WTC Collapses

[Headspin]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
visual evidence of squibs, ”

Compressed air

air is invisible, you wouldn't see it, compressed or otherwise.

edit - syringe analogy is not compatable with any notion of elevator-basement fireballs.

 

[Headspin]

Quantity is not quality. Listing many incorrect or unconvincing claims doesn't make the case more credible

...and your explanation(s) for the alumino-iron microspheres would be?

 

[shaman_]

you are now suggesting that a demolition was possible by installing demolition devices on a single floor. i think we have made some progress.

A truther taking the interpretation that suits them? Headspin I'm shocked.

I was under the impression that skyscrapers are held up by the vertical columns, not the floors.

Then let me clarify for you. The collapse began when a column buckled somewhere between floor 5 - 14.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

A truther taking the interpretation that suits them? Headspin I'm shocked.

Then let me clarify for you. The collapse began when a column buckled somewhere between floor 5 - 14.

How do you explain the freefall in WTC 7's collapse? Watch David Chandler's, the physics teacher who made NIST admit it for WTC 7, latest explanation here

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4

 

[Headspin]

Originally Posted by Headspin
you are now suggesting that a demolition was possible by installing demolition devices on a single floor. i think we have made some progress. ”

A truther taking the interpretation that suits them? Headspin I'm shocked.

eh? I was pointing to how your statement "One of the bottom floors completely gave way and gravity did the rest" negates common anti-truther arguments. This is in no way even similar to using information selectively.

You are happy to promote the idea that failure on a single floor causes complete catastrophic freefall collapse, but arguments abound here that it would take too long to rig "every floor", "someone would have seen", "miles of wiring" etc. these arguments are rendered bogus if you accept a single floor failure could cause catastrophic collapse. the only issue then is whether the single floor was destroyed by demolition devices or from assymetrical damage from fire.

“ Originally Posted by Headspin
I was under the impression that skyscrapers are held up by the vertical columns, not the floors. ”

Then let me clarify for you. The collapse began when a column buckled somewhere between floor 5 - 14.

so how does a single column buckling cause a catastrophic symmetrical freefall collapse?

if the columns were made of wet spagetti, the building would not have come down faster.

 

[shaman_]

more here:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

In that report they estimate that the temperatures were around 1000C.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

There are other possible causes for those spheres.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm#Iron Spheres

 

[Headspin]

In that report they estimate that the temperatures were around 1000C.

bump: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2084666&postcount=2264

 

[Headspin]

How do you explain the freefall in WTC 7's collapse? Watch David Chandler's, the physics teacher who made NIST admit it for WTC 7, latest explanation here

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4

OMG, that's a slam dunk!

 

[shaman_]

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.

Its actually hard to find decent footage in youtube. I looked for a while and will take your word on it. I can’t find any clear footage of WTC1 in the minutes leading up to the collapse at all, which leaves it somewhat unresolved. For the moment, I will trust the photos and the testimony.

Are you suggesting that documents such as this are fraudulent? http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf

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.

He mentions melting of girders. Melting girders is not the same as liquid metal.

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

Astaneh-Asl is not quoted saying that it vaporised. That is paraphrase.

If you read Astaneh’s work there is no mention or molten or vaporised steel. He has made it very clear that he believes the fires alone were responsible for the collapse.

http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm
“Mr. Astaneh-Asl also rejects such alternative theories. "I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff," he says.
"Those are lightweight buildings," he adds. "There was no need for explosives to bring them down."”

He goes into more detail as to what he means here –

“To support his theory, he cites the way the steel has been bent at several connection points that once joined the floors to the vertical columns. If the internal supporting columns had collapsed upon impact, he says, the connection points would show cracks, because the damage would have been done while the steel was cold. Instead, he describes the connections as being smoothly warped: "If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees."
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i15/15a02701.htm

Softened steel but not liquid steel.

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?

Molten metal is not automatically molten steel. There were other metals which were of a lower melting point. People, even firefighters generally aren’t able to tell the difference simply by looking at it.

There have also been quotes regarding molten metal or steel that when scrutinized were clearly referring to red hot steel/metal and not molten. So some skepticism here is most certainly advised.

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.

They were able to determine enough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyRw7gEKpBQ

What sort of ‘tests’ should they have been performing?

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.

I will look into it. I never finished the last document you gave me to read.

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.

You are incorrect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w6HWJ476z4

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’ll say it again, Astaneh-Asl and others inspected the steel for weeks and what they found supported the official story. The steel wasn’t spirited away and it wasn’t destroyed quickly.

I think it is naive not to be suspicious of how the steel evidence was handled.

It took six months to remove it all. Anyone could have grabbed a piece.

No legitimate steel framed high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire.

But that is not evidence for anything. Saying it over and over doesn’t change that. No 767 has ever smashed into a high rise at 500mph before. That doesn’t prove it can’t happen.

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.

Don’t know what building you are referring to. The critical point of the analogy is that fire reaches temperatures high enough to weaken steel and cause it to collapse. There are more than two examples of this.

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.

There was water but the pressure was weak. There is plenty of firefighter testimony of this.

Are you trying to say a 2.25 second freefall occurred due to a bottom floor caving out? That doesn't work mathematically.

The collapse began on one of the lower floors and the upper floors followed. The whole building was not in freefall, a section of the building was for a few seconds. This however does not automatically equal a controlled demolition.

Do you ever think that if the government could pull this off, and would even bother blowing up a building not hit by the plane, after seven hours (lets ignore that the firefighters could see it was going to collapse) don’t you think they would do it in a manner that didn’t look like a controlled demolition?

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.

They were not designed to carry all the floors above them once they had gained some momentum.

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

The firefighter testimony contradicts your claim.

and these blowouts were high velocity

Not the velocity you would expect from a squib though.

and very focused.

It’s air, dust and other materials coming out the windows.

Would squibs be ‘focused’ anyway?

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

There are a few points to be made there. 1. Where is the actual evidence of the analysis? I’m not suggesting that one wasn’t done but that it would need to be checked. 2. Why would Robertson contradict his boss? 3. The building did stand for an hour and tens of thousands of lives were saved. 4 (Most importantly) Structures have failed before when tested with conditions that they were supposedly designed for.

 

[scott3x]

visual evidence of squibs,

Compressed air

air is invisible, you wouldn't see it, compressed or otherwise.

Nicely said. I'd imagine he might argue that the compressed air is what's expulsing the pulverized dust. In a way, ofcourse, that'd be right. However, seeing that some were created before the building collapse even reached that far, the only logical explanation is that the collapsing building had nothing to do with their creation.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

In that report they estimate that the temperatures were around 1000C.


There are other possible causes for those spheres.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm#Iron Spheres

You need to read it closer. In FEMA Appendix C they say intergranular melting occurred at 1000 degrees C. That is far more reaching than what you are trying to show. The melting temperature of steel is 1500 degrees C so this steel melting at 1000 degrees C was highly unusual and they said it happened because a eutectic reaction with sulfur had occurred.

There have been experiments done to see if sulfur from gypsum could have been the cause and the answer is no as it does not come out of the gypsum solution in a monotomic state. This wouldn't be the case with thermate, which was developed to cause a lower melting point for steel when cutting it with incendiaries, using sulfur to cause a eutectic to form.

You had also asked for reliable sources for molten metal earlier and whether it was steel or not. It looks like FEMA Appendix C answered both.

 

[John99]

I admit that at this point i am just scanning through the posts.

One thing i noticed is gysum. What is gysum?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I admit that at this point i am just scanning through the posts.

One thing i noticed is gysum. What is gysum?

Fire proof under wall board, very chalky, and has a normal moisture content that resist fire.

 

[John99]

Thanks. I thought maybe he meant gypsum but that is too obvious. I cant find much about it on google.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Thanks. I thought maybe he meant gypsum but that is too obvious. I cant find much about it on google.

It is a recognized fire resistant safety material.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Thanks. I thought maybe he meant gypsum but that is too obvious. I cant find much about it on google.

Yes he did miss the

National Gypsum Company: Fire Safety Information
Important Fire Safety Information 5/8” Type X Gypsum Wallboard Standards, Testing, and Certification. Summary. Type X gypsum wallboard, 5/8" in thickness ...

www.nationalgypsum.com/resources/safetyinformati... - 63k - Similar pages

http://www.nationalgypsum.com/resources/safetyinformation/

 

[John99]

:bugeye:

 

[Buffalo Roam]

:bugeye:

Though you would get a laugh.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes he did miss the
National Gypsum Company: Fire Safety Information
Important Fire Safety Information 5/8” Type X Gypsum Wallboard Standards, Testing, and Certification. Summary. Type X gypsum wallboard, 5/8" in thickness ...

www.nationalgypsum.com/resources/safetyinformati... - 63k - Similar pages

http://www.nationalgypsum.com/resources/safetyinformation/

Yes, I did have a typo and missed the "P" in gypsum. Thanks for pointing that out. It is fixed so nobody else misunderstands.

 

[shaman_]

Astaneh and his small team did not arrive until a few weeks after 911 and access to ground zero was restricted, I think most of his inspection were done at fresh kills and scrap yards after cleanup cutting was done. How would anyone have been able to visually distinguish between damage and cutting due to cleanup operations and any damage, melting, or cutting that might have been due to demolition devices?

Demolition devices?

With the appropriate expertise they were able to identify signs of cutting and signs of fire. These are the two links I posted in a reply to Tony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyRw7gEKpBQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w6HWJ476z4

A lot of the steel had already been destroyed before his small team of volunteers arrived,

That is certainly possible. They still had access to thousands of tons worth though. They found clues that supported the official story. They found nothing that implied demolition.

I also recall his complaining about being subject to a non-disclosure agreement.

He was asked to be part of an investigation team with FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers. There was a non disclosure agreement so that the findings would not be used against the owners and designers of the buildings. So he refused.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007_05_27_archive.html