WTC Collapses

[psikeyhackr]

I suspect that you're dissing philosophy in general.

* All men are mortal. (major premise)
* Socrates is a man. (minor premise)
* Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

So much for premises in philosophy.

Of course, if one couldn't feel one's right hand (I believe some people can't feel) and one was blind as well, so one couldn't see it, it could simply be a belief not founded on actual evidence even if one did, in fact, have a normal right hand.

This is what happens when people expect you to take philosophy seriously. Speculation about conditions that very rarely occur. What about phantom pain where people feel what isn't there? You decide how you run your mental processes and I will decide how I run mine. I KNOW I don't think like most people. I decided after two weeks there was no way a normal airliner could destroy those buildings. The inability of the top to come straight down destroying everything below because of the way the strength and mass of a skyscraper HAD TO BE DISTRIBUTED was the major reason. I find it shocking and hilarious that this hasn't been resolved after SEVEN YEARS.

It isn't philosophy that I have a problem with it is most of the so called philosophising that people do. Endless debating mostly over semantics. Worse than 9/11 and more impossible to nail down.

psik

 

[scott3x]

I am not saying anything of the sort.

I am saying that the collapses should have never even initiated. I believe you have read the paper I wrote showing why.

There is no reason to speculate about what would happen in a 60 foot freefall, because that wasn't what happened.

My point is what is EASY TO PROVE. The objective is to get most people to UNDERSTAND that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the plane to have destroyed the building. If you PROVE there is no way for the portion above the impact to have come straight down and destroyed what was below the impact zone, even under impossibly bad conditions, then obviously the official story cannot be true and the politics is irrelevant to solving the real engineering problem. As long as most Americans can believe the official story then the politics is in control not the engineering. So I think you should deal with what is easy to demonstrate and prove to the average man. I am not talking about what did happen I am talking about showing people what could not possibly have happened. If the top could not destroy the bottom then something else must have.

Apparently Szamboti and Frank Legge have proven that the collapse could never have occurred at the speed it did, in their article 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible. It seemed relatively simple to me at any rate.

 

[scott3x]

I suspect that you're dissing philosophy in general.

* All men are mortal. (major premise)
* Socrates is a man. (minor premise)
* Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

So much for premises in philosophy.

The article you quoted looked interesting. I myself have at times wondered if reincarnation could be true. However, I think getting into that is definitely getting off topic and has nothing to do with whether or not premises in philosophy are of value.

I'm wondering if you really know what a premise -is-. Here's wikipedia's definition:
In discourse and logic, a premise is a claim that is a reason (or element of a set of reasons) for, or objection against, some other claim. In other words, it is a statement presumed true within the context of an argument toward a conclusion.

You may not realize it, but you yourself certainly like premises, so long as they are of the 'knowledge' type. It seems clear to me that your preferred form of logical argument is that of deduction. I believe it's the most straightforward one and, so long as the premises are correct, the conclusion must also be correct.

I think it's hard to argue that most if not all people prefer using deduction. However, this isn't always possible. When it's not possible, there are other methods, such as induction. Induction works by essentially judging probabilities and is a much more delicate form of reasoning. Nevertheless, I have found that it can do a lot of good work, given the right direction.

This is what happens when people expect you to take philosophy seriously. Speculation about conditions that very rarely occur. What about phantom pain where people feel what isn't there?

I've heard that this has to do with the wiring of the brain; the brain is wired to 'feel' from a left arm that is no longer there. To compensate, the wiring is transferred to another part of the body, but the brain still thinks it's the arm that's no longer there. So, your right arm gets itchy in a certain place, but the brain has now wired it so that it thinks that it is the (missing) left arm that is itchy. This is my understanding of it, but I may be mistaken.

You decide how you run your mental processes and I will decide how I run mine.

Ofcourse.

I KNOW I don't think like most people. I decided after two weeks there was no way a normal airliner could destroy those buildings. The inability of the top to come straight down destroying everything below because of the way the strength and mass of a skyscraper HAD TO BE DISTRIBUTED was the major reason. I find it shocking and hilarious that this hasn't been resolved after SEVEN YEARS.

Speaking as someone who was definitely fooled for much longer then 2 weeks, I think the basic issue here is, I had very little knowledge regarding whether a skyscraper could or could not collapse in on itself at near free fall speeds. It's only much later, when I acquired a fair amount of knowledge on the subject, that I began to see things differently.

It isn't philosophy that I have a problem with it is most of the so called philosophising that people do. Endless debating mostly over semantics. Worse than 9/11 and more impossible to nail down.

psik

I think that as long as we remember what philosophy -is-, we'll stay on a good track. Again, from wikipedia:
Philosophy is the study of general problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, justice, validity, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.[3] The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of wisdom."

 

[scott3x]

Larry Silverstein reaped immense profits due to the WTC attacks on 9/11/01, Round 2

This post is in response to shaman_'s post 680 in this thread.

Actually, Larry Silverstein made immense profits due to the insurance provisions he had on the WTC buildings against terrorist attacks.

After a long legal battle Silverstein got 4.6 billion but rebuilding WTC7 cost 6.3 billion. Immense profits?

You seem to think that Silverstein initially invested 6.3 billion or some such figure. He didn't. From 9/11 research's article, "Controlling Interests: Ownership, Control, and Insurance of The World Trade Center ":
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million. 8

And that was just for WTC 7. 9/11 Research, in the same article, continues:
**********
The insurance money flows involved in the destruction of the original six World Trade Center buildings were far greater. Silverstein Properties, the majority owner of WTC 7, also had the majority interest in the original World Trade Center complex. Silverstein hired Willis Group Holdings Ltd. to obtain enough coverage for the complex. Willis undertook "frenetic" negotiations to acquire insurance from 25 carriers. The agreements were only temporary contracts when control of the WTC changed hands on July 24. 9

After the attack, Silverstein Properties commenced litigation against its insurers, claiming it was entitled to twice the insurance policies' value because, according to a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, "the two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate 'occurrences' for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on $3.6 billion of policies." This was reported in the Bloomberg News less than one month after the attack. 10

The ensuing legal battle between the leaseholders and insurers of the World Trade Center was not about how the 9/11/01 attack on the WTC could be considered two attacks, when the WTC was only destroyed once. Rather it seemed to revolve around whether the beneficiaries thought it was one or two "occurrences." The proceedings before U.S. District Judge John S. Martin involved a number of battles over the insurers' discovery rights regarding conversations about this issue between insurance beneficiaries and their lawyers. 11 12

In December 2004, a jury ruled in favor of the insurance holders' double claim. 13

A Parable

To put these events in perspective, imagine that a person leases an expensive house, and immediately takes out an insurance policy covering the entire value of the house and specifically covering bomb attacks. Six weeks later two bombs go off in the house, separated by an hour. The house burns down, and the lessor immediately sues the insurance company to pay him twice the value of the house, and ultimately wins. The lessor also gets the city to dispose of the wreckage, excavate the site, and help him build a new house on the site.
**********

 

[scott3x]

I am telling you that i have personally witnessed trash burning at over 1700 degrees and those towers were very much like an incinerator and a confined space.

Steel doesn't even start to lose strength until above 350 degrees C (662 degrees F).

That temp. could have easily been reached. To be perfectly clear, you are wrong.

From what I understand, not by the fires. But even if it was, that's nowhere near the temperature that would have been needed -throughout- the buildings to bring down the buildings so fast. Btw, are you ever going to read either of Szamboti's articles on the subject?

 

[scott3x]

Precious little.

so in essence you have no idea what a fire can do in regards to electrical equipment but yet you definitely know electrical equipment wasn't the cause of the explosions. interesting.

The fire wasn't -at- the ground level. Or is this a case of the magical jet fuel that (according to the official story) managed to get itself all over the place?

Not in my wildest dreams . How about you?

no, i haven't wired a 110 story building but i know for a fact fires WILL cause electrical equipment to explode.

ask any fireman if explosions aren't common in burning buildings and ask about the causes.
let's see, i can name 4 things off the top of my head that will explode in burning buildings and none of them are "bombs".

We weren't talking about the burning part of the building, but I'll bite. What are these 4 things? Clearly 1 would be electrical stuff. I'd guess another would be fuel.

 

[shaman_]

Larry Silverstein reaped immense profits due to the WTC attacks on 9/11/01, Round 2

You seem to think that Silverstein initially invested 6.3 billion or some such figure. He didn't. From 9/11 research's article, "Controlling Interests: Ownership, Control, and Insurance of The World Trade Center ":
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million. 8

500 million profit for a property billionaire who loses that money as soon as he pays for the rebuilding. He has been paying $120 million a year just to rent the site!

 

[scott3x]

Larry Silverstein reaped immense profits due to the WTC attacks on 9/11/01, Round 3

This post is in response to shaman_'s post 707 in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x


You seem to think that Silverstein initially invested 6.3 billion or some such figure. He didn't. From 9/11 research's article, "Controlling Interests: Ownership, Control, and Insurance of The World Trade Center ":
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million. 8
”
500 million profit for a property billionaire who loses that money as soon as he pays for the rebuilding. He has been paying $120 million a year just to rent the site!

He was under no obligation to rebuild the site- it was an option and he took it, probably to make even more money. As to that 120$ million a year, can you cite me your source? The article mentioned below mentions some pretty svelt terms they got in the event of terrorist attacks:

Here's some more from the aforementioned 9/11 Research article, Controlling Interests :
On April 26 of 2001 the Board of Commissioners for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey awarded Silverstein Properties and mall-owner Westfield America a 99-year-lease on the following assets: The Twin Towers, World Trade Center Buildings 4 and 5, two 9-story office buildings, and 400,000 square feet of retail space.

The partners' winning bid was $3.2 billion for holdings estimated to be worth more than $8 billion. JP Morgan Chase, a prestigious investment-bank that's the flagship firm of its kind for Rockefeller family interests, advised the Port Authority, another body long influenced by banker and builder David Rockefeller, his age then 85, in the negotiations.

The lead partner and spokesperson for the winning bidders, Larry Silverstein, age 70, already controlled more than 8 million square feet of New York City real estate. WTC 7 and the nearby Equitable Building were prime among these prior holdings. Larry Silverstein also owned Runway 69, a nightclub in Queens that was alleged 9 years ago to be laundering money made through sales of Laotian heroin. 4

In December 2003, the Port Authority agreed to return all of the $125 million in equity that the consortium headed by Silverstein originally invested to buy the lease on the World Trade Center. The Port Authority rejected a request by the Wall Street Journal to review the transaction. 5 A press report from November 2003 about the same transaction noted that it would allow Silverstein to retain development rights. 6

The lease deal didn't close until July 24th, just 6 weeks before the attack. 7

 

[shaman_]

The fire wasn't -at- the ground level. Or is this a case of the magical jet fuel that (according to the official story) managed to get itself all over the place?

The cables for some of the lifts were severed and at least one made it all the way to the basement. It is expected that jet fuel travelled down the lifts as well. There were electrical panels, equipment falling over, there was construction people on one floor, pockets of fuel igniting, the initial collision and explosion, the collision and explosion in the other tower - there were many things that people would have described sounding like an explosion. When a 767 slams into a large skyscraper and causes a large fire you are going to hear some explosions. It is the most convenient adjective to use in that situation.

Do conspiracy theorists ever think about how silly it would be to blow up a building which is going to be hit by planes (absurd in the 1s place) and use bombs which make a loud noise? I'm sure the government has access to something which could quetly initiate a building to collapse... Oh thats right they used uberthermite ......and bombs at the same time. Makes perfect sense.

 

[shaman_]

Larry Silverstein reaped immense profits due to the WTC attacks on 9/11/01, Round 3

This post is in response to shaman_'s post 707 in this thread.



He was under no obligation to rebuild the site-

Scott the guy is a billionaire who owns lots of property around new York. He can retire and sail the world any day he likes. He is not going to take part in a super conspiracy for $500 million which he loses the instant he rebuilds the same building. He's got money. Stop and think about it.

As to that 120$ million a year, can you cite me your source?

wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

 

[scott3x]

The magic jet fuel

The fire wasn't -at- the ground level. Or is this a case of the magical jet fuel that (according to the official story) managed to get itself all over the place?

The cables for some of the lifts were severed and at least one made it all the way to the basement. It is expected that jet fuel travelled down the lifts as well.

Expected by the official story anyway. Do they present any evidence to support the claim that this actually happened?

There were electrical panels, equipment falling over

Electrical panels do not equal explosions by default. As to equipment falling over, is there any evidence that the jets or the fires they created had anything to do with things of this nature happening on the lower levels?

there was construction people on one floor, pockets of fuel igniting the initial collision and explosion, the collision and explosion in the other tower - there were many things that people would have described sounding like an explosion. When a 767 slams into a large skyscraper and causes a large fire you are going to hear some explosions. It is the most convenient adjective to use in that situation.

On the affected floors, alright, I'll buy it. Way below the affedted floors, however, it's a whole different story.

Do conspiracy theorists ever think about how silly it would be to blow up a building which is going to be hit by planes (absurd in the 1s place) and use bombs which make a loud noise? I'm sure the government has access to something which could quietly cause a building to collapse...

People such as Szamboni have argued that the demolition's first phase took out the core- this is supported by the antena going down first and it even seems to account for the bowing. It also has the advantage that, because it was internal, it was less visible. What you don't seem to understand is that the inside jobbers -wanted- people to believe that the planes brought the buildings down. And it's clearly still fooling a great many people. So clearly the bombs they tried to make the explosions as quiet as they could; placing them in the innermost reaches of the building would help with that. Many people were actually -in- the building during the various phases of the demolition, however, and so their ruse was uncovered. However, they also had lots of people to try to get people to see things the official story way.

I also still believe that nano-thermites may well be more quiet explosives then regular explosives, but I have yet to get any evidence for against this possibility.

 

[scott3x]

Larry Silverstein reaped immense profits due to the WTC attacks on 9/11/01, Round 4

He was under no obligation to rebuild the site- it was an option and he took it, probably to make even more money.

Scott the guy is a billionaire who owns lots of property around new York. He can retire and sail the world any day he likes. He is not going to take part in a super conspiracy for $500 million which he loses the instant he rebuilds the same building.

Some people seem to always want more. As to losing the money, you act as if he bought the WTC 7 building. He didn't. He -leased- it. Then, with a lot of help from the profits he just got from the terrorist attacks, he rebuilt it. That's not a loss of money, that's an investment to make even more. And no lease this time- it's his. 9/11 Research's parable concerning the twin towers, with a little modification, is apt for WTC 7 as well. To whit:
To put these events in perspective, imagine that a person leases an expensive house, and takes out an insurance policy covering the entire value of the house and specifically covering bomb attacks. The house burns down, and the lessor gets paid for a significant portion of the value of the house. The lessor also gets the city to dispose of the wreckage.

As to that 120$ million a year, can you cite me your source?

wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

I guess I should have said "can you excerpt your source and link to it". Anyway, there's no mention of 120$ million a year in that article.

 

[scott3x]

The twin towers characteristics: how they were like controlled demolitions and unlike destruction by fires, Round 3

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 542 in this thread.

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...

So stop saying that I have ignored them.

I mean in recent posts. Look, if you've already countered my points on my site, why can't you simply link to your counters?

This is a stupid childish game that you play. Are you going to tell me that I have never discussed thermite, witness testimony of bombs, ejection of materials during the collapse, squibs, pulverised concrete, symmetrical collapse, molten metal ect ect ect.. These are points we have been over many times and now you are challenging me to link to each one. Are you really trying to imply that you don’t remember discussing these things?

No, just that I wanted it all on the record for my site. Since then, however, I've gotten a bit laissez faire with the site. So much going on here, I have a hard enough time responding. In theory, putting the important points in the site could make it so that we don't rehash stuff ofcourse...

I'm trying to distill the most important arguments for the controlled demolition hypothesis, as well as bring up issues that still need to be worked on.

You’re probably going to filter out any debunking and claim victory! Are you going to include the comments from this document?

Up until now in this post, we've only been arguing about what we've been talking about- not really talking about the WTC collapses at all .

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf

Along with my various counters to many of his arguments, I was definitely thinking I'd add that stuff in. One day anyway ;-p.

As Headspin mentioned in post 222, it was a "steel framed multi storey floating casino that was washed inland by hurricane katrina". And if it were already extremely damaged, why the need for explosives at all?

What a stupid question. To finish it off. That thing is a barge and it looks like four stories.

Man you have a penchant for the insults. The question is by no means 'stupid'. If fires were so dangerous to steel framed buildings, we could just pour on some gas and presto, a nice and neat demolition style collapse.

They were both multi story buildings, atleast, unlike the Mccormick place warehouse, which had no 'core' per se and thus the roof cave in made much more sense; scientifically speaking, it's too bad it didn't have multiple stories as I think it would have resoundingly shown that the rest of the stories wouldn't have pancaked down at near free fall speed without the type of help that the casino had. This whole 'pancake collapse' theory has only been used once in all of history- on 911.

.. so once again you are implying that something happening for the first time is suspicious. Irrefutable evidence…

767s haven’t crashed into many high rise buildings either.

It's been acknowledged that the damage from the planes wasn't such a big deal even by NIST. Furthmore, the damage was localized to a few floors. In order to propagate the idea that the collapse wasn't done by explosives, however, they had to come up with something; the physical simulations just weren't working out when it came to fires doing it, so they tweaked out their computer simulation and left things at 'poised for collapse'.

It's just a matter of setting the charges up a little differently.

That’s not the point. Your argument is that it must be a controlled demolition because it looks like one. When I say it doesn’t quite look like, you retreat to well its possible.

It doesn't quite look like a conventional demolition. However, when you compare it to a fire based collapse, such as the Windsor Tower, it's clear that it looks much -more- like a conventional demolition then it looked like a fire based collapse like the Windsor tower. The main issue is that high rise fire based collapses don't happen in a matter of seconds. They take time. And I'm not saying that they just need an hour or 2 and then they'll fall demolition style. They fall piecemeal. Compare the WTC building collapses that took less then 20 seconds per building and the hours it took for the piecemeal partial collapse of the Windsor tower:
Estimated time frame of collapses
Time Collapse Situation
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down

At some point (not soon) you are going to have to think about the logic of a master super conspiracy of smashing planes into buildings and then demolishing in such an obvious manner.

In such an obvious manner? You still seem to believe that the planes alone did it. Doesn't look like it's so obvious to me.

If they really could get absurd amounts of bombs and thermite into the building they are capable of making it more convincing than that.

The amounts aren't as big as NIST would have us believe, especially considering the fact that nano-thermite is an actual explosive, unlike regular thermite.

Why would they need to demolish the damn building anyway? It is absurd.

To collect more insurance money, to have the necessary deaths in order to get into 2 more wars that some had been planning for a while, perhaps even to boost Israel's position. You ever consider -why- those loudspeakers were telling people to return to their desks when they could have fled the buildings to safety? Or why the doors to the roofs were locked, or why helicopters were told not to attempt a rescue from the roof?

 

[John99]

:crazy:

 

[shaman_]

Larry Silverstein reaped immense profits due to the WTC attacks on 9/11/01, Round 4

Some people seem to always want more.

Oh come on. With his wealth the amount was not significant and was not enough to even rebuild. So you have no evidence he was involved and not much of a motive either.

Then, with a lot of help from the profits he just got from the terrorist attacks, he rebuilt it. That's not a loss of money,

The point of insurance is to provide you with the money to replace what was destroyed. His payout was less than the cost of replacement, yet you are referring to it as ‘profits’. Clearly if it cost more to rebuild then the payout should not be referred to as profits.

I guess I should have said "can you excerpt your source and link to it". Anyway, there's no mention of 120$ million a year in that article.

“As leaseholder of buildings One, Two, Four and Five, Silverstein had the legal right to rebuild the buildings, including the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site which would later be designated as building One, and while the site remains unoccupied, he continues to pay $10 million per month in rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey."

 

[leopold]

We weren't talking about the burning part of the building, but I'll bite. What are these 4 things? Clearly 1 would be electrical stuff. I'd guess another would be fuel.

you mean to tell me that the websites you have been plastering all over these threads have not listed the possible reasons for the explosions that were heard??
doesn't that say anything about their objectivity?

now you know why i told you to start thinking for your self.

and yes, a fire on the 50th floor can indeed cause an explosion on the ground level, any ideas how?
it's a safe bet you'll not find the answer on the websites you post.

 

[shaman_]

Educating NanoScott

Expected by the official story anyway. Do they present any evidence to support the claim that this actually happened?

We’ve been through this one before as well Scott. It is mentioned in many of the documents I have read such as http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm
If there was thousands of gallons there don’t you think it is certainly possible? Remember that we have discussed accounts of smelling kerosene in the basement. Here are some more -

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1907291&postcount=40

Electrical panels do not equal explosions by default.

What a meaningless response. The buildings were hit by 767s at full speed. The entire building moved when it was hit. Default no longer mattered.

As to equipment falling over, is there any evidence that the jets or the fires they created had anything to do with things of this nature happening on the lower levels?

Yes, as mentioned above but the explosion of jet fuel would still be felt and heard and felt on the lower levels and they may certainly describe it as an ‘explosion’.

On the affected floors, alright, I'll buy it. Way below the affedted floors, however, it's a whole different story.

The collision would still be felt and explosions may still be heard. It wasn’t soundproof and the sound could travel down the columns anyway.

People such as Szamboni have argued that the demolition's first phase took out the core- this is supported by the antena going down first and it even seems to account for the bowing.

That does not answer my question.

It also has the advantage that, because it was internal, it was less visible.

But it would be heard wouldn’t it?

What you don't seem to understand is that the inside jobbers -wanted- people to believe that the planes brought the buildings down.

Yer thanks Scott I think I got that at some stage.

And it's clearly still fooling a great many people. So clearly the bombs they tried to make the explosions as quiet as they could; placing them in the innermost reaches of the building would help with that.

Still avoiding the point. Why not use something silent? If thermite can cut through the steel as some people claim then why not use that? According to you they had the technology. Why use something that would alert everyone to conspiracy?

Many people were actually -in- the building during the various phases of the demolition, however, and so their ruse was uncovered.

Well of course they bloody well were. Did the government expect it to be empty at 9am? You are not thinking.

However, they also had lots of people to try to get people to see things the official story way.

You mean reality?

I also still believe that nano-thermites may well be more quiet explosives then regular explosives, but I have yet to get any evidence for against this possibility.

Right……

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I am telling you that i have personally witnessed trash burning at over 1700 degrees and those towers were very much like an incinerator and a confined space.



That temp. could have easily been reached. To be perfectly clear, you are wrong.

Steel just starts to lose strength at 350 degrees C (662 degrees F) and loses half of it at 600 degrees C (1112 degrees F). After considering the aircraft impact damage, the factor of safety in the tower columns shows all the undamaged columns would have to get to 650 degrees C (1202 degrees F) before any collapse would even be possible.

Do you believe all of the steel could have reached 1200 degrees Fahrenheit?

If you do a little analysis and see how much energy it takes to raise just a ton of steel 1130 degrees F you might start to see the point.

There was no physical evidence, for these extremely high steel temperatures, found in the testing done by the NIST on tower steel they got for analysis. Doesn't that give you any reason to wonder?

Air temperatures are not steel temperatures.

You are making an unsupported statement that I am wrong. Please be specific.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I just read Tony Szamboti's The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers. Pretty good stuff. Tony, you may want to get a certain aspected corrected- your paper to the Journal was either submitted in May 2007, or it was written in February 2008. Both can't be true at once. Wondering if it was perhaps updated in February 2008?

Scott, the paper was originally published in May 2007 and updated in February 2008, to use the actual core column data which was released by NIST in the summer of 2007, and a refined tower weight which was available due to Gregory Urich's Tower Mass Analysis being available in Dec. 2007. Prior to that I had to estimate column sizes based on photos from the Engineering News Record, the anecdotal tower weight of 500,000 tons, and minimum factor of safety requirements. The tower columns exceeded the minimum factors of safety by a significant margin.

Even if they are updated papers are usually kept in the monthly volume they were originally published in.

I joined the conversation here after seeing that Psikeyhacker was still wondering why we don't have all of the information about the amount of steel and concrete in the towers on each floor. With the release of the core column data we essentially do have that information now. The actual sizes of the core columns was difficult to estimate as there was a significant amount of variance on each floor depending on where in the core the columns were located. There is no question on them now. The only thing we are still estimating is the perimeter column wall thickness and they are much easier to estimate since their external configuration is constant and known, the density of steel is constant, the strength was published for given areas by the Engineering News Record in the 1960's, and we have contract data giving total weight of the perimeter steel. Both collapse areas of the towers had perimeter column steel yield strengths of 65,000 psi. NIST does make the comment in its tower report that the wall thickness of the perimeter columns never went below .250 inches. Using the known external configuration and the interpolated weight of those columns for the 98th floor I found a wall thickness of .289 inches. Additionally, when calculating the wall thickness of the perimeter columns for other floors, with a known mass above them, the factor of safety stays relatively constant at between 5.00 and 6.00 to 1. These multiple correlations provide a reasonable level of confidence in the estimate.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Steel just starts to lose strength at 350 degrees C (662 degrees F) and loses half of it at 600 degrees C (1112 degrees F). After considering the aircraft impact damage, the factor of safety in the tower columns shows all the undamaged columns would have to get to 650 degrees C (1202 degrees F) before any collapse would even be possible.

Do you believe all of the steel could have reached 1200 degrees Fahrenheit?

If you do a little analysis and see how much energy it takes to raise just a ton of steel 1130 degrees F you might start to see the point.

There was no physical evidence, for these extremely high steel temperatures, found in the testing done by the NIST on tower steel they got for analysis. Doesn't that give you any reason to wonder?

Air temperatures are not steel temperatures.

You are making an unsupported statement that I am wrong. Please be specific.

You don't have to raise the temperature of a ton of steel, all you need to do is raise the Temperature of a section of of that steel to 1130 F and you compromise the structural strength of that beam.

The other thing is that many of the support beams were of thin steel bent bar truss construction instead of solid steel beams.

Here is a good read on the construction techniques of the WTC in comparison to the Empire State Building.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Steel Framing
The most noticeable change in the modern high-rise construction is a trend to using more steel and shaping lightweight steel into tubes, curves, and angles to increase its load bearing capability. The WTC has tubular steel bearing walls, fluted corrugated steel flooring and bent bar steel truss floor supports. To a modern high rise building designer steel framing is economical and concrete is a costly material. For a high-rise structural frame: columns, girders, floors and walls, steel provides greater strength per pound than concrete. Concrete is heavy. Concrete creates excessive weight in the structure of a building. Architects, designers , and builders all know if you remove concrete from a structure you have a building that weights less. So if you create a lighter building you can use columns, girders and beams of smaller dimensions, or better yet you can use the same size steel framing and build a taller structure. In News York City where space is limited you must build high. The trend over the past half-century is to create lightweight high buildings. To do this you use thin steel bent bar truss construction instead of solid steel beams. To do this you use hollow tube steel bearing walls, and curved sheet steel (corrugated) under floors. To do this you eliminate as much concrete from the structure as you can and replace it with steel. Lightweight construction means economy. It means building more with less. If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.

The fire service believes there is a direct relation of fire resistance to mass of structure. The more mass the more fire resistance. The best fire resistive building in America is a concrete structure. The structures that limit and confine fires best, and suffer fewer collapses are reinforced concrete pre WWII buildings such as housing projects and older high rise buildings like the empire state building, The more concrete, the more fire resistance; and the more concrete the less probability of total collapse. The evolution of high- rise construction can be seen, by comparing the empire state building to the WTC. My estimate is the ratio of concrete to steel in the empire state building is 60/40. The ratio of concrete to steel in the WTC is 40/60. The tallest building in the world, the Petronas Towers, in Kula Lumpur, Malaysia, is more like the concrete to steel ratio of the empire state building than concrete to steel ratio of the WTC. Donald Trump in New York City has constructed the tallest reinforced concrete high-rise residence building.

Concrete removal

Since the end of WWII builders designed most of the concrete from the modern high-rise constriction. First concrete they eliminated was the stone exterior wall. They replace them with the “curtain walls of glass, sheet steel, or plastics. This curtain wall acted as a lightweight skin to enclose the structure from the outside elements. Next the 8-inch thick concrete floors went. They were replaced with a combination of 2 or 3 inches of concrete on top of thin corrugated steel sheets. Next the masonry enclosure for stairs and elevators were replaced with several layers of sheet rock. Then the masonry smoke proof tower was eliminated in the 1968 building code. It contained too much concrete weight and took up valuable floor space. Then the solid steel beam was replace by the steel truss. And finally the concrete and brick encasement of steel columns girders and floor supports was eliminated. A lightweight spray-on coating of asbestos or mineral fiber was sprayed over the steel. This coating provided fireproofing. After asbestos was discovered hazardous vermiculite or volcanic rock ash substance was used as a spray-on coating for steel. Outside of the foundation walls and a thin 2 or 3 inches of floors surface, concrete has almost been eliminated from high-rise office building construction. If you look at the WTC rubble at ground zero you see very little concrete and lots of twisted steel.

High Rise Fire and Life Safety. l976, he listed the following problems of spray-on fire protection of steel:

Failure to prepare the steel for spray-on coating adhesion. Rust and dirt allowed spray-on fire retarding coating to scale and fall away from steel during construction
Poor or uneven application of the spray-on fire retarding was discovered during post fire investigations
Variation of spray-on material during manufacture makes it ineffective
Lack of thoroughness in covering the steel during application is a problem
Failure to replace spray-on material dislodged by other trades people performing work around the steel during the construction of the building.
The WTC started construction in the 1970s. And the WTC towers built by the Port Authority of New York did not have to comply with the minimum requirements of the new1968 performance building code.