in identifiable existance, and the ones that you show us pictures of that are un vaporized, just werent in the right part of the building.

 

[scott3x]

Scott can you please stop referancing the fact that the steel was not vaporized or whatever? I mean seriously, considering the amount of rubble you could never positively prove which steel bars came from what parts of the building. And maybe, just maybe, the pieces of steel that were vaporized, are vaporized and no longer in identifiable existance, and the ones that you show us pictures of that are un vaporized, just werent in the right part of the building.

The office fires couldn't have even melted the steel, let alone vaporize it; this is why I keep bringing it up. This means that something else had to have done it; the most likely explanation is explosives.

There are ways of determining where different pieces of steel came from; NIST definitely knows this.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The office fires couldn't have even melted the steel, let alone vaporize it; this is why I keep bringing it up. This means that something else had to have done it; the most likely explanation is explosives.

Or incendiaries which reach temperatures beyond the boiling point of steel.

There are ways of determining where different pieces of steel came from; NIST definitely knows this.

Many of the structural elements in the twin towers had their locations directly embossed on them. The sizes of the columns and wall thicknesses in any given location were also known. These sizes changed as the towers ascended and on any given floor most of the columns are different. In an investigative sense these buildings could have been put back together like what is often done with an aircraft wreck. I don't mean to say they could have been placed on top of one another again but the structural elements which went together could have been laid out in a field and examined for cause and effect etc.

 

[scott3x]

The office fires couldn't have even melted the steel, let alone vaporize it; this is why I keep bringing it up. This means that something else had to have done it; the most likely explanation is explosives.

Or incendiaries which reach temperatures beyond the boiling point of steel.

Nods. However, are you saying that explosives weren't needed to bring down the towers, only incendiaries? From what I've heard from John Gross, thermite was used to start things off (thus the famous molten metal coming out from one side of one of the twin towers), but after that, explosives were used on every third floor.

There are ways of determining where different pieces of steel came from; NIST definitely knows this.

Many of the structural elements in the twin towers had their locations directly embossed on them.

I thought that was the case, but wasn't sure .

The sizes of the columns and wall thicknesses in any given location were also known.

Isn't this the type of thing that psikeyhackr is always asking for? I mean, couldn't you ascertain the distribution of mass with that information?

These sizes changed as the towers ascended and on any given floor most of the columns are different. In an investigative sense these buildings could have been put back together like what is often done with an aircraft wreck. I don't mean to say they could have been placed on top of one another again but the structural elements which went together could have been laid out in a field and examined for cause and effect etc.

Yeah, that sounds similar to what Jonathan Barnett said was usually done in investigations of this nature and what was clearly -not- done with WTC 7, which is what he investigated.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Nods. However, are you saying that explosives weren't needed to bring down the towers, only incendiaries? From what I've heard from John Gross, thermite was used to start things off (thus the famous molten metal coming out from one side of one of the twin towers), but after that, explosives were used on every third floor.

I believe incendiaries were used to start it off to keep noise levels down and so it would seem like fire did it. I do think explosives would then have been used for reliability once the collapse was underway with it's inherent noise masking the noise from the explosives. This explains the focused ejections. Tamping may have been used for noise abatement also.

Isn't this the type of thing that psikeyhackr is always asking for? I mean, couldn't you ascertain the distribution of mass with that information?

All of the sizes and locations would have been known to the NIST people, not the public at the time. There has been a certain amount of information released on the core column sizes and concrete distribution by the NIST.

I think psikeyhackr has a beef to a degree, as the actual construction drawings have not been made public. However, we did get the core column data and since the contracts for the steel were in the NIST report we can estimate the perimeter column wall thickness'. From the Engineering News Record articles we also have an idea of what strength steel was used where on the perimeter. We also know what the thickness, area, and density of the concrete was on each floor from the NIST report. With this information we can do some reasonable estimates.

 

[scott3x]

Nods. However, are you saying that explosives weren't needed to bring down the towers, only incendiaries? From what I've heard from John Gross, thermite was used to start things off (thus the famous molten metal coming out from one side of one of the twin towers), but after that, explosives were used on every third floor.

I believe incendiaries were used to start it off to keep noise levels down and so it would seem like fire did it. I do think explosives would then have been used for reliability once the collapse was underway with it's inherent noise masking the noise from the explosives. This explains the focused ejections. Tamping may have been used for noise abatement also.

Cool . These types of issues have gone on for -so- long in sciforums, laugh .

Isn't this the type of thing that psikeyhackr is always asking for? I mean, couldn't you ascertain the distribution of mass with that information?

All of the sizes and locations would have been known to the NIST people, not the public at the time. There has been a certain amount of information released on the core column sizes and concrete distribution by the NIST.

I think psikeyhackr has a beef to a degree, as the actual construction drawings have not been made public. However, we did get the core column data and since the contracts for the steel were in the NIST report we can estimate the perimeter column wall thickness'. From the Engineering News Record articles we also have an idea of what strength steel was used where on the perimeter. We also know what the thickness, area, and density of the concrete was on each floor from the NIST report. With this information we can do some reasonable estimates.

Cool. I guess the reason no one has done so is that even without estimates of this nature, it's clear that the towers couldn't have come down without the help of incendiaries and explosives. What do you think?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Cool . These types of issues have gone on for -so- long in sciforums, laugh .




Cool. I guess the reason no one has done so is that even without estimates of this nature, it's clear that the towers couldn't have come down without the help of incendiaries and explosives. What do you think?

I guess I don't understand what you are saying here, as there has been several estimates on conservation of momentum done. In the Missing Jolt paper we used energy of deformation and conservation of momentum to show what the velocity reduction would have had to be to continue a collapse past the first collision between floors, if it were a natural process. The fact that this velocity reduction is not observed proves it wasn't a natural process.

The science has to be done to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and the information we have, is sufficient to do that.

 

[scott3x]

Cool. I guess the reason no one has done so is that even without estimates of this nature, it's clear that the towers couldn't have come down without the help of incendiaries and explosives. What do you think?

I guess I don't understand what you are saying here, as there has been several estimates on conservation of momentum done. In the Missing Jolt paper we used energy of deformation and conservation of momentum to show what the velocity reduction would have had to be to continue a collapse past the first collision between floors, if it were a natural process. The fact that this velocity reduction is not observed proves it wasn't a natural process.

The science has to be done to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and the information we have, is sufficient to do that.

Ok. I just meant that knowing the distribution of mass isn't necessary to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and few if anyone besides psikeyhackr thinks it's all that important. Is this right?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Ok. I just meant that knowing the distribution of mass isn't necessary to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and few if anyone besides psikeyhackr thinks it's all that important. Is this right?

You are sort of mixing apples and oranges here.

It is important and we do have a reasonable estimate of the distribution of mass with Gregory Urich's mass analysis study, and have used it.

psikeyhackr is somewhat rightfully complaining about full transparency and divulgence of all information so that exacting figures can be used. I know his argument annoys some people, but it is true that it seems like there has been an attempt to minimize the publicly available information. With that being said, we do have enough information, cobbled together from various sources, including the NIST report, to do the work.

 

[scott3x]

Ok. I just meant that knowing the distribution of mass isn't necessary to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and few if anyone besides psikeyhackr thinks it's all that important. Is this right?

You are sort of mixing apples and oranges here.

It is important and we do have a reasonable estimate of the distribution of mass and have used it.

psikeyhackr is somewhat rightfully complaining about full transparency and divulgence of all information so that exacting figures can be used. I know his argument annoys some people, but it is true that there has been an attempt to minimize the publicly available information. Having said that, we do have enough information to do the work.

Ok, thanks for explaining that