9/11: Is this photo consistent with a progressive collapse?

[Mick West]

I think the problem with this whole deal is that NIST and FEMA are trying desperately to fit a narrative to the one which was presented within a couple of hours of the attacks - which was propaganda, no other word for it. It makes far too many assumptions and is relying on the unlikely scenario that the aircraft wings and airframe would be capable of severing significant steel structural elements. It also relies on the 'fire weakening the steel' idea, which really doesn't stand up to proper scrutiny. Most of the fuel exploded at impact, a visible fireball; fires burning only office furniture, carpets, screens etc would not burn hot enough or long enough to weaken steel to point of failure (definitely not in one hour!) - ref Madrid Windsor building, burning for 19(?) hours over multiple floors - a real inferno, but no total collapse.

Unlikely according to who?

But I'm glad you brought up the Windsor tower, as it's a good example of what happened - at least in the parts of the building that were steel framed, like the WTC.

[ex=http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm]This fire is one of the fires Conspiracy theorist like to point to when talking about high raise office fires. This fire lasted 26 hours. But what they don't tell you is that the first collapse happened only 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began. But why didn't the building fall completely? It was on fire for 26 hours. The answer is very simple. The building were constructed very differently than the WTC. Reinforced concrete was used in the core and under the 17th floor. Below are detailed descriptions of how the Madrid tower was constructed and the reason for it not collapsing...

​

What you see above is the concrete reinforced core. What's missing is the steel around the core of the upper floors which was not covered in concrete. As with the towers, it weakened and collapsed early in the fire.

​

[/ex]

Here's a video about the fire and partial collapse:

​

 

[Mick West]

Noble1965
[Admin: old impolite posts removed]


So Mick, has he been banned for being a trifle impolite - are the same rigorous standards applied to all?

Nobody has been banned.

 

[Leifer]

What is the panel's feeling on the meaing of the word coincidence?

Coincidences happen all the time, that's why there is a term for it.
You pick up your phone to call someone....and before you dial, they are calling you (rings).

The first time something happens...is just that, it is the first time.
Example...
Is it the first time in spelling out the sentence, "a boy played kite-ball with a Hudu Guru".
There, that was likely the first time anyone said that.
Beyond the fact that no one may have ever said that but me, does not make it impossible for someone to say it...as I just did.

There is always a "first time" for everything.
...and if a "first time" happens twice, is does not negate the first instance at all....it simply means it has happened two times (or more)
This does not make it a "coincidence".......A coincidence is in the memory of the human mind in an attempt to connect two or more ideas, and has nothing to do with the fact that something actually happenened...once, twice, or more.

 

[PCWilliams]

Please never become a criminal investigator, arson investigator, or accident investigator. . . That is not your talent. . .

testing for explosives in no way was exceptional, a waste of time or money. . . .we are talking about the crime of the century. . . A reasonable, rational person especially an investigator would have done so in my opinion especially in view of the recent history of the WTC. . . .1993 bombing. . ..

What if additional explosives or accelerants had been placed on the aircraft to increase the effects . . .would you not want to know?????

What if coconspirators with the high jackers had placed explosives in the towers. . . .???. . . Would you not want to know. . . .???

You consider all criminal investigators, arson investigators and accident investigators not agreeing with your brilliant explosives-testing theory as unreasonable and irrational? How many criminal investigators, arson investigators and accident investigators does this add to your list of co-conspirators?

 

[PCWilliams]

The following is a simplified sound analysis. . . If accurate would seem to indicate significant sound generation from the towers prior to the first collapse . . . structural failures or explosions???
​

I don't think these recordings have much meaning - but interestingly, this analysis shows it took 11 seconds for the tower to collapse. Most conspiracists claim it too 9 seconds. Interesting.

 

[PCWilliams]

No, it indicates the microphone recorded something, it gives no indication how loud it actually was. Have you ever touched or breathed on a mic? You get the same noise.

Now if there were synchronized noises from two separate locations, that would be something.

Agreed. In my video work, suppressing wind noise is a major headache when working outside.

 

[Spongebob]

Yes, the question is: Seems the most recent issue on the table . . .is why testing was not done to detect for the possible use of explosives. . . A very interesting oversight. . . .what is your explanation for this omission?

The video clearly shows that no explosives were used. You will agree with that, so why keep trolling on?

 

[lee h oswald]

The video clearly shows that no explosives were used. You will agree with that, so why keep trolling on?

Hey spongenob is back! Yay.

So the video clearly shows no explosives? Huh? Or, How? Mick, why don't you explain to your mate how you can't prove an absence of something in an environment to which you have no access?

 

[lee h oswald]

PCWilliams

Member

I don't think these recordings have much meaning - but interestingly, this analysis shows it took 11 seconds for the tower to collapse. Most conspiracists claim it too 9 seconds. Interesting.

Right, so they don't have much meaning but they're interestingly interesting, is that right? More worthwhile than any of that

Most conspiracists claim it too 9 seconds

Where is the data for that statistic?

...this analysis shows it took 11 seconds for the tower to collapse

Look at these images; look at the construction drawings; look at the engineer's design....11 seconds?

Your alarm just went off.

 

[lee h oswald]

Coincidences happen all the time, that's why there is a term for it.
You pick up your phone to call someone....and before you dial, they are calling you (rings).

The first time something happens...is just that, it is the first time.
Example...
Is it the first time in spelling out the sentence, "a boy played kite-ball with a Hudu Guru".
There, that was likely the first time anyone said that.
Beyond the fact that no one may have ever said that but me, does not make it impossible for someone to say it...as I just did.

There is always a "first time" for everything.
...and if a "first time" happens twice, is does not negate the first instance at all....it simply means it has happened two times (or more)
This does not make it a "coincidence".......A coincidence is in the memory of the human mind in an attempt to connect two or more ideas, and has nothing to do with the fact that something actually happenened...once, twice, or more.

Hm, there's a lot of stuff to deal with here, but I'll need to get back to you as I don't have enough time at the moment.

 

[lee h oswald]

Unlikely according to who?

But I'm glad you brought up the Windsor tower, as it's a good example of what happened - at least in the parts of the building that were steel framed, like the WTC.

[ex=http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm]This fire is one of the fires Conspiracy theorist like to point to when talking about high raise[sic] office fires. This fire lasted 26 hours. But what they don't tell you is that the first collapse happened only 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began. But why didn't the building fall completely? It was on fire for 26 hours. The answer is very simple. The building were constructed very differently than the WTC. Reinforced concrete was used in the core and under the 17th floor. Below are detailed descriptions of how the Madrid tower was constructed and the reason for it not collapsing...

​

What you see above is the concrete reinforced core. What's missing is the steel around the core of the upper floors which was not covered in concrete. As with the towers, it weakened and collapsed early in the fire.

​

[/ex]

Here's a video about the fire and partial collapse:

Yes, but what your photo shows is only the top section of the building - here's the whole picture.

Gutted; from the fourth floor to the top. For 26 hours. A real inferno - compare and contrast.

 

[Mick West]

Yes, but what your photo shows is only the top section of the building - here's the whole picture.

Gutted; from the fourth floor to the top. For 26 hours. A real inferno - compare and contrast.

The bits that were like the WTC (i.e. steel framed) collapsed after a few hours. The bits that were not like the WTC (i.e reinforced concrete) did not.

 

[lee h oswald]

But I'm glad you brought up the Windsor tower, as it's a good example of what happened -

​

No! it's a good example of what didn't happen - it's a subtle difference, I know. Here's the whole picture/building


The commentary you provide to back your point is rubbish. It's written poorly and its substance doesn't exist. Please pinpoint which part you really agree with, thanks.

 

[lee h oswald]

...bits that were not like the WTC (i.e reinforced concrete)...

No r/c in the towers then? er, only small amounts, about 440,000 square metres four inches (100mm) thick of steel r/c per tower

 

[Mick West]

The commentary you provide to back your point is rubbish. It's written poorly and its substance doesn't exist. Please pinpoint which part you really agree with, thanks.

You mean this?
http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm

I haven't find anything in it I disagree with. Is there anything you disagree with?

No r/c in the towers then? er, only small amounts, about 440,000 square metres four inches (100mm) thick of steel r/c per tower

Yes, but we are talking about what initiated collapse. In the WTC it was the failure of steel structural elements, not the reinforced concrete elements. The RC obviously failed during the subsequent progressive collapse.

The steel elements in the Windsor tower were only holding up themselves, the outer portion of the upper floors of the building. In the WTC the steel elements that failed due to the fire were vital to the structural integrity of the building. When they failed, the building collapsed.

 

[PCWilliams]

Look at these images; look at the construction drawings; look at the engineer's design....11 seconds?

Your alarm just went off.

Your post didn't make ANY sense.

 

[Mick West]

There's a great collection of the NIST photos and videos here:

http://archive.org/search.php?query=collection:nistreview

Lots of photos that I had not seen. You can download them in HD by using the "All Files: HTTP" link on the left, then the ....image.zip (the largest file).

 

[Mick West]

Your post didn't make ANY sense.

He's saying it's incredible, based on his analysis of the photos and the construction drawings, that it could fall in 11 seconds. So incredible that he does not believe it. It's an argument from personal incredulity.

 

[PCWilliams]

He's saying it's incredible, based on his analysis of the photos and the construction drawings, that it could fall in 11 seconds. So incredible that he does not believe it. It's an argument from personal incredulity.

Oh, okay. I wasn't sure what i was supposed to be getting from the photos.

 

[lee h oswald]

The steel elements in the Windsor tower were only holding up themselves

Is that right?

This post should have been entitled: how to show you don't really have a clue what you're talking about.

You chuck in words like 'obviously' and 'In the WTC the steel elements that failed due to the fire were vital to the structural integrity of the building. When they failed, the building collapsed.' as if you know what you're talking about after reading websites with such titles as 'debunking 911' and '911 myths' - a clear sign of bias if ever there was. The fact of the matter is that you don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to materials and structure involved in the construction of buildings, that much is crystal clear. You really should stop presenting yourself as some kind of authority on this and stick to making video games to stupefy children; that is your metier is it not?

 

[lee h oswald]

​

What you see above is the concrete reinforced core. What's missing is the steel around the core of the upper floors which was not covered in concrete.

If you actually look at this picture and ignore the words Mick attached to it to 'guide' you, then you can clearly see that all the concrete in the floors has been destroyed by the fire. Look into the upper section and you can see what remains of each floor is a lattice of rust coloured material - that material is known as steel reinforcement. The concrete likely cracked in the intense heat - much much hotter and longer - 26 hours - than the wtc fires at a paltry one and one and one half hours respectively.

You know, to show a picture like this and to say, What's missing is the steel around the core of the upper floors which was not covered in concrete. is simply misleading and untrue. It is apparent to anyone with eyes that there is a large amount of concrete missing from where the floors were - all that remains is steel. This is, in fact, the opposite of what Mick is trying to portray. If Mick knew what he was talking about and didn't have such a ridiculously entrenched position in favour of George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and all the rest of the gangsters in charge at the time of the 911 attacks, then he would be able to see that what he is saying about this picture isn't borne out by this picture at all. If Mick had a clue about building construction and the materials involved, rather than just believing the voodoo spun by NIST, FEMA, the 911 Commission, then he'd know that steel is what gives strength to concrete and not the other way around. That's why steel is used to reinforce concrete - because concrete ain't all that on its own, put a bit of steel in it though, and it's performance is increased many fold.

Anyway - you think the 911 commission gave 'a very reasonable account of what happened that day', don't you? Despite the fact that some of the information within it was garnered through torture (and you don't want to talk about that, do you?); that senior members called it a 'whitewash'; that it didn't even mention building 7; that Bush and Cheney wouldn't testify under oath or separately....the list goes on ad nauseam, but you say it's all hunky dory, eh? That alone puts anything you say in doubt, and unless you're willing to discuss those aspects of this discussion then, in that context, anything you've got to say is suspect, wouldn't you agree?

 

[lee h oswald]

You consider all criminal investigators, arson investigators and accident investigators not agreeing with your brilliant explosives-testing theory as unreasonable and irrational? How many criminal investigators, arson investigators and accident investigators does this add to your list of co-conspirators?

This sort of comment is common and an obvious fallacy of those Faithers who blindly promote all versions official, apparently without really looking at it. 1) You are saying that all criminal, arson and accident investigators agree with what you believe. 2) You are discounting the fact that most people, irrespective of their job or profession, have not looked into the evidence of the events of 911 because they, like you, have simply accepted what they have been told right from the outset - and that's almost immediately after the attacks. It was bin Laden, al-qaeda - that's it. All subsequent govt 'inquiry' into this has taken this as its starting point and run with it. Since when has a crime been solved by a government pronouncement without evidence? What country do you live in? Oh, probably the one that elected George W and Dick Cheney - a brace of criminals? I'll say.


Is this post a bit easier to understand?

 

[lee h oswald]

...this analysis shows it took 11 seconds for the tower to collapse. Most conspiracists claim it too 9 seconds. Interesting.

Most conspiracists claim it took 9 seconds, do they? An exampe of another assertion without any evidence whatsoever to back it. I asked the question before but received no reply - here it is again: Where is the data for this statistic?
I'm pretty sure there'll be no reply to this; mainly because there is no data for any such statistic, this 'fact' only exists in the mind of the maker of the statement.

 

[lee h oswald]

Hey spongenob is back! Yay.

So the video clearly shows no explosives? Huh? Or, How? Mick, why don't you explain to your mate how you can't prove an absence of something in an environment to which you have no access?

Well? How have you overcome your lack of access to this environment to make this stunning assertion, claiming that this video clearly shows an absence of something?

The reason why this has been ignored is because I am right. It is another example of a Faither saying something he has heard and applying it as the truth (in this instance, this video) because it's the truth he wants to believe. Despite the abundant evidence, he cannot accept the State as a liar and a murderer. On the one hand he will say a conspiracy is impossible because too many people would need to be involved, and people just aren't that competent - another common Faither fallacy - yet at the same time he will claim that all the official narratives are correct and proper. No incompetence their - ofcourse not!
The issue is as much psychological as it is anything else; until people can remember to think for themselves instead of letting someone else do it for them, then nothing will change. But it will, and it is.

 

[Mick West]

If you actually look at this picture and ignore the words Mick attached to it to 'guide' you, then you can clearly see that all the concrete in the floors has been destroyed by the fire. Look into the upper section and you can see what remains of each floor is a lattice of rust coloured material - that material is known as steel reinforcement. The concrete likely cracked in the intense heat - much much hotter and longer - 26 hours - than the wtc fires at a paltry one and one and one half hours respectively.

You know, to show a picture like this and to say, What's missing is the steel around the core of the upper floors which was not covered in concrete. is simply misleading and untrue. It is apparent to anyone with eyes that there is a large amount of concrete missing from where the floors were - all that remains is steel. This is, in fact, the opposite of what Mick is trying to portray. [...] steel is what gives strength to concrete and not the other way around. That's why steel is used to reinforce concrete - because concrete ain't all that on its own, put a bit of steel in it though, and it's performance is increased many fold.

The basic point is that fire weakened the exposed steel elements in the Windsor Tower, and that is what caused it to partially collapse. The reinforced concrete core in the Windsor Tower did not collapse.

This is similar to what happened in the WTC. The fire in the WTC weakened the steel elements. They failed. The WTC had a different construction to the Windsor Tower, and did not have a reinforced concrete core.

See, for example, the analysis of Colin Bailey, Vice-President and Dean for the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Manchester, UK, Professor of Structural Engineering,BEng, PhD, CEng, FICE, FIStructE, MIFireE. Presumable someone who knows what he is talking about:

[ex=http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/staff/academic/profile/index.html?staffId=15]Colin Bailey joined the University of Manchester in 2002, as Professor of Structural Engineering. He previously worked for the design consultants Lovell Construction, Cameron Taylor Bedford, and Clarke Nicholls Marcel, where he designed and supervised the construction of a number of concrete, steel and masonry structures. He has also worked for The Steel Construction Institute (SCI) and The Building Research Establishment (BRE), where his practical and research experience resulted in significant developments in structural engineering design. His main specialties are fire safety engineering of structures, membrane action, wind loading, and steel-concrete composite systems. He is author of over 100 research papers and practical design guides. He is a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers (FICE), a Fellow of the Institution of Structural Engineers (FIStructE), and a member of the Institution of Fire Engineers (MIFireE). [/ex]

[ex=http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm]The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.[/ex]

[ex=http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm]
The impact of the plane crashes directly caused significant structural damages to both WTC towers. The towers resisted this level of damage and did not collapse immediately showing that the redundancy of the tube-frame structures enabled the redistribution of the loads from the damaged zones to the remaining structures.

However, it was generally believed that the impact also extensively striped off the fire protection materials from structural steel at least in the crashed zones. The multiple floors fires ignited by the jet fuel finally weakened the remaining structures and the towers collapsed.[/ex]

[ex=http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm]Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The small residual strength then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C (Lawson & Newman 1990). In addition to the reduction of material strength and stiffness, steel displays a significant creep phenomena at temperatures over 450°C. The phenomena of creep results in an increase of deformation (strain) with time, even if the temperature and applied stress remain unchanged (Twilt 1988).

High temperature creep is dependent on the stress level and heating rate. The occurrence of creep indicates that the stress and the temperature history have to be taken into account in estimating the strength and deformation behaviour of steel structures in fire. Including creep explicitly within analytical models, is complex. For simple design methods, it is widely accepted that the effect of creep is implicitly considered in the stress-strain-temperature relationships.

The thermal properties of steel at elevated temperatures are found to be dependent on temperature and are less influenced by the stress level and heating rate. This simplified the consideration of the thermal properties of steel in design methods.[/ex]

[ex=http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Concrete/default.htm]Concrete has a low thermal conductivity (50 times lower than steel) and therefore heats up very slowly in a fire. It is the low thermal conductivity that provides good inherent fire resistance of concrete structures. The main concern of using HSC is its higher susceptibility to explosive spalling during a fire attack.[/ex]

The entire site contains much relevant material.

 

[lee h oswald]

The main concern of using HSC is its higher susceptibility to explosive spalling during a fire attack. That's the last sentence in your wad of quotes from manchester uni. You don't know that what you're putting out actually denies your theory - try reading it.



Where are the buildings? Reduced in extremis. Elements and contents almost completely dissociated. Splattered all over.



Isn't there a fire alarm going off? No? Thought not.

 

[Mick West]

The Windsor Tower fire provides good examples of the importance of fire protection on steel structures. Most of the lower floors had been retrofitted with fire protection. The floors that collapsed had not. Some of the lower floors also had not, and you can see there were in pretty dangerous state.

http://www.panoramio.com/user/1082258?with_photo_id=7758017

 

[lee h oswald]

Spalling is the bit you'll want to look up.

 

[lee h oswald]

In 1945 the whole city of Dresden got the fire treatment courtesy of the RAF and the USAF - amazing that the basic structures of so many structurally inferior buildings survived.

Here's an account:

My grandmother would always begin the story of Dresden by describing the clusters of red candle flares dropped by the first bombers, which like hundreds of Christmas trees, lit up the night sky - a sure sign it would be a big air raid. Then came the first wave of hundreds of British bombers that hit a little after 10 p.m. the night of February 13-14, 1945, followed by two more intense bombing raids by the British and Americans over the next 14 hours. History records it as the deadliest air attack of all time, delivering a death toll that exceeded the atomic blasts on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 20 minutes of intense bombing, the city became an inferno. The second bombing raid came three hours after the first and was “intended to catch rescue workers, firefighters and fleeing inhabitants at their fullest exposure.” Altogether, the British dropped nearly 3,000 tons of explosives that shattered roofs, walls, windows, whole buildings, and included hundreds of thousands of phosphorous incendiaries, which were small firebombs that sprinkled unquenchable fire into every crevasse they rolled into, igniting the inferno that turned Dresden into a “hurricane of flames.” By the time the Americans flew in for the third and last air raid, smoke from the burning city nearly obliterated visibility. One American pilot recollects, “We bombed from 26,000 feet and could barely see the ground because of clouds and long columns of black smoke. Not a single enemy gun was fired at either the American or British bombers.” The Americans dropped 800 tons of explosives and fire bombs in 11 minutes. Then, according to British historian David Irving in his book, The Destruction of Dresden, American P-51 fighter escorts dived to treetop level and strafed the city's fleeing refugees. My grandmother described the horrific firestorm that raged like a hurricane and consumed the city. It seemed as if the very air was on fire. Thousands were killed by bomb blasts, but enormous, untold numbers were incinerated by the firestorm, an artificial tornado with winds of more than 100 miles an hour that “sucked up its victims and debris into its vortex and consumed oxygen with temperatures of 1,000 degrees centigrade.” Many days later, after the fires had died down, my grandmother walked through the city. What she saw was indescribable in any human language. But the suffering etched on her face and the depths of anguish reflecting in her eyes as she told the story bore witness to the ultimate horror of man's inhumanity to man and the stark obscenity of war. Dresden, the capital of Saxony, a centre of art, theatre, music, museums and university life, resplendent with graceful architecture -- a place of beauty with lakes and gardens -- was now completely destroyed. The city burned for seven days and smoldered for weeks.

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

What has explosive spalling got to do with the collapse of the WTC? Spalling is when the surface of concrete flakes off. Are you saying it happened? It didn't happen? It should have? It shouldn't have?

[ex=http://www.conplus.co.uk/applications/benefits/index.php?title=Improved%20Explosive%20Spalling%20and%20Fire%20Resistance]Explosive spalling is caused by the build-up of water vapour pressure in concrete during a fire.If the concrete is not very permeable, water vapour formed within it during rapid heating will not be able to dissipate and a pore pressure is formed. (High strength concrete, the normal specification for tunnel applications, has low permeability and is therefore more likely to explosively spall than lower strength mixes).
When the pore pressure exceeds the tensile strength of the concrete, explosive spalling will result.[/ex]

 

[lee h oswald]

What has explosive spalling got to do with the collapse of the WTC? Spalling is when the surface of concrete flakes off. Are you saying it happened? It didn't happen? It should have? It shouldn't have?

Actually, spalling is the action of erosion or flaking on stone or concrete, quite a problem for many ancient buildings, especially those made with sandstone. Spalling is usually a slow process caused by frost/water damage and even structural movement. Explosive spalling is a little different - surprisingly, it's explosive!

Your question: What has explosive spalling got to do with the collapse of the WTC? appears somewhat out of place - I'm not sure I said it had anything to do with the collapse of any of the three steel buildings that were completely destroyed on 911. The fact that no steel framed buildings before or since 911 have collapsed as a result of fire is a point worthy of note. Let's call it observation and experience, or empiricism. Three in one day and never before or since? This seems to, er, contradict all previous observations. One would naturally assume that some oversight had been made and that new guidelines should be put in place, new standards to ensure this can't happen again. I don't recall any such revisions to the construction of steel framed high rise building.

Concrete needs to get very hot before it explodes (explosive spalling), but it depends on the strength and density of the concrete, the higher the density, the more prone to explosion. I've mentioned my bread oven before - it's made of concrete with steel reinforcing mesh. One needs to constantly feed the oven over a period of two to three hours, placing fuel into an enclosed space which is designed to retain heat as much as possible while maintaining the necessary oxygen for the fire to flourish. After all this fastidious feeding, the fire reaches a temperature of 800 degrees Celcius, which is quite hot, very focused, and the oven survives to be used another day. It does not explode and shower the garden with steel and concrete over a wide area. In relation to the question: ofcourse there was no explosive spalling in the wtc towers - it wasn't burning for anything like long enough, or anything like hot enough, or anything like focused enough to cause that type of damage. The same goes for the steel. To think otherwise is a fallacy of immense proportions - again you are following the Faither line.

You quote this as if it somehow makes your point - I think you need to read between the lines:

The impact of the plane crashes directly caused significant structural damages to both WTC towers. The towers resisted this level of damage and did not collapse immediately showing that the redundancy of the tube-frame structures enabled the redistribution of the loads from the damaged zones to the remaining structures.

However, it was generally believed that the impact also extensively striped off the fire protection materials from structural steel at least in the crashed zones. The multiple floors fires ignited by the jet fuel finally weakened the remaining structures and the towers collapsed.

Blah blah blah. This is simply a repetition of the official line, it's clear there was no inquiry made into the veracity of the official claims by the author. The use of the expression 'it was generally believed' says it all. I'm sure you'll put another spin on it so you can tell yourself that all is well and the Faith has been kept.

I think it's also worth comparing the structure of the Windsor tower with the structures of the wtc towers, while we're at it. You quote that well known neutral source 'debunking 911', saying that the reason that the Windsor stood and the wtc fell was because they were constructed differently. Funnily enough, they got a bit of that bit right. The Windsor tower was vastly inferior in its structural make-up. It's apparent even for the lay person to see - just look at the pictures of the semi-naked Windsor after its 26 hour burn up. They're right, the structure bears no comparison - it's like comparing a castle to a tent. Yet, despite the steel being afflicted by much hotter fires and for 26 times as long, the steel didn't all fail catastrophically and simultaneously; yes, it deformed, twisted, bent, but it didn't snap like matchsticks and get thrown laterally through the air - did it? No, it behaved as we might have expected given all the precedents available, it didn't collapse, and neither should the towers - all three of them.

 

[Mick West]

The fact that no steel framed buildings before or since 911 have collapsed as a result of fire is a point worthy of note. Let's call it observation and experience, or empiricism. Three in one day and never before or since? This seems to, er, contradict all previous observations. One would naturally assume that some oversight had been made and that new guidelines should be put in place, new standards to ensure this can't happen again. I don't recall any such revisions to the construction of steel framed high rise building.

[ex=http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/WTCRecommendationsStatusTable.pdf]

(IBC) Provides minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing
wall structures through continuity and tie-force requirements for buildings over 75 ft.
in height that represent a substantial hazard to human life in the event of failure (e.g.,
buildings with occupant loads exceeding 5,000) and essential facilities, such as
hospitals.) This code change is intended to enhance overall structural integrity but is
not intended to prevent progressive collapse in structures.

(IBC) Increased by one hour the fire-resistance rating of structural
components and assemblies in buildings 420 feet and higher. This change was
approved and included in the 2004 supplement to the IBC and later in the 2006 IBC
(section 403.3.1, Item 1).


(National Electrical Code) Article 708 of the 2008 National Electrical Code addresses
critical operations power supply. The article can be applied to any critical systems.

(IBC) Increased bond strength for fireproofing (nearly three times
greater than currently required for buildings 75-420 feet in height and seven times
greater for buildings more than 420 feet in height). The increased fireproofing bond
strength is required to be "installed throughout the building."
Field installation requirements for fireproofing to ensure that:
installation complies with the manufacturer's instructions;
the substrates (surfaces being fireproofed) are clean and free of any condition
that prevents adhesion;
testing is conducted to demonstrate that required adhesion is maintained for
primed, painted or encapsulated steel surfaces; and
the finished condition of the installed fireproofing, upon complete drying or
curing, does not exhibit cracks, voids, spalls, delamination or any exposure of
the substrate.
Special field inspections of fireproofing to ensure that the as-installed thickness,
density and bond strength meet specified requirements, and that a bonding agent is
applied when the bond strength is less than required due to the effect of a primed,
painted or encapsulated steel surface. The inspections are to be performed after the
rough installation of mechanical, electrical, plumbing, sprinkler and ceiling systems.

(ASTM) ASTM E2584-07 "Standard Practice for Thermal
Conductivity of Materials Using a Thermal Capacitance (Slug) Calorimeter."

(IBC) Explicit adoption of the "structural frame" approach to fire
resistance ratings that requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the
higher fire resistance rating commonly required for columns. The primary structural
frame includes the columns, other structural members including the girders, beams,
trusses, and spandrels having direct connections to the columns, and bracing members
designed to carry gravity loads. The definition of the primary structural frame was
broadened to include bracing members essential to vertical stability (e.g., floor systems
or cross bracing) whether or not they carry gravity loads.


(NFPA) The structural frame approach is mandated in the 2006 edition of NFPA 5000.

(NIST) Published “Best Practice Guidelines for Structural Fire
Resistance Design of Concrete and Steel Buildings,” (NIST TN 1681)

(IBC) Requires greater reliability of sprinklers with a minimum of
two water supply risers for each sprinkler zone in buildings over 420 ft. in
height. Each riser is required to supply sprinklers on alternate floors. The sprinkler
risers are to be placed in stair enclosures which are remotely located.

[/ex]

There's a bunch more, but they are mostly to do with evacuation and firefighter access.

Specific to the ICC:

[ex=http://www.iccsafe.org/newsroom/Documents/08302011-911.pdf]
Building Safety Codes Changed as a Result of 9/11

Changes to the International Codes as a result of 9/11 include:
 Elevators are required in high-rise buildings more than 120 feet tall so firefighters
can get to, and fight fires, without walking up from the ground floor with heavy
equipment;
 An additional stairway for high-rises that are more than 420 feet tall;
 In lieu of the additional stairway, an option to provide enhanced elevators that can
be used by the building occupants for emergency evacuation without waiting for
assistance from emergency personnel;
 A higher standard for fire resistance in high-rise buildings more than 420 feet tall;
 More robust fire proofing for buildings more than 75 feet tall, which will be less likely
to be dislodged by impacts or explosions;
 Shafts enclosing elevators and exit stairways that have impact resistant walls;
 Self-luminous exit pathway markings in all exit stairways that provide a lighted
pathway when both the primary and secondary lighting fails; and Radio coverage systems within the building to allow emergency personnel to better
communicate within the building and with emergency staff outside the building
supporting the response.
[/ex]

Specific to the NFPA:
[ex=http://www.nfpa.org/publicJournalDetail.asp?categoryID=2248&itemID=53000&src=NFPAJournal&cookie_test=1]
Looking at the potential impact that changes to its codes and standards could have, NFPA gathered a team of engineers, architects, fire service officials, and public advocacy groups to form the High-Rise Building Safety Advisory Committee (HRBSAC) in 2004. The committee was formed to develop public proposals and comments primarily for NFPA 1, Fire Code; NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®; and NFPA 5000®, Building Construction and Safety Code®. The committee also helped NFPA set priorities for the NIST recommendations.

NFPA has acted on a variety of the NIST recommendations. The behavior of a building’s structural frame and support system as a whole under severe loading conditions, such as during a fire event, resulted in adoption of the "structural frame" approach in NFPA 5000, which requires more scrutiny of the primary and secondary structural members, as well as the connections that tie the frame together.[/ex]

 

[PCWilliams]

Most conspiracists claim it took 9 seconds, do they? An exampe of another assertion without any evidence whatsoever to back it. I asked the question before but received no reply - here it is again: Where is the data for this statistic?
I'm pretty sure there'll be no reply to this; mainly because there is no data for any such statistic, this 'fact' only exists in the mind of the maker of the statement.

From http://www.abodia.com/911/Articles/Painful Deceptions - Unanswered.htm :

View attachment 472

(evidence whatsoever)

 

[lee h oswald]

[ex=http://www.[U]nist.gov[/U]/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/WTCRecommendationsStatusTable.pdf] (NIST) Published “Best Practice Guidelines for Structural Fire Resistance Design of Concrete and Steel Buildings,” (NIST TN 1681) There's a bunch more, but they are mostly to do with evacuation and firefighter access. Specific to the ICC: [ex=http://www.iccsafe.org/newsroom/Documents/08302011-911.pdf] Building Safety Codes Changed as a Result of 9/11 Changes to the International Codes as a result of 9/11 include:  Elevators are required in high-rise buildings more than 120 feet tall so firefighters can get to, and fight fires, without walking up from the ground floor with heavy equipment;  An additional stairway for high-rises that are more than 420 feet tall;  In lieu of the additional stairway, an option to provide enhanced elevators that can be used by the building occupants for emergency evacuation without waiting for assistance from emergency personnel;  A higher standard for fire resistance in high-rise buildings more than 420 feet tall;  More robust fire proofing for buildings more than 75 feet tall, which will be less likely to be dislodged by impacts or explosions;  Shafts enclosing elevators and exit stairways that have impact resistant walls;  Self-luminous exit pathway markings in all exit stairways that provide a lighted pathway when both the primary and secondary lighting fails; and Radio coverage systems within the building to allow emergency personnel to better communicate within the building and with emergency staff outside the building supporting the response. [/ex]

Where did you get this? Oh look, it's a NIST document. Is that the same NIST who made a report into the the collapse of wtc7 by computer modelling but then refused to release any of their calculations as it 'might jeopardize public safety'? That NIST? Is it the same NIST that released its findings via a press conference and has not invited peer review of its paper because.....wait for it....no-one is allowed to see their calculations? Is it that NIST? I suppose you believe NIST to be beyond reproach, despite the obvious difficulties of not releasing the information and not allowing peer review on the grounds it 'might jeopardize public safety'. As a promoter of all things NIST, perhaps you might care to explain how public safety might be jeopardized by releasing some calculations about the integrity of commonly used building materials? Alternatively, you might make a foia for the relevant information and see how you get on. Let us know. Or, tell us why NIST keep this secret from the rest of us and why we should take their word - and yours - for it? Do you think this scientific, acceptable, normal practice? Here's another excerpt from that document which comes directly before your list (it should be noted that the ICC operates as an advisory and not as an enforcement agency):

Gary Lewis, who for several years chaired the International Code Council Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism-Resistant Buildings. The committee finished its work in May 2010. The International Code Council is a member-focused association dedicated to helping the building safety community and construction industry provide safe, sustainable and affordable construction through the development of codes and standards used in the design, build and compliance process. ...The Code Council’s activity heightened when the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a federal agency, released its Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center, which contained 30 broad recommendations for the model codes, standards industry, design community and emergency responders. “ICC evaluated the recommendations related to model codes, and initiated code change proposalsdesigned to mitigate the effects of a terror event in case preventive measures such as governmental intelligence activities or building security somehow failed,” Lewis said. “The code change proposals were not all successful, although many were incorporated. Some that were not have since prompted activity in other areas such as structural design to address the concerns. Some of the code change proposals resulted in higher construction costs, but others were so simple they had little or no cost impact, but great potential benefits.”

Advisory not enforcement. And all predicated on NIST's falsfied account that no-one is allowed to see. What's to hide? How could releasing this data compromise public safety? Now, there's a few questions in there for you, are you going to answer some, or just ignore them as usual?

 

[lee h oswald]

From http://www.abodia.com/911/Articles/Painful%20Deceptions%20-%20Unanswered.htm :

View attachment 472

(evidence whatsoever)

Try reading the statement you made and then the question I asked:

Most conspiracists claim it took 9 seconds, do they? An exampe of another assertion without any evidence whatsoever to back it. I asked the question before but received no reply - here it is again: Where is the data for this statistic?

So just one website provides the data for this statistic of yours. Interesting methodology. Could you point me to the bit where it says what you claim and where that can be verified?

 

[PCWilliams]

Try reading the statement you made and then the question I asked:

So just one website provides the data for this statistic of yours. Interesting methodology. Could you point me to the bit where it says what you claim and where that can be verified?

I didn't say the 9 second theory could be verified, that was why i pointed out the difference between the collapse speed in your bogus video and what conspiracists are/were claiming (11 seconds -VS- 9 seconds).

Let's see, only 523,000 google search results for "freefall wtc". I'll begin clicking through all the links to prove "most conspiracists" ... baa haa haa! ... yeah, right! Once again, a conspiracist tries to shift the burden of proof to everybody else. I don't think so. If you believe something about 9/11 was other than airplanes striking and collapsing buildings you have the burden of proof, not me. Enjoy, it's only been 11 years and you still have nothing.

I'm sure i didn't address some miniscule point you feel deserved to be addressed. It's okay, just take it as validation you are correct after all these years.

 

[Mick West]

Where did you get this? Oh look, it's a NIST document. Is that the same NIST who made a report into the the collapse of wtc7 by computer modelling but then refused to release any of their calculations as it 'might jeopardize public safety'? That NIST? Is it the same NIST that released its findings via a press conference and has not invited peer review of its paper because.....wait for it....no-one is allowed to see their calculations? Is it that NIST?
I suppose you believe NIST to be beyond reproach, despite the obvious dificulties of not releasing the information and not allowing peer review on the grounds it 'might jeopardize public safety'. As a promoter of all things NIST, perhaps you might care to explain how public safety might be jeopardized by releasing some calculations about the integrity of commonly used building materials? Alternatively, you might make a foia for the relevant information and see how you get on. Let us know. Or, tell us why NIST keep this secret from the rest of us and why we should take their word - and yours - for it? Do you think this scientific, acceptable, normal practice?

[...]

Advisory not enforcement. And all predicated on NIST's falsfied account that no-one is allowed to see. What's to hide? How could releasing this data compromise public safety?

Seems a little circular logic there. You claim the events as described by NIST are suspicious there were no new guidelines and standards resulting from it, then I show you new guidelines and standards, and you say they don't count because they are based on the NIST report?

I don't think NIST kept anything secret regarding fireproofing steel. The stuff they withheld was to do with the collapse analysis. Presumably they were worried that people could use it to determine where to place bombs at the most crucial failure points in existing buildings. Seems overly cautious, but there you go.

Getting back to the Windsor Tower though:

I think it's also worth comparing the structure of the Windsor tower with the structures of the wtc towers, while we're at it. You quote that well known neutral source 'debunking 911', saying that the reason that the Windsor stood and the wtc fell was because they were constructed differently. Funnily enough, they got a bit of that bit right. The Windsor tower was vastly inferior in its structural make-up. It's apparent even for the lay person to see - just look at the pictures of the semi-naked Windsor after its 26 hour burn up. They're right, the structure bears no comparison - it's like comparing a castle to a tent. Yet, despite the steel being afflicted by much hotter fires and for 26 times as long, the steel didn't all fail catastrophically and simultaneously; yes, it deformed, twisted, bent, but it didn't snap like matchsticks and get thrown laterally through the air - did it? No, it behaved as we might have expected given all the precedents available, it didn't collapse, and neither should the towers - all three of them.

The Windsor tower did not fall because most of its structure was steel reinforced concrete. The bits that DID fall were the unprotected steel, like in the WTC. The photo below of the twisted steel that did not fail are on a floor between two protected floors, the load was transferred to the surrounding structure. Where the upper floors failed, there were several floors of unprotected steel.

 

[lee h oswald]

I didn't say the 9 second theory could be veOnce again, a conspiracist tries to shift the burden of proof to everybody else. I don't think so. If you believe something about 9/11 was other than airplanes striking and collapsing buildings you have the burden of proof, not me. Enjoy, it's only been 11 years and you still have nothing.

Actually you're forgetting some important details of (the) crime: the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. You support the official theory, which is that 19 arab hi-jackers directly commanded by Osama bin Laden and under the auspices of an organization by the name of 'al-qaeda' took control of four civil aircraft and the rest is history. They have effectively been prosecuted by pronouncement; but where is the evidence for that? This scenario was announced within hours of the attacks - an astounding bit of detective work - and it has been adhered to religiously ever since, often by people like you. But where is the evidence? Where is the proof? Where is the full and proper investigation? Please point me to it.


Why didn't they test for explosives? Do you agree with your mate that his video shows conclusively 'no' explosives? Despite the obvious problem inherent in that statement? Probably.

 

[lee h oswald]

Getting back to the Windsor Tower though:



The Windsor tower did not fall because most of its structure was steel reinforced concrete.

And what material made up the vast majority of the wtc towers? I'll tell you - steel reinforced concrete. Amazing.

And:

The stuff they withheld was to do with the collapse analysis. Presumably they were worried that people could use it to determine where to place bombs at the most crucial failure points in existing buildings. Seems overly cautious, but there you go.

What a pathetic excuse. If any other party on the other side of the argument refused to allow review of all the data they claimed to hold - and in this case the data is absolutely crucial to knowing the truth of the matter - you'd be down on them in no time. You claim all your methodology as scientific but you're quite prepared to brush this off with a laconic 'there you go'. Oh well, never mind, eh? It gets clearer: double standards appear to be the norm for you.

 

[Mick West]

And what material made up the vast majority of the wtc towers? I'll tell you - steel reinforced concrete. Amazing.

The supporting structure of the WTC was steel girders. i-beams and box girders. That was what was holding it up, and that is what failed in the fire.

The supporting structure of the uncollapsed portion of the Windsor tower were steel reinforced concrete. The bits that failed were unprotected steel girders.