You are correct that I am going from photographic evidence and have trusted that the times on those photos are correct. However there is testimony to back this up and I have read this at many sources.
Here is a good summary.
http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html
There may be video though but I am at work and can’t search.
Good luck trying to find video of bowing perimeter columns. I have searched for quite some time and there are none. There have been others I said this to who didn't believe it and they had to come back with the same answer.
Please provide reliable evidence of melted steel.
I am glad you mentioned Structural engineer Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl as he himself said he saw evidence of steel which had melted and vaporized from the towers and WTC 7. He admits it to PBS in May 2007 here
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html. It is about 3/4 of the way down the article.
And here in October 2001 he tells the NY Times that a piece of steel he saw from WTC 7 had been partly vaporized.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E6DC123DF931A35753C1A9679C8B63
There are numerous NYC firefighters who have said there was molten steel in the rubble and are interviewed on video which is on the Internet.
There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (”Twin Towers”) and 7. For example,
Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer, ‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)
Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,
‘Nobody’s going to be alive.’ Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, “In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.”
Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel. Unfortunately, it was never tested to ascertain the actual composition. Why not?
No I didn’t say 99.5% was inspected. Qualified people spent weeks going over thousands of tons of steel though.
What they observed was consistent with the official story.
What could they have observed other than bowed and twisted metal? They didn't reconstruct anything and determine some sort of failure mode or sequence. They did no testing on the steel at Freshkills landfill and the steel was shipped off for recycling from there, except for the paltry 0.5% they saved for NIST.
It was still enough to damage some columns, knock off some fireproofing.
Here is more for you to think about here. The North tower aircraft nose entered the tower at the 95th floor on the north side at a 10 degree downward pitch angle. The North tower bowing allegedly occurred at the 98th floor on the south side of the building. If one were to extrapolate the 10 degree angle across the 209 foot building the aircraft debris would have been concentrated at about 70 feet below the 98th floor. However, we are to believe the fireproofing was stripped off of the floor trusses of the 98th floor on the south side of the building. This does not add up.
The analysis of the steel was done by people such as structural engineer Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. They did not use photos to reach their conclusions. There are however photos that show steel twisted and softened by the fire. That is what I am referring to. This supports estimated temperatures of 1000C.
The steel was most likely twisted by impact forces not fire. The only way to tell what temperature the steel experienced is to do tests on the spheroidization of the microstructure.
I admit that is disappointing. It’s as if they collected the best looking panels – which were the least heat affected. However that is just one part of the NIST investigation and the evidence for temperatures of 1000C does not completely rest on the panel samples. There was plenty of steel found which was clearly softened by the fire and there is other evidence of much higher temperatures.
How can you tell if the steel was softened by fire? Was the hardness tested to see if was annealed? I haven't heard that. Since there is no mention of any testing done at Freshkills landfill in the NIST report it seems all they could have done was look at the steel and say yes it is all twisted and broken and looks like it was in a fire. Isn't that great? In the meantime NIST has to say most of the steel wasn't available for them to test. I think it is naive not to be suspicious of how the steel evidence was handled.
Everything that happens for the first time is suspicious? Steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire. WTC7 was just a taller steel framed building. Had nothing else happened that day other than WTC7 then perhaps the ending would have been different. However a lot happened that day. It isn’t very common for skyscrapers to collapse and collide with other buildings as happened to WTC7. It isn’t very common for that many firefighters to be killed in one incident. Lack of water ect.
No legitimate steel framed high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire. The Chicago warehouse building isn't analogous and neither is the three story ramshackle building in Thailand that collapsed even though it had steel in it.
To those who were actually there it was not suspicious at all. They could see the building looked dangerous and pulled out. They were right to do so.
Why wasn't water run from fire hydrants a mile away or the nearby fireboats and the standpipe system used on WTC 7? This could have been done without entering the building.
One of the bottom floors completely gave way and gravity did the rest.
Are you trying to say a 2.25 second freefall occurred due to a bottom floor caving out? That doesn't work mathematically.
This becomes irrelevant when enough columns have been damaged and weakened by fire.
It doesn't sound like you understood the need for impulse. I am speaking about what happens after the initiation of the collapse and what is needed to collapse succeeding floors which could carry four times the static load above them.
In a focused way? It is just air trying to escape and coming out some windows. A large part of the building was air. It was pushed downwards during collapse. Think of a syringe. This is supported by testimony from firemen who were in the stairs when the collapse started. They felt a strong wind when they heard the collapsing floors.
Squibs would be exploding out faster than that and would be used to initiate the collapse. The few pointed out by truthers are seen as the collapse is already in full effect. By that stage there is already a lot of force coming downwards and no need for any squibs.
I am talking about 250 feet below the collapse zone. The air would not be pressurized that far away over a wide expanse of the building and these blowouts were high velocity and very focused.
Leslie Robertson claims that the jet fuel was not taken into account and they were not estimating that the plane would be flying at full speed.
Unfortunately, Leslie Robertson is contradicted by his late boss John Skilling here, who when asked in 1993 if he had considered plane crashes in his design Skilling referred to a 1964 analysis of just this issue: “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all of the fuel would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... the building structure would still be there.” The February 1964 white paper which discussed that analysis also said they considered a Boeing 707 or DC-8 flying at 600 MPH. The NIST report says they saw the white paper and it says the analysis considered a 600 MPH airspeed of the aircraft. So Leslie is contradicted by the actual record on both counts of the fuel and airspeed. Here is a link to the Seattle Times interview of John Skilling in 1993.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698