The Windsor Tower in Madrid, Round 2, Part 2
This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s
post 640 from this thread.
Have I ever disagreed with that assertion?
From what I've seen, the only evidence that fireproofing wasn't intact -before- the collapse (whereupon the explosives did a very good job of removing it and pulverizing the concrete to boot) is at the entrance to the building. Kevin Ryan has also described how the tests NIST did in order to ascertain that the fireproofing was removed from the planes was weak to put it mildly. FInally, from tests that Kevin Ryan describes, however, it seems apparent that even without fireproofing the buildings shouldn't have collapsed. .
You are referring to the UL tests which was fireproofed, correct? If you are, then you must see why that is a stupid comment. If not then show me which tests you are referring to.
Much weaker steeler and it only reinforced the concrete frame. The twin towers, by contrast, had a 100% steel frame.
Yes and the steel on both of those buildings was affected by the heat. The concrete was not. Which is why the Madrid Tower did not collapse.
Do you have any evidence that (a) the fires could have caused even one floor to collapse
I have shown you evidence that simple fires can cause steel to weaken and collapse. Fires caused a bridge to collapse, the steel supports on the Madrid Tower collapsed the roof on the McCormick place collapsed and there are several other structures which collapsed due to fire. They did not encase the columns in concrete on the WTC because they thought the fireproofing would be enough. It wasn’t.
and (b) that one floor collapsing would make any other floors collapse,
let alone the whole building at near free fall speeds?
If the first floor to get the impact was weakened it was is no condition to handle the 30 stories were coming down on top of it with momentum.
The concrete core was the strongest element. However, the top part of the steel reinforced concrete frame gradually collapsed.
The concrete did not collapse. The steel did.
You seem to think that the weak link was the steel, when in fact it was the concrete. 9/11 Research makes that clear, but for some reason you seem to have missed it...
No scott I asked you numerous times to tell me what point you thought that article supported and you couldn’t. You just keep referring to it but it does not make it clear that the concrete was the weakness at all. We’ve been through the article several times. The concrete held firm while the steel collapsed. Do you understand that?
If by 'weakened' you mean 'sliced through by explosives', I couldn't agree with you more. The jet initiated office fires had no chance of doing it though.
But the fire in the McCormick place did and there was no jet fuel! There were buckling columns in WTC5 and there was no jet fuel to get that one going either. A steel toilet paper factory collapsed fuel only by the contents (toilet paper I guess). All the evidence points to it being possible for an office fire to reach the temperatures high enough to weaken steel. Your rebuttal to this is nothing more than claiming it can’t.
That's what it seems like to me as well. And yet here we are disagreeing..
Because you feel the need to fight every single point, even when you don’t really have any real refutations. Just concede that it is possible. As I have said a few times it doesn’t undo your whole conspiracy because the official story still relies on the fireproofing being removed.
Actually, 9/11 Research is the one making it clear that the behaviour of the Madrid tower doesn't, in fact, support the official story. I've simply followed its train of logic and found it to be valid.
Like when you were convinced by the evidence of a missile hitting the pentagon?
The Structure of the World Trade Center, Round 2, Part 1
This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s
post 643 from this thread.
Alright, you've seen my source, let's see yours; perhaps others here can weigh in as well.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/wtccoreconstruction
Look at your source again. See the picture of the towers with the sun behind them which shows that there is no concrete core. Read the explanation for that picture. Does it make sense? It sounds like nonsense to me.
Perhaps Tony, Headspin or psikey can weigh in on that. All I know is that
the article in question definitely does distinguish between the perimeter walls, interior core colums and core when it comes to gravity loads. Quoting:
"
Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%."
But in the comment, “the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar.”, there is no distinction. That was what we were discussing.
I'm talking about the Madrid Tower's lightly steel reinforced concrete frame, which was susceptible to spalling when subjected to fires,
But spalling was not an issue for the Madrid tower as the concrete did not collapse. The steel did.
vs. the Twin Towers strong 100% steel frame, which wasn't.
Steel without fireproofing is more susceptible to fire than concrete. The two examples support that. You are trying to claim otherwise but the evidence is against you.
I haven't seen any evidence that steel can't resist fires quite well.
You cannot be serious. Can you see how that statement might be another example of you playing dumb? I have shown you multiple examples of steel weakening due to fire.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/firesafetyengineering&theperformanceofst
Neither did the concrete at the Madrid tower.
No, no no. I originally just quoted what I had just quoted above but then realized it was the same thing I'd quoted before. So I'll phrase it as an answer to your question this time.
The Windsor tower -frame- (as opposed to the core) was weak because it was primarily framed in steel-reinforced concrete,
No you are confused. You have taken the statement “the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete,” and invented a distinction between a frame and core. The only distinction to be made here is between the concrete core and the perimeter steel columns. Where there was concrete there was no collapse. The steel however collapsed.
with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. The concrete pillars in the Windsor building are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed by the collapsed facade. The very light construction of the perimeter, described
here, makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building.
The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick.
Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses.
They had not been hit by planes, jet fuel … sigh… you should know the rest by now…
To sum up- the Windsor Tower had a concrete frame that was only reinforced by a bit of relatively thin steel (for a building that size, that is).
The concrete stayed up. The steel collapsed scott.
The twin towers' frames were 100% steel framed. Stronger, and no spalling possible.
No but steel is down to approx 50% strength at around 600c. Kind of a problem don’t you think..
.. and once again. The spalling was not a problem at the Madrid Tower as the concrete core remained.
The Structure of the World Trade Center, Round 2, Part 2
This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s
post 643 from this thread.
That's one small step for conspiracy theorists but one giant leap for the truth ;-)! Well, perhaps I'm being a little dramatic
I’m sure NIST have made errors in their report somewhere. Only a truther desperate for a rare win would really get too excited about it.
Well, since Headspin disagrees with some of that source, if he, Tony or psikey agrees with you on this I'll leave it at that unless I get more evidence.
Hooray!! From now I should talk to you through them. I can spend pages and pages painstakingly showing you how you are wrong on a simple point but you will never concede even after you have long run out of responses. Yet one word from them and you will accept something.
Steven Jones debunks some official story claims, Round 2, Part 1
This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s
post 648 in this thread.
I've gone over this before, but perhaps when you wrote this I hadn't yet gone over it (this post is something like 400 posts before present after all). Anyway, basically, the 767 wasn't going fully loaded and the twin towers were definitely designed to handle their impacts, according to John Skilling, who some argue was the true lead designer of the towers (as opposed to Leslie).
It seems that Robertson and Skilling completely contradict each other here.
This was my response to Tony regarding this issue.
“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.”
From what I remember, it wasn't demonstrated, but feel free to provide your alleged evidence (once more?) for me to (once again?) debunk it.
By ‘debunk’ you mean ignore it and pretend you never heard of it.
There are many sources for the Cardington tests.
http://www.vulcan-solutions.com/cardington.html#office
“The demonstration test was designed to represent a typical office fire, and was less thoroughly instrumented than the others.
The maximum temperatures recorded were 1213°C (atmosphere) and 1150°C (steel beams).”
From your own site.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm
The fire was fuelled by office furniture and the test went for 74 minutes.
I also see that you have handily sidestepped the fact that I've proven my point- Steven Jones has just handily debunked some Bazant and Zou's peer reviewed material and you haven't even batted an eye...
What the bujesus are you talking about? They claimed that the jet fuel wouldn’t go over 800C and that is handily debunking a peer reviewed document? As I pointed out the jet fuel was only the source of ignition for the fire. The office fires could go over 800C. So what was debunked?
Are you talking about the fire only lasting 20 minutes? The materials would take 20 minutes to burn and the fire would move to the adjacent material. The peak temperature of a particular area would be approximately 20 minutes.
If you look at some of the temperatures from the office test,
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...trucfire/DataBase/TestData/BRETest/page47.htm
you will see that there are beams over 600C in 20 minutes. These beams were starting at 20C while the areas of the WTC would certainly not have.
Certainly something that couldn't have happened without syncrhonated explosives, yes.
Utter cow manure. I am trying to get through to you that it didn’t happen that way. They are deceptively phrasing.
Sagging floors in a localized area of the buildings don't create a tower that collapses at near free fall speeds, sorry.
Just saying it over and over doesn’t make it true Scott. You say it like a prayer designed to help you keep the faith.
I constantly marvel at the fact that you fail to question -why- it is that NIST never modelled the actual collapse of the towers, instead leaving things at 'poised for collapse'.
Their investigation was intended to find the cause of the collapse. That was the critical point that caused the catastrophe. They collected the evidence and produced their report. Some people, whether they are poorly informed, gullible or just want to believe in something don’t want to accept a mundane explanation. They need something more in their life and conspiracy theories fill that void.
I'm sure Tony or Headspin could really debunk these arguments.
Perhaps they could. I am discussing this with you Scott because you make grand, confident, smug claims. When challenged you cannot actually support your claims though. So you resort to less than honest tactics and spamming links you don't understand, all the while playing nice and asking people not to use insults. This just encourages me to make sure I pin you down on your assertions.
As for myself, I'll simply ask if you can provide evidence that the office fires could have collapsed even 1 floor.
I’ll give you this link again.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/firesafetyengineering&theperformanceofst
