WTC Collapses

[Tony Szamboti]

Temperatures of 1000C are quite possible in an office fire.

You are talking air temperatures NOT steel temperatures.

What I see a lot of from the truthers though is testing one possibility, finding that wouldn’t answer the question so the answer must be thermite.

There are a lot of reasons to suspect incendiaries were used in addition to the FEMA Appendix C piece. How about, the iron microspheres and red/gray chips found in the dust, severe corrosion of horizontal surfaces of cars near the WTC, molten metal in the rubble, molten metal flowing out of WTC 2 just before collapse.

When you were talking about molten metal you were not referring to eroded steel which had undergone sulfidation at temperatures near 1000C though. You were referring to large amounts of molten steel which was a result of very high temperatures.

The fires in the towers and WTC7 should have pretty much been put out by the collapses due to being smothered. The fact that fires burned in the rubble is not likely due to the fires that were in the buildings. There are never fires in the rubble from controlled demolitions done with standard explosives so the building collapsing and causing fires isn't very likely either.

The problem for those thinking there might be natural answers to the documented very high temperatures in the rubble, like yourself, is that fire doesn't burn that hot. The temperatures in some areas on the surface of the tower and WTC 7 rubble were over 700 degrees C five days after the collapses. That means down inside the rubble it was much hotter than 1000 degrees C. How do you explain that? I can understand the thought process that makes one think it had to be from natural causes but there are just too many unprecedented anomalies.

 

[shaman_]

You are talking air temperatures NOT steel temperatures.

As demonstrated in the Cardington tests, the temperature of unprotected steel is only marginally behind that of the atmosphere.

There are a lot of reasons to suspect incendiaries were used in addition to the FEMA Appendix C piece. How about, the iron microspheres and red/gray chips found in the dust,

Which has possible sources other than thermite.

severe corrosion of horizontal surfaces of cars near the WTC,

The only possible explanation for that is an incendiary?

molten metal in the rubble,

Which could be explained by the fires.

molten metal flowing out of WTC 2 just before collapse.

Unsure of what the material is. Could be a soup of aluminum mixed with the materials present in the buildings.

The fires in the towers and WTC7 should have pretty much been put out by the collapses due to being smothered.

But the heat would have been trapped.

The fact that fires burned in the rubble is not likely due to the fires that were in the buildings. There are never fires in the rubble from controlled demolitions done with standard explosives so the building collapsing and causing fires isn't very likely either.

I don’t think your logic is sound there. You admit that a normal controlled demolition would be an unlikely cause and surmise that it means it is unlikely that the fires could do it.

The problem for those thinking there might be natural answers to the documented very high temperatures in the rubble, like yourself, is that fire doesn't burn that hot. The temperatures in some areas on the surface of the tower and WTC 7 rubble were over 700 degrees C five days after the collapses. That means down inside the rubble it was much hotter than 1000 degrees C. How do you explain that?

The maximum recorded was slightly over 700C. The fires could have gone over 1000C. NISTs workstation fires went well over 1000C I believe.

Explosives or a fast burning incendiary wouldn’t necessarily explain these temperatures either.

I can understand the thought process that makes one think it had to be from natural causes but there are just too many unprecedented anomalies.

The number of anomalies does not matter if they don’t stand up to scrutiny.

 

[shaman_]

'Normal' office fire tests, Round 5, Part 1

This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 542 in this thread.



With fireproofing, as well as with essentially no fireproofing as the excerpt provided above from Kevin Ryan's article The short reign of Ryan Mackey makes clear. .

Show me where that document ‘makes it clear’.

Show me the results of a test with temperatures near 1000C, steel with no fireproofing and bucking not occurring. This is what you are claiming, correct?

Regardless of the amount of fireproofing on them, they sagged a bit but they definitely didn't collapse-.

There is no mention there of tests without fireproofing. Just admit that it's possible the fires were hot enough to cause unprotected steel to buckle. You are just throwing random links at me now to keep me busy in the hope that I will move on.

and this in conditions that were definitely harsher then the actual WTC fires could have gotten.

What are you basing this on? Your imagination? Where are the details that make this clear?

Why wouldn't I say it? It's the truth. The fact that the steel -did- reach that temperature and even melted at that temperature points to only one thing as far as I know- thermate.

But the basis of the claim that the fires can't reach those temperatures seems to be your misunderstanding of a letter Kevin Ryan regarding the panel samples years ago.

Just admit that it is possible for an office fire to reach temperatures hot enough to soften unprotected steel. It doesn’t even cause your whole conspiracy religion to fall apart, as the official story still relies on demonstrating that the fireproofing would be removed. But you don’t want to concede one point so you try every trick to avoid doing so.

What fire tests are those?

The ones Kenny showed you. He has posted that link at least twice and I have posted it twice. That’s at least four times Scott. Will you pretend that you don't remember?

Personally, I think that fire tests done to simulate what happened on the WTC towers is much more on topic then fire tests done to see what happens to steel at temperatures that the WTC fires couldn't have reached, don't you?

Scott, you are still playing games. One of the Cardington tests simulated a fire with only office materials. It reached near 1000C. I am demonstrating it was possible for the WTC to reach those temperatures.

The 1970 and 2004 tests done by UL and mentioned in Kevin Ryan's article excerpt included above.

Those tests were done on fireproofed steel.

Fine. The temperatures in the Cardington tests were way above what the WTC fires were at, but ok.

That is an assertion based on your faith. As I have said, one of the tests was fueled only by office materials and it reached near 1000C.

'Normal' office fire tests, Round 5, Part 2

This post is in response to the 6th part of shaman_'s post 542 in this thread.



When has this been 'paintakingly shown' to me?

I’m still doing it now. You are stalling.

Ah, yes, because I have an encyclopaedic memory of what was said hundreds if not thousands of posts ago. Anyway, if the Cardington Fire tests showed that under extreme, nearly blast furnace like temperatures (1000 C was it?), steel starts buckling,

I will say it again, one of the tests was fueled office materials. It nearly reached 1000C. NISTs workstation tests were consistent with this.

Steel buckled in WTC5 and no jet fuel was involved.

I woudn't be surprised. The WTC fires never got that hot ofcourse.

Saying it over and over doesn’t make it true.

The -steel- did, however and even melted at that temperature. This is certainly unusual, but thermate lowers the melting point of steel to around 1000C.

I think you are confusing the posts regarding the eutectic mixture causing erosion of steel.

If by "fire", you mean to include the thermate induced explosions as well, I wholeheartedly agree. The WTC office fires could never have produced the temperatures reached by the steel, as Kevin Ryan and many others have made clear.

You are just trying to provoke me with comments like that. You are a troll..

I didn't ask you if it was an inconclusive test. I asked you how many of the core column fragments they analysed.

229.

I also asked you if they shipped them all off before they got a chance to do a proper analysis. If you don't know the answer to these questions, feel free to admit it.

I have told you how many there were a few times now. As to where they are now, how the bloody hell would I know? Your question was intended to provoke me.

Alright, let's see evidence that the fires alone got the steel to 1000C. This should be good.

For the moment lets start with demonstrating that a simple office fire can reach near 1000C. Concede that it can.

You know, NIST is the one who, in its 2004 interim report, failed to find much evidence of the steel going beyond 250C.

The steel inspected at the scene showed signs of temperatures well over 250C. NIST knew about this. Do you understand? There was other evidence. Instead you keep focusing on the outdated interim report from a few years ago.

Let's imagine, for a moment, that NIST was actually trying to cover up why the WTC towers fell. Let's imagine that they wanted to make it -look- like it was only due to the fires. Knowing that the fires couldn't have gotten much beyond 250C, certainly not beyond 600C, they only found evidence that this was the case. Perhaps this is why they didn't find much steel that had heated beyond 250C. I may be mistaken here, but I think it's something to consider.

No your speculation is worthless as there was evidence that the fire reached temperatures well above 250C. The steel inspected showed signs much hotter than that and the jet fuel alone burns a lot hotter than that. At no point did NIST think 250C was the maximum temperature that the office fires reached.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to psikeyhackr's post 839 in this thread.

Personally, I've found that the best thing that Mackey does is, as Jim Hoffman so aptly put it:
"generating masses of criticism of the targeted information using arguments with superficial plausibility -- the emphasis being on quantity -- , factual distortions, and logical fallacies."

This is the problem. There are lots of complicated details in the events of 9/11. People can argue around in circles about this stuff FOREVER. Most people will get tired of it and turnoff. Consequently Mackey wins. That is why I try to focus on something simple enough for grade school kids to understand. Distribution of mass in a skyscraper. The building could not stand without getting that right.

So why haven't official sources provided that in SEVEN YEARS?

How does top 15% by volume crush 81% without our being told the distribution of mass. Someone who claims to be a structural engineer on the Richard Dawkins forum just keeps claiming it is irrelevant but he won't explain what is incorrect about my FALL OF PHYSICS.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/view...11342#p1611342

He helped get me banned for a month.


psik

I see. Well, I like your idea, but as Tony Szamboti has said, I think it's also good to use a bunch of arguments that are perhaps not as strong but are nevertheless fairly compelling as well. And ofcourse, different people may find different arguments compelling...

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to a part of shaman_'s post 857 in this thread.

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.

What I see a lot of from the truthers though is testing one possibility, finding that wouldn’t answer the question so the answer must be thermite.

Do you atleast admit that you personally don't have a better explanation?

 

[John99]

Do you atleast admit that you personally don't have a better explanation?

So you make stuff up?

If you dont understand something you dont just go rewriting what is already known and look for 'big words' to add to your argument when you dont even understand what the words mean.

That is my contention.

 

[Headspin]

scott & shaman,
what is the maximum gas temperature in the core just prior to collapse according to NISTs fire simulation?

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05161.pdf

 

[scott3x]

Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, Round 5, Part 3

This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 634 in this thread.

Hopefully the person or people I went to would be both. On a side note on doctors, while I do believe that allopathic medicine does have a lot of important knowledge, I'm also a great believer in alternative medicine. The physician I most trust is not a medical doctor but a naturopathic one, named Dr. Jonn Matsen. He was studying to be a doctor but it wasn't helping a condition he had, so he switched to studying alternative medicine. He's written 3 books, all of which I've read. Here's the blurb on the back cover of his first, "Eating Alive":
"Dr. Jonn Matsen developed poor circulation in his fingers during his late teens that could have led to amputation. He began exploring health and healing. Dr. Matsen became a Chartered Herbalist in 1976. Later, in 1983, he graduated from the John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine in Seattle, Washington. Since then he has operated the North Shore Naturopathic Clinic in North Vancouver, British Columbia".

This is not to say that he discards allopathic medicine. In fact, his second or third book has about 100 pages of references to studies done by conventional doctors. As he puts it "Eating Alive":
"Since no doctor, type of practice or philosophy of healing can help every patient or every type of problem, it's important that there be a variety of approaches to the treatment of disease. A person who slips through the "safety net" of one mode of healing might still have hope that another practitioner with different experiences and insights might catch them and help them back to health."

If they were a doctor they had been trained by the most appropriate people and that training had been thoroughly tested to assure that they met a certain standard.

I believe that Matsen makes it clear that doctors are frequently not taught certain elements of critical thinking that would allow them to expand to more preventative methods instead of generally only stepping in when a disease manifests itself. It's also no secret that some doctors can be corrupted by drug companies. As I've mentioned in the past, Kevin Ryan has made it clear that certain individuals in NIST know a whole lot about nano-thermite and yet they never mention them in all their reports- the closest they go is mentioning conventional thermite. Why do you suppose the government appointed experts missed mentioning them?

Someone who had done a bit of research is not even close to the same level.

You and I haven't just done a 'bit of research'. And we both pale in comparison to someone like Kevin Ryan.

Just accept that Ryan is not an authority on steel. It’s not even a critical part of your argument but you need to contest every little criticism of your heroes.

When I have found that one of my arguments isn't backed up by sufficient evidence, I have let it go in the past. This is not one of those cases.

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.

Even his articles contain flaws!

You find one minor flaw and all of a sudden the article isn't worthy of note?

I scanned for three seconds and found one….. It wouldn’t matter how many mistakes this guy made you would still worship him.

Well one thing is clear- your tendency to exagerate when it suits you. Urban activists, flaws. And now it seems you're hard at work with your crystal ball, determining that I would "still worship him" regardless of any mistakes he made.

Your crystal ball seems to have told you the following:
1- I worship Kevin Ryan.
2- I will believe Kevin Ryan regardless of any mistakes he makes.

I think you bring up some good points that need to be dealt with shaman_, but your claims to knowledge regarding my personal beliefs are, shall we say, a little out there

You forget to mention all the research they've done on 9/11.

Big deal. So have you and I.

You and I haven't done as much research as Kevin Ryan. And while Mackey may be the eminent expert on superficial plausibility, even I can debunk his claims at times.

We’re not experts on the behaviour of steel are we? Could someone cite your comments as evidence? That is what you are trying to do with Ryan.

Kevin Ryan and I don't ask you to simply take our word for it, which seems to be one of Mackey's favourite tactics- this is why he can write hundreds of pages of 'debunking'- it's mainly fallacy rich stuff that can certainly be debunked- but it's harder to prove or disprove something then it is to simply state something as fact. This is why Jim Hoffman didn't bother debunking all of his claims- it's not worth his time.

You aren't as bad as Mackey, but you have frequently been rather lazy in backing up your claims. Saying that you've done it before somewhere isn't backing up your claims; it's wanting to do a Mackey- use your opponent's time to disprove you instead of trying to actually prove your own case. This is using the same logic that got the U.S. so many guantanamo bay prisoners; the idea is that you don't have to actually prove that they did anything- instead they have to -disprove- that they did anything. The same is the case with the whole idea that Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11 despite his vehement denials (a certain fake video aside). It's a Bush era relic and hopefully it'll start leaving when he does.

 

[John99]

In reference and in addition to post #866:

If you are perceptive enough you can find examples of this all over. First the subject needs to be somewhat complex and infamous helps as well.

As an example, right here we have a thread "AIDS is a lie". A question like that is somewhat ubnderstandable because there are still things to discover about a disease such as aids.

But what the person does when he makes a statement such as this is try and rationalize his\her inability to understand this complex fact of life.

 

[scott3x]

scott & shaman,
what is the maximum gas temperature in the core just prior to collapse according to NISTs fire simulation?

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05161.pdf

Aw come on Headspin, don't be a tease- I know you know the answer, why not tell us, as well as the page number in that document ?

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to John99's post 866 in this thread.

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.

What I see a lot of from the truthers though is testing one possibility, finding that wouldn’t answer the question so the answer must be thermite.

Do you atleast admit that you personally don't have a better explanation?

So you make stuff up?

How on earth did you arrive to that possibility from the above quoted question?

If you dont understand something you dont just go rewriting what is already known and look for 'big words' to add to your argument when you dont even understand what the words mean.

The argument sounds good, but do you actually have any evidence that I actually engage in this type of activity?

 

[John99]

This post is in response to John99's post 866 in this thread.

How on earth did you arrive to that possibility from the above quoted question?


The argument sounds good, but do you actually have any evidence that I actually engage in this type of activity?

Point #1:

How did i arrive at it?

Wiring the towers with explosives (physical impossibility). And isisting Thermite then Thermate then Nano-Thermate or whatever the new thing is. But that is just the most obvious example.

Point #2:

The argument sounds good and it is good. I can go on but it is possible we can explore this phenomenon at a later time.

 

[Headspin]

Thermite then Thermate then Nano-Thermate or whatever the new thing is. But that is just the most obvious.

this is only how the anti-truthers cook it up for your digestion. it is a mentality that has no bearing on the facts.

if you have followed it from the start, nanothermites and other thermite deriviatives were discussed even in the first conference papers. It is only a desire to stifle and suppress that compels anti-truthers to (falsely) express the situation in terms of an ever-changing argument.

 

[John99]

anti-truthers

is that a joke? go ahead and label people with a negative title. this is what hold back progress.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Wiring the towers with explosives (physical impossibility).

Really? Please explain.

And isisting Thermite then Thermate then Nano-Thermate or whatever the new thing is. But that is just the most obvious example.

I am tempted to return the favor you did me the other day and ask what "isisting" means, but won't as I realize you meant insisting. Obviously the ability to have typos doesn't discriminate.

As for your charge of changing claims by the truth movement on just what form of demolition devices were used, I think any detective would tell you that an investigation is evolutionary and converges. Here it is much less a case of changing as providing more specifics. Dr. Steven Jones originally postulated generally that thermite derivatives and explosives were most probably used to take down the towers. Once the eutectic reaction was discovered thermate became an obvious more specific candidate and with the need for some form of lower sound level but some explosive power and once it was known that such a product existed, nano-thermate was an even more explanative candidate for what could have been used. This is nothing more than a converging process with additional specificity of the general hypothesis put forth earlier.

More data helps to refine any investigation and in this case it is no different. The discovery of iron microspheres and red/gray chips in the dust have provided additional data to the early hypothesis which was based on molten metal found in the rubble and the apparent controlled demolition of WTC 7 needing pre-positioned charges.

 

[John99]

Do you want me to explain something inside your head?

 

[John99]

This is something you have to explain.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This is something you have to explain.

If you are referring to your claim that it is physically impossible to have wired the towers for demolition, I have to laugh.

There were years over which it could have been done. The elevator shafts provided a clandestine way to rig the core columns and drop ceilings on each floor, with four feet of space between them and the floor slab above, provided a clandestine way to do whatever would have been necessary to the perimeter columns, which most probably needed to be demolished at their corners.

Additionally, we know radio control of demolitions is done routinely now, so the need for massive wiring is unnecessary.

Radio and computer control would also allow for quick sequencing according to where the aircraft actually hit the buildings.

Isn't it interesting that the actual collapse floors were just above most of the impact damage. In case you didn't read his short paper on this Kevin Fenton's paper is here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/FentonWTCInitiationFloors.pdf. I can't isist that you read it, but it would proably be a good idea for you to do so.

 

[John99]

You are making it much simpler than is realistc and whatever to suit a scenario. Aside from that, it is still fantasy. These explosive were just hanging around for years and no maintenance personnel seen anything, no supervisors? Contractors do not just walk into these buildings and set up shop.

There is no 'clandestine' way to wire the twin towers for demolition without people knowing. This is common sense but according to you so many were already involved. Now we are up to what a few hundred?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You are making it much simpler than is realistc and whatever to suit a scenario. Aside from that, it is still fantasy. These explosive were just hanging around for years and no maintenance personnel seen anything, no supervisors? Contractors do not just walk into these buildings and set up shop.

There is no 'clandestine' way to wire the twin towers for demolition without people knowing. This is common sense but according to you so many were already involved. Now we are up to what a few hundred?

There would have been a reason the Kuwait American Co. purchased Securacom, which handled security for the towers, and installed Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker III on the board of directors in the mid 1990's. Interestingly they installed a new security system. This is too much to see as coincidence when the Bush administration and it's backers (including certain high level Kuwaitis and Saudis) had the most to gain from the events of Sept, 11, 2001. Nobody was deposed about who had access to the interiors of those buildings.

There were documented fireproofing upgrades done in 1999 and 2000 predominantly in the areas where the planes hit and the collapses initiated. There were no questions asked about this.

It is also interesting that a little known elevator company (Ace elevator) won the elevator maintenance contract over the long term incumbent and designer of the system (Otis elevator) in the mid to late 1990's. There was also an elevator upgrade project being done throughout much of 2001. There were no questions about this.

Let us also not forget that Bush appointees (FEMA agents under Bush crony Joseph Albaugh) were in NYC on Sept. 10, 2001, under the ostensible cover of doing a bio-terror drill on Sept. 12, 2001, and took immediate control of the investigation of the collapses on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. There were no questions about this.

The NIST was not authorized to start their investigation until October 2002 and got only 236 out of about 50,000 pieces of steel from the towers. They got none from WTC 7. Very little of the 236 pieces were from the fire affected areas of the towers. Other than those 236 pieces and maybe a couple pieces for memorials it had all been smelted down before NIST started their investigation. FEMA did no systematic cataloging and photographing of the steel as is usually done in an investigation into a catastrophic structural failure. They did take some photos but that isn't a systematic method which can help in the investigation. They did essentially no testing of the steel except the couple of pieces found in Appendix C of their report, and while there were some seriously anomalous findings nothing else was done.

As for numbers of people involved many may have been unwitting. Well planned conspiracies use unwitting people who follow seemingly legitimate orders, think they are just doing their jobs, and are never the wiser. How many people were involved in the Tuskegee syphillis experiments? It was many more than those who actually knew what was really going on and controlled it.

It would seem your incredulity and possible naivety on this constitutes the real fantasy.