WTC Collapses

[scott3x]

There were only 2 isolated pockets of fire. They should have been able to knock it down with 2 lines.

the "knowledgable" scott strikes again.

even you scott cannot possibly believe what you posted.

Why wouldn't I? I'm simply paraphrasing what a firefighter who was actually there said.

and no, you didn't know about the butt joints in the core columns.

Yes, yes, me not knowing about butt joints proves I know nothing about the WTC buildings

 

[MacGyver1968]

the "knowledgable" scott strikes again.

even you scott cannot possibly believe what you posted.

and no, you didn't know about the butt joints in the core columns.

Hehe...he said "butt joints" ....No thank you ...I prefer to smoke them with my mouth.

 

[scott3x]

Hehe...he said "butt joints" ....No thank you ...I prefer to smoke them with my mouth.

I had a hunch you'd respond to that, laugh .

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 337 in this thread.

Steven Jones

Why do you believe that he's out of his field of expertise?

Don’t be an idiot. You know his area of expertise is cold fusion. He is not a structural engineer.

You seem to be forgetting that he's a -physicist- and as such knows a thing or 2 about the conservation of momentum right from the start. What's more, he has made it his business to learn a lot about the WTC collapses and do such things such as conduct an analysis of the WTC debris, finding thermate residues and even unexploded thermate.

What makes you believe that he has engaged in 'poor science'?

Re-read everything I have ever said about Steven Jones and you will have your answer.

In your dreams Imagine that we're 2 lawyers in a court of law. I ask you to defend your claim and you say that I should ponder everything you've already said? shaman, I'm not going to make your case for you

Jones does not employ transparent methods.

What makes you believe this?

We have to take his word on his accumulation of samples and the results of those samples. Have others tested them?

Yes, they have.

Has anyone reputable analyzed the dust?

Sure, Steven Jones.

:roflmao:

I'm glad you're having a good time anyway .

Not to my knowledge. Have you seen any evidence to the contrary?

It appears that he makes no attempt to falsify his own work at all. He doesn’t consider the other possibilities for the chemical signatures he finds. The answer is always a CD. That is not good science.

Oh, I misunderstood you- I thought you were asking if he has creating false evidence. In any case, he has no need to do it himself; there are tons of detractors of his theories out there and he debunked many of their claims.

Can he demonstrate that the spheres are not a result of the elements in an ordinary office? Can he demonstrate that they weren’t produced during the clean up or even the construction?

Yep. In fact, thermite arson is something normal law enforcement has detected as well as Steven Jones makes clear in the following video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGudM...eature=related

What does that have to do with my comment?

My point is that Steven Jones isn't the only person who can determine whether or not thermite was used; it's been done in investigations in the past where thermite arson is suspected. I'd advise you take a look at the clip I linked to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGudMVKswVM&feature=related

This man, who has been caught out misrepresenting testimony and photograph...

Do you have any evidence to support those claims?

His cherry picking of Erik Schwartz’s testimony and his use of photographs of workers with a light below them as evidence of molten metal.

Alright, get me a link and I'll take a look. I believe I've heard about the famous 'light below' one to some extent and his major crime was that he took the picture from another place without making sure that the light wasn't from molten metal. Haven't heard about Erik Schwartz's testimony.

The fact that he's a scientist is unquestioned by anyone of any credibility. He was also quite a noted scientist -before- 9/11 as well, having been published in both Nature and Scientific American.

He was also ridiculed – before - 9/11, for writing dodgy papers outside his field. Something he is still doing now. Remember his interpretations of artwork to lead him to the conclusion that jesus visited the Americas?

Not this one again. He's a -mormon-. Are you even -aware- that -all- mormons believe that Jesus came to America? If he did indeed write those interpretations, he was simply reinforcing what he already believed. And believe you me, just because he's Steven Jones does -not- mean that I believe that mormons are right on this.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 337 in this thread.

Bombs in the buildings

Before the building even fell down?

Of course before the building fell down!

I don't mean in the final seconds before they fell down- i mean -way- before they fell down.

Who knows, perhaps a little thermite was used there too, though clearly not on the scale of the WTC towers. Was the Windsor tower ever checked for thermite arson?

You have no link to reality do you?

Hey maybe thermite was used at the McCormick Place? When the bridge collapsed after the gas tanker crash maybe thermite was involved. Perhaps all those steel structures which collapsed from fire were actually brought down by thermite!?

Did anyone check the Hindenburg for thermite? Did anyone check the Titanic? It was supposed to be unsinkable! But it sank! Conspiracy!

Very funny. I'm only suggesting that it's possible that the windsor tower fire may have had some thermite involved. I have certainly heard that it's possible the fire was due to arson, and thermite arson is not unheard of.

No, I didn't say that.

When you claim that a bomb noise proves that there must have been bombs, then that is what you are saying.

If the noise is from a bomb, it's certainly a bomb. If the noise -sounds- like a bomb, it may or may not be a bomb.

When did I say that they made the steel soft?

Dr. Astaneh-Asl did.

Dr. Astaneh also thinks the buildings were "light weight"

He also quit the investigation due to restrictions he didn't like. Last I heard, he was stating that the buildings themselves were the problem, despite the fact that they were so strongly built.

Look, if you don't like how I explain my views, you're free to go elsewhere. I atleast have refrained from insulting you while doing so, although I note that this post of yours was a lot better then a certain post from the past...

You don’t explain your views! You keep spamming links but don’t actually explain what you think happened. Explain to me how the explosives made steel become hot and soft.

I believe Headspin once said that thermite could do it, but I personally have never even stated that explosives did any such thing. I do believe, that explosives could have -bent- the steel and there's clearly evidence of some very large bent steel pieces. And they could also hurl steel beams hundreds of feet laterally, as also happened.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 337 in this thread.

The twin towers characteristics: how they were like controlled demolitions and unlike destruction by fires, part 2

How convenient of you to ignore the 15 characteristics that the twin tower collapses share with conventional controlled demolitions and the 4 characteristics that differentiate it destruction of buildings by fire. If you ever choose to analyze them, however, they'll be waiting for you here.

When I said, ‘But even ignoring the many, many mistakes’ I was trying to make a point. Something lost on you. However as to your pathetic characteristics, I have discussed most of them with you at some stage. No doubt you will pretend that I haven’t as you use immature and dishonest tactics.

On my site, not only do I acknowledge that you have attempted to counter my points, but I have included your counters in the page in question, along with my counters to your counters. However, while I made a lot of counters towards KennyJC, I haven't yet countered any arguments you may have made in the past regarding the twin tower demolition characteristics, so be all means, have a look and get back to me with your commentary.

When I have more time I will devote a post to them.

Ok.

According to many experts, including many architects and engineers, it did indeed look like one.

Well clearly it didn’t as the collapse started at the top.

Here's a building that's been demolished from the top down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

The following clip links that video with the twin tower demolitions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R20V9mt5m54&NR=1

I have never said that the twin tower demolitions were 'just like' normal controlled demolitions. However, as I have made clear here, they were controlled demolitions nonetheless, albeit unusual ones.

All you have done there is repeat the same moronic rationalisation that I am trying to get you to understand. It didn’t look like a controlled demolition. So you say it did look like one, just an unusual one. Can’t you comprehend even the simplest of concepts?

What 'simplest of concepts' is that, Mr. obsessive insulter? While the twin tower demolitions may not have been done in the normal fashion, there is still plenty of evidence that they were, indeed, demolitions.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 337 in this thread.

The Luminaries of the 9/11 Truth Movement, Part 3

It is in great part the arguments of these 'blind' men that have been steadily countering your claims.

Only in the minds of religious fanatics.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Your behaviour resembles that of a religious fanatic.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Yes. It’s all at this site. http://www.sciforums.com/

Sigh Look, just quit bothering me with these baseless insults and personal attacks ok? I've reported you twice already, but nothing seems to happen when I do so. I must admit I'm dissapointed, but that's life.

I did a search on the list and did indeed find some software engineers. I actually agree that they shouldn't be included in a list that's supposed to be for people who have degreed knowledge of what makes buildings collapse. However, in the list (and this is the list you should be looking at, btw) I could find only one 'urban activist'. The guy also has a degree in architecture, however, so I really don't see how that should matter. He's also the only 'urban activist' in the list...

That’s not the point.

Then why mention the 'urban activist'?

There are other professions there which are dubious. Look at the engineering professionals. They include software engineers, surveyors, optical engineers ect. They have padded out the list to get to 549. Do you get it? I’m guessing you wont.

I already told you I 'get it'. They didn't 'pad it out', however. They're simply including all engineers. I think they probably should have limited it to engineers who actually had something to do with buildings, but it was their choice to make. In any case, a fair amount of people who aren't all that knowledgeable on architecture and demolitions can familiarize themselves with the important concepts if they're willing to spend a fair amount of time on it.

which anyone can sign- 2927 and counting. I myself am in it. I, like many in that list, don't have any architect or engineer degrees, but one would be foolish to surmise that we therefore have no knowledge concerning the matter.

You have demonstrated how little you know and willing you are to believe foolish theories.

This from the guy who frequently wants me to make his case for him

2927 other fools who probably believe nuclear devices were involved.

I recently found an article from Steven Jones, in which he counters the idea that nuclear devices were involved. I have yet to take a look, but if I ever get into that possibility again, I think I'll take a look.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 5th and final part of shaman_'s post 337 in this thread.

Kevin Ryan and his former employer Underwriter Laboratories, Part 3

When one has insufficient data to form a definitive conclusion, theories are where it's at. By no means does this mean that the matter shouldn't be investigated further; only that it is a -good- thing to create theories of why things are the way they are and then to attempt to test those theories against reality.

You test your theories with reality do you? How do you do this?

I personally primarily use logic to test the theories I hear, but people like Steven Jones do things like examine the WTC debris and do tests to determine what thermate can do.

In this particular case, I think the matter would be rather simple- create a truly independent 9/11 commission that had the power of subpoena. Then, they could subpoena Underwriter Laboratories and ask them why it is that they denied testing the steel ...

They don’t certify steel components, they certify assemblies… assemblies with fireproofing on them.

Actually, they do certify steel components that are put together in the form of assemblies. Kevin Ryan explains it best in his article "Propping up the War on Terror":
**************************************
If, as our CEO had suggested, our company had tested samples of steel components and listed the results in the UL Fire Resistance Directory almost forty years ago, Mr. Skilling would have depended on these results to ensure that the buildings were sufficiently fire resistant. So I sent a formal written message to our chief executive, outlining my thoughts and asking what he was doing to protect our reputation.

Knoblauch's written response contained several points. He wrote: "We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them." He pointed to the NYC code used at the time of the WTC construction, which required fire resistance times of 3 hours for building columns, and 2 hours for floors. From the start, his answers were not helping to explain fire-induced collapse in 56 minutes (the time it took WTC2, the South Tower, to come down). But he did give a better explanation of UL's involvement in testing the WTC steel, even talking about the quality of the sample and how well it did. "We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on," he wrote, "and it did beautifully."19

This response was copied to several UL executives, including Tom Chapin, the manager of UL's Fire Protection division. Chapin reminded me that UL was the "leader in fire research testing," but he clearly did not want to make any commitments on the issue. He talked about the floor assemblies, how these had not been UL tested, and he made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel. But even an introductory textbook lists UL as one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119."20 He went on to clarify that UL tests assemblies of which steel is a component. This is a bit like saying "we don't crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car."
**************************************

...when they obviously did and why it is that they fired the man in their company who seemed to be the most interested in getting to the truth.

It is well known why they fired him.

Apparently not to you

[snip baseless insulting claim]

When you hear an answer that you don’t like you just discard it and suggest an investigation.

Yeah, that's why I keep on countering your claims I'm sure I, atleast, would like the whole thing investigated further; you, on the other hand, seem to want to discard answers you don't like without thinking twice about them :bugeye:

 

[leopold]

Yes, yes, me not knowing about butt joints proves I know nothing about the WTC buildings

what it actually says is that the websites you have plastered all over these threads are ignoring evidence that prove the WTC towers were of rather weak construction, and that you are swallowing their BS hook, line, and sinker.

 

[scott3x]

Yes, yes, me not knowing about butt joints proves I know nothing about the WTC buildings

what it actually says is that the websites you have plastered all over these threads are ignoring evidence that prove the WTC towers were of rather weak construction, and that you are swallowing their BS hook, line, and sinker.

Wow, you figured this all out by the fact that I didn't know about butt joints? Truly impressive

Anyway, if you want to point out evidence that the towers were supposedly of weak construction and attempt to counter the evidence I have shown that the towers were actually very strongly built, be my guest.

Or do you want me to look for the evidence for you ?

 

[leopold]

Wow, you figured this all out by the fact that I didn't know about butt joints? Truly impressive

you need to start thinking for yourself scott instead of letting others do it for you.

Or do you want me to look for the evidence for you ?

it's apparent that you will disregard anything that doesn't support your veiw so why bother?

 

[Headspin]

Or do you want me to look for the evidence for you ?

maybe he thinks this is a core column:

 

[leopold]

maybe he thinks this is a core column.

looks similar but the ones i seen was already loaded on flatbed semis.
they were about 18" to 2 feet wide.
you can't judge dimensions in your photograph.

 

[Headspin]

looks similar but the ones i seen was already loaded on flatbed semis.
they were about 18" to 2 feet wide.
you can't judge dimensions in your photograph.

do you have any information to confirm what you say?

here is a thinner core column (from the top of the tower), where is the butt joint? as you can see it has interconnected welded and bolted horizontal beams.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to shaman_'s post 338 in this thread.

'Normal' office fire tests, part 3

Where I have seen flaws in my reasoning, I have acknowledged them and corrected my stance. However, you can't rely on your 'pointed out several times' to get you by in arguments.

It wouldn’t matter if I printed out the words, flew to your house, and hit you with the rolled up paper until you admitted you had read it…. A few days later you would act as if you never had.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Just because I've pointed something out to you before doesn't mean that I believe I can say 'I've pointed out the flaw in that before' and think that's good enough.

If you did I would acknowledge that we have been through it before. I would not play dumb like you do.

1- I don't believe I've ever seen you acknowledge when I've pointed something out to you before.
2- I'm not 'playing dumb'.

I know you've talked of the Cardington tests in the past, but I thought that Headspin had dealt with it. After having done a search in sciforums, however, it seems that Headspin didn't respond to post 95 in this thread, your last post on the matter. I did, but I didn't get into the Cardington issue. I agree that this issue deserves more scrutiny in the future.

I believe that the evidence that the fires couldn't have brought down the building is overwhelming, but I acknowledge that not everyone sees things the way I do and for that reason, we should delve into arguments that official story supporters find to be valid.

However, I think you should be aware of the following statement from Cardington, which I got from Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth:
The Cardington Fire Tests, a series of large-scale fire tests conducted in steel-framed buildings in 2000 by the University of Sheffield Fire Engineering Research Program, determined that:
“A steel building survived fires in experiments with extreme temperatures beyond the range possible with jet fuel.”

(University of Edinburgh, 2005; Building Research Establishment, Centre for Fire Safety Engineering)

Who is that quote from?

Corus Construction, the company that did the Cardington Fire tests. I've seen people put up the pdf link, but it seems to have been removed. This is the (now dead) link:
http://www.corusconstruction.com/legacy/fire/images/fireres_section15.pdf

It is meaningless because they are not taking into account the lack of fireproofing in the WTC.

Even with next to no fireproofing, the building wouldn't have collapsed. Here's an excerpt from Kevin Ryan's article The short reign of Ryan Mackey:
************************
In fact, UL did test floor assemblies in 1970, that were “similar” to those used in the WTC towers, but this fact has not been repeated by NIST since their progress report of May 2003.[7] The results of those early tests were interesting, considering that they showed the “floor assembly sagged 3 inches... at 120 minutes”, which correlates with the August 2004 floor tests done by UL as part of the NIST investigation. Of course, 120 minutes is much longer than the fire times in the failure zones of either tower.

There are several other facts about UL’s August 2004 floor model tests, performed as part of the NIST WTC investigation, that should be emphasized. These facts show that, even despite designing these tests in an intentionally deceptive way, the floor models still supported their loads in the furnace. Not only did UL and NIST add twice the known WTC load to the floor models, they also used far less fireproofing than was known to exist at the time. The tests performed by UL included two test specimens with “as built” fireproofing of 0.75 inches, one with “as specified” fireproofing” thickness of only 0.5 inches, and one with the “as specified” condition of essentially no fireproofing. None of the test specimens had fireproofing to represent the “as impacted” condition of 3.25 inches, reported in NCSTAR 1-6A, figure A-60.
************************

From Frank Legge's Conspiracy Theories, Myths, Skepticism, and 9/11: their Impact on Democracy article in the Journal of 9/11 studies:
***************
Were any experiments done by NIST to confirm any of their assumptions? Yes, they performed some office fire tests which showed that the period of intense heating lasted from 10 to 20 minutes. 41 This seems to be too brief to be consistent with the requirement to get the whole area where collapse would initiate up to the right temperature simultaneously. NIST gave no explanation as to why it was proper to ignore this negative test result. This is not responsible scientific procedure.
***************

The period of intense heat was closer to 20 minutes and NIST doesn’t consider it to be inconsistent with what was observed at WTC.

NIST's report is full of absurdities, as many in the 911 truth movement have made clear. I already debunked NIST's claims on the 'raging fires' ages ago in a response to Kenny way back when we were all still in the 'one' thread.

Perhaps he or someone else could point them out again. I'm willing to wager I keep better track of this thread then anyone else

You don’t seem to know what you read yesterday.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

The fact that you found the link on my favourite site should give you cause for concern . I think the temperature you want me to note is the following one:
"The temperature-time history of the fire atmosphere is shown in Figure 4.11 The bottom flange of the central secondary beam achieved a maximum temperature of 903°C after 114 minutes."

This is all well and good, but the tests were -not- done to a building the size of the WTC towers. It would have taken quite a bit of fire indeed to reach those temperatures for those buildings.

Yes the building was larger but so was the ventilation and the fires. The simulation on the smaller building is adequate to get an indication of temperatures reached.

I think the above quoted and linked to material from notable 911 luminaries have made it clear that this is not the case.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 340 from this thread.

The immense explosions in the WTC towers, Part 3

these points, which you choose to ignore.

It’s like arguing with a child. I used "ignoring" because I was trying to make a point that you didn’t comprehend.

Once again, we have been though many of those points before. Don’t pretend you have brought up something new.

Yes, I brought them up before- Kenny tried to counter and I countered him right back; it's all clear in the link above.

Because I've -never- watched any videos now, have I? Suffice it to say that I believe the videos only make it more evident.

You are seeing explosions when you watch those videos?

Yep.

Explosions that most people missed but only you, with your amazing skills of perception, were able to spot?

You aren't really serious are you? A lot of people believe there is ample evidence in the videos and pictures of the collapse.

I agree wholeheartedly. And what immense explosions there were:

Just posting a still picture to try and imply explosions is pathetic.
Yes that is a picture of one of the tallest buildings in the world towards the end of a total collapse. If you are trying to say that it looks like an explosion then watch the video and you will see that this is not the case. It is these sort of tactics that has lead me to despise truthers...

You'll have to see your favourite therapist to work out such issues

I don't see it as an issue.

I see you're still in the denial stage

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 340 from this thread.

Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, Part 3

Kevin Ryan thought it was compelling evidence at the time he wrote that article. There's a lot of evidence out there and even an official story supporter (you, Kenny, Geoff, can't remember) agreed that it was strange that Larry Silverstein said 'they decided to pull it', because buildings are labelled as 'its', not firefighters. Perhaps it was a Freudian slip of the tongue on the part of Mr. Silverstein, but it's also possible that he simply slipped up and said 'it' instead of 'them'. Regardless, the point is that you focus on this one small issue in Kevin Ryan's article and seem to ignore everything else.

You chose to focus on it.

No, you did. I linked to Kevin Ryan's article, "Propping up the war on terror", which is rather large, in post 96. You're the one who decided to focus on the paragraph bringing up this point in your response in post 103.

I merely pointed out that he is willfully ignorant as he thinks the ‘pull’ comment is compelling evidence of anything. He seems to.

Yes, he did indeed seem to. We've gone over this ever since post 103. Can we just let it lie now?

I'm assuming you say this because he doesn't have a degree in the properties of steel or some such? The guy studied the issue of the WTC steel for 2 years. He read the comments of noted authorities, such as John Skilling, the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers...

So have I. I’m not an expert on steel and neither is Kevin Ryan.

I disagree in the case of Kevin Ryan. I'll cite wikipedia's entry on expert in defense of my contention:
********************
An "expert" (Audio (US) (help·info)) is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public in a specific well distinguished domain. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion.
********************

Note the 'can be' in the last sentence. It's not a necessity.

Who cares if he worked that the company which tested the components?

Kevin Ryan clearly did.

You are dodging and weaving still. Just admit that Ryan is not an authority on steel and his opinion alone is not compelling evidence. Why can’t you just concede this?

Because I don't agree with that assertion.

He knows all about the temperatures that steel can reach from office fires. Why does he know? Because he did the research!

So what, we’ve all done some research but that doesn’t make us an authority. Our opinion is not compelling evidence.

I contend that he has done much more research then we have on the subject and that the articles he has written regarding the WTC collapses makes this clear.

You don't need fancy degrees for everything.

In the scientific world it’s kind of important.

Perhaps in certain circles of it. Personally, however, I want to know the truth not whether x or y person has a degree in x or y subject. I believe the saying:
"They must find it hard, those who have taken authority as truth rather than truth as authority", by Gerald Massey applies well here.

Examples of his knowledge are clear. Almost at the beginning of his article "Propping up the War on Terror", he states:
"It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that "the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."

I certainly didn't know that before I read it.

Wow that paragraph totally changed my mind.

Finally! What took you so long ;-)?

He’s such an expert.

Indeed

 

[leopold]

do you have any information to confirm what you say?

on some DVDs i have. my new computer blew the mainboard and it's going to take at least three weeks to get it repaired due to several factors. when i get it back i'll see if i can capture a few frames of what i'm talking about.

here is a thinner core column (from the top of the tower), where is the butt joint?

i don't see any in your photograph.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 340 from this thread.

The difference between steel warehouses, steel reinforced concrete framed towers and 100% steel framed towers, part 4

Yes, we all know that. What 9/11 research brings up is why the windsor tower, a steel-reinforced concrete framed tower, suffered a partial collapse due to fire, whereas on the only date 100% steel framed towers allegedly collapsed, was on September 11, 2001; and not once, but 3 times.

? Because they did not have the concrete framing that the Windsor Tower did. ? It’s really not that complicated.

Groan. Just read this.

Yes, it certainly was. Which is why it made far more sense for the windsor tower in Madrid to collapse then it did for the WTC towers to collapse, as the above linked article makes clear.

Perhaps you could summarise how that article makes it clear…..?

I think it would be best if you read the whole thing. It's only about 2 pages worth.

The Core Structure Of The World Trade Center Towers Was A Steel Reinforced, Cast Concrete, Tubular Core

No the columns were not protected by concrete. It was these columns which supported the load. From http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm

“There was a 3 to 4 inch layer of concrete on the average floor. There were reinforced concrete floors in the core as well. Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists say, the core walls were NOT concrete reinforced..."

You're right. The -concrete- core was -steel- reinforced.

Are you reading these words or skimming?

The title of the article is "The Core Structure Of The World Trade Center Towers Was A Steel Reinforced, Cast Concrete, Tubular Core". Why not take a look at the article itself?

The floors were concrete but the walls were not, unlike the Madrid Tower. The columns, which supported the load, were not reinforced concrete. Get it?

Sigh. From the same article:
***********
The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%.
***********

I believe we actually agree here. This is what 911review.org states it...was:

The inner tube, which provided the majority of the support, was steel box columns, not concrete.

Perhaps you are referring to the interior core columns? If so, the article I mention states that they only supported 30% of the load as I stated above.

Have you seen this?
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=bRvimM0AcN4

You honestly think an 18 second video is going to persuade me that the twin towers had no concrete core? In all truth, I would like more evidence then the one article I have but the article I quoted seems to know what they're talking about.

Which have been debunked by notable truth movement authors such as Steven Jones and others.

You really think people like Astaneh-Asl have been debunked by a [insult deleted] like Jones? Seriously?

Yes. You want me to quote you passages from his article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" where he does so?

I have provided you with links to many peer reviewed papers by structural engineers which support the official story.

Several of which Steven Jones has debunked.

Jones can’t get his work in a mainstream journal

Yes, freedom of the mainstream presses belongs to those who own them.

so he has to rely on little known publications which apparently only require only a payment for publishing.

You must be relying on Ryan Mackey again. From what I heard, atleast one of the publications where he paid was a peer reviewed publication.

Surely you mean faster?

A few fun facts:
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

Anyway, both planes would have had a negligible effect building. Frank De Martini, the WTC project manager and who died in the WTC towers on 9/11, was recorded as saying the following before 9/11:
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid and the jet-plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

They were not designed to withstand the impact of a 767, at full speed, full of jet fuel. See below.

I wait with baited breath

As you would say, "so where is the data from this analysis?"

What analysis? He is saying it wasn’t taken into account. Weak attempt at a dodge.

Even NIST apparently admitted that an analysis -was- made. No, not by the junior WTC engineer Leslie Robertson, but by John Skilling. As Kevin Ryan states:
In 1993, five years before his death, Skilling said that he had performed an analysis on jet plane crashes and the ensuing fires and that "the building structure would still be there."

Kevin Ryan also states in the aforementioned article:
"...NIST suggested that the documents that would support testing of the steel components, along with documents containing Skilling's jet-fuel-fire analysis, could not be found.26"

Since data on the analysis of both Leslie Robertson and John Skilling is currently beyond our grasp, perhaps you would like to rely on credentials alone in this case?

Why don’t you read what he says.
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

Read through a bit. Looks like I may have an idea as to where you got the idea that 707s were 'slow flying'

I think a little refreshing commentary from Kevin Ryan's "Propping up the War on Terror" is in order:
Perhaps most compelling for me were the words of a genuine [emphasis mine] expert on the WTC. This was John Skilling, the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers.17 (The NOVA video, incidentally, gave this credit to Leslie Robertson. But Robertson, who never claimed to have originated the design, was only a junior member of the firm [Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson], and Skilling was known at the time to be the engineer in charge.) In 1993, five years before his death, Skilling said that he had performed an analysis on jet plane crashes and the ensuing fires and that "the building structure would still be there."

The buildings did stay up for an hour. Did he mean that they would stay up forever?

That's certainly my impression.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 4th and final part of shaman_'s post 340 from this thread.

The difference between steel warehouses, steel reinforced concrete framed towers and 100% steel framed towers, part 5

Even Popular Mechanics doesn't think much of the jet fuel:
"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.

By the time the jet fuel had burnt out there was a raging fire across multiple floors. Watch some footage, it was an inferno.

The only 'raging inferno' after the initial fireball i saw was where molten metal (quite possibly molten iron) was coming out:

Then you should probably watch some videos of the event.

I have.

As I believe you know, there's no way that an office fire could have produced molten iron.

You don’t know that it is iron.

Many believe it was most likely to be iron. It certainly wasn't pure molten aluminum. I can't currently counter your idea that it was a combination of the 2, but even if it was, the office fires could not have accounted for the iron part. Thermate would have done quite a good job of it, though. Steven Jones deals with 4 possibilities in his paper "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method", which you can currently download from NIST itself.

Those possibilities are:
1. Perhaps the structural steel in the buildings melted and is flowing out.
2. Perhaps it is molten aluminum from the aircraft that melted and is flowing out, perhaps with
added organics from burning office materials.
3. A mix of the two (above) including office materials, etc.
4. Molten metals (e.g., molten iron) produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions (e.g., aluminothermic/thermite reactions)

Of those, he establishes that the only one that is credible is the 4th. You may wish to take a look at his paper, pages 17 and onwards (the pdf ends at page 28)

As for the rest, here's a good picture of how the fire was shortly before the buildings collapsed:

Ah using carefully selected photos to misrepresent the truth. Classic troofer technique.

You sure you're not the one who's misrepresenting the truth? You and others have presented your photos as well and I have remained unpersuaded.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc1_woman.html

Not exactly a 'raging inferno'.

Obviously that woman has moved to the coldest part of the building. The impact hole was not the hottest part because the majority of the jet fuel was pushed to the opposite end of the building during the collision. That was where the fires were hottest.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

If you find that same photo but with the whole building in screen you will see the fires.

Do you have such a picture? I'd actually like to see it.

However I have another photo for you. It is the same poor woman.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPw...rU/sbD-tLSdyvA/s1600-h/EdnaCintronFalling.jpg

From - http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/08/le-vittime-dell11-settembre-i-suicidi.htmlNear the bottom.

Why did she jump Scott?

Why did a few hundred others jump?

Hot by building standards and by human standards are 2 very different things.

Small fires?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ...eGJS-WTC27.jpg

Yes, small fires, relative to the size of the building. That was an awesome picture though. I believe I remember reading somewhere that thermite may have been used to create some of the fires in the towers as well.

Even NIST doesn't seem to think think that the initial crash and fireballs did so much structural damage, but if you want to call the truth movement -and- NIST wrong, go ahead.

You have said something stupid and instead of conceding you just dodge around and try further misrepresentations. NIST thinks the initial crash knocked off a lot of the fireproofing and that the initial fireball and jet fuel started the fire which weakend the steel.

Yes, I know about NIST's flimsy 'plane knocked off the fireproofing' theory. Here's an excerpt from an annotated debate between Steven Jones and Leslie Robertson:
*************************************
[Leslie Robertson:]
"Now, if you look at a good example would be perhaps surrounding buildings where debris from the Trade Center struck the building and if you went to those areas, you found that the impact of the debris had shaken off the fire protection materials. It wasn't scraped off, it was taken off by the impact I feel, probably the vibration of the structure due to the impact of the, of the aircraft."

GR: He “feels.” He’s trying to head off the push for a serious scientific investigation, which scientists, engineers, and millions of citizens agree have never been done, because of his feelings. He says he read the NIST report, but it doesn’t sound as though he remembers NIST’s inability to establish fireproofing loss by forces of vibration.

That inability led NIST to make an absurd attempt (a “shotgun approach,” if you will) to prove that the impacts must have dislodged large amounts of fireproofing material directly. According to Kevin Ryan, fired whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories:

The shotgun test not only failed to support NIST's pre-determined conclusions, as was the case for all of their other physical tests, but it actually proved that the fireproofing could not have been sheared off because too much energy would be needed. This did not deter NIST, as they simply proceeded by filling their computer model with vague, sweeping assumptions like suggesting that the fireproofing was completely removed wherever the office furnishings were damaged (i.e. if a cube wall fell or a pencil was broken, thousands of square meters of fireproofing must have been sheared off too).23

...there is no evidence that a Boeing 767 could transform into any number of shotgun blasts. Nearly 100,000 blasts would be needed based on NIST’s own damage estimates, and these would have to be directed in a very symmetrical fashion to strip the columns and floors from all sides. However, it is much more likely that the aircraft debris was a distribution of sizes from very large chunks to a few smaller ones, and that it was directed asymmetrically. Also, there is no indication that fireproofing was stripped from beneath the aluminum cladding on the exterior columns, but in subsequent steps of their story, NIST depends on this....

To put NIST’s pivotal claim to rest, there was simply no energy available to cause fireproofing loss. Previous calculations by engineers at MIT had shown that all the kinetic energy from the aircraft was consumed in breaking columns, crushing the floors and destroying the aircraft itself. But NIST’s tests indicate that 1 MJ of energy was needed per square meter of surface area to shear the fireproofing off. For the areas in question, more than 6,000 square meters of column, floor deck and floor joist surface, the extra energy needed would be several times more than the entire amount of kinetic energy available to begin with.24 [emphasis added]​

*************************************

Kevin Ryan is simply hypothesizing based on the information he had, which wasn't too much. The real blunder is NIST's- it comes up with 'final' conclusions even though they barely had any data.

Barely any data? Have you seen the NIST report? They have mountains of data. What are you talking about?

I'm talking about their 2004 interim NIST report, which is the one that Kevin Ryan was looking at at the time. In that report, they state that most of the steel hadn't gone beyond 250C.

Ofcourse, if they're part of the inside job, it makes a lot of sense- it seems clear to me that the data was going against the 'planes took off the fireproofing', so the less data the better.

The data was not going against it at all.

Perhaps now that I have presented more evidence you wish to change your tune?

Seems like it to me. I've heard there's photographic evidence that the fireproofing -wasn't- removed. So let's see your photographic evidence.

http://www.debunking911.com/trussproof.jpg

5 trusses where the plane crashed into the building? That all you got?