How could WTC7 Possible have fallen like it did?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Wasting time. He's being posting the same stuff elsewhere for years, just ignores the problems with the physics in his test, and eventually gets banned for repetition, and thinks that's a victory. I just cut the process short.

He's clearly not open to reason, seeing as he thinks that the towers actually collapsed from the bottom, no planes hit them, and all the video evidence was faked.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Other things that Anders Bjorkman believes:

  • Atom bomb was faked
  • Moon landing faked
  • All videos of WTC collapse are faked
  • No planes crashed into WTC
Are you sure you want to hang your hat with this guy Jomper?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Other things that Anders Bjorkman believes:

  • Atom bomb was faked
  • Moon landing faked
  • All videos of WTC collapse are faked
  • No planes crashed into WTC
Are you sure you want to hang your hat with this guy Jomper?
Meh. He didn't seem to be causing too much trouble on this thread, but then I suppose Mick banned him so he couldn't. A bit like not looking at the evidence in case you find something.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
He's clearly not open to reason
You honestly think that the forensic application of the scientific method eliminates the question of CD on the basis that there was some videotape of the event that didn't record the audio?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Meh. He didn't seem to be causing too much trouble on this thread, but then I suppose Mick banned him so he couldn't. A bit like not looking at the evidence in case you find something.

Nah, more like just bring up the same thing over and over and over again. It dilutes the forum.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You honestly think that the forensic application of the scientific method eliminates the question of CD on the basis that there was some videotape of the event that didn't record the audio?

The lack of audio indicated that there was no use of conventional explosive, wouldn't you agree?
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
You honestly think that the forensic application of the scientific method eliminates the question of CD on the basis that there was some videotape of the event that didn't record the audio?

There were other reasons.


13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.
Content from External Source
This has been stated here before. Many, many times.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
There were other reasons.


13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.
Content from External Source
This has been stated here before. Many, many times.
And I have responded to it, but still you keep on repeating.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have given Jomper a one-month time-out. I feel his contributions have become overly repetitive and are reducing the overall quality of conversation. If he returns I hope the time will allow him to come up with a new approach.
 

Boston

Active Member
Which is kind of amusing, as many truthers seem to think the simulation results are too accurate, and so they must have fudged the numbers to get them to come out like that.

I don't hold with any particular group Mick, kinda prefer to do my own thinking, I just go with what I can see hear smell and feel. Never was big on the group mentality. Its pretty obvious the NIST simulations are wildly off base from the visual evidence and whatever happened previous to the results we see in the exterior walls, is pure conjecture. Zero supporting evidence, they could have just as easily said Micky ( no relation :cool: intended ) and Minny Mouse where in there throwing a party, and it things just got a little out of hand :D

I'm a huge believer in the scientific process and that is surely not what is seen in the NIST reports ludicrous hypothesis .
 
Last edited:

muttkat

Banned
Banned
Involving sixteen floors.


Seven hours later.

Was this building constructed exactly the same, using long-span beams and wall-board-insulated steelwork?
Involving sixteen floors.


Seven hours later.

Was this building constructed exactly the same, using long-span beams and wall-board-insulated steelwork?

This is the North wall. The building looks intact.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7northface.html

This is the most smoke I see which are on the corners.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7exp2.html.



And this picture must be before the collapses of the towers because this atrium doesn't even look damaged. Lots of smoke on WTC 7 on the corners though.


Involving sixteen floors.


Seven hours later.

Was this building constructed exactly the same, using long-span beams and wall-board-insulated steelwork?

I don't know. Probably not, it didn't collapse.

CCTV had 140, 000 tons of steel. It used less steel than conventional skyscrapers and was completely engulfed in 13 minutes (must of had alot of combustibules to become engulfed in 13 minutes)and it didn't collapse and I have a feeling that there wasn't any molten steel at the bottom either. It burned for 5 hours.

7 had 350 tons of steel. WTC 7 left alot of dirt though. Firemen were told to leave 7 alone. WTC 7 seem to stand up pretty good as far as the fire was concerned.

The initial images of the blaze suggested that the tower might be nearly destroyed. However Rem Koolhaas said that "they are simply rebuilding it as it was, because there was no structural damage."

Content from External Source
The complex's main building, the doughnut-shaped structure, was not damaged. The building, which was originally scheduled to open in 2009, did not see any progress towards opening or being visibly repaired by the end of that year. It is currently being repaired,[29] and is still slated to open.

And they're not even gonna tear it down.


Another site says it was 8 floors.


Seven hours later.

[Broken External Image]:http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7pile7.html

Most of the pictures I have seen of the front view of WTC 7 only show a couple floors only.[/quote]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7northface.html


Aside from the fact that previous to 9/11 no steel framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire damage, Building 7, otherwise known as the Salomon Brothers building, was intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening the structural integrity of the building.

In 1989 the New York Times reported on this fact in a story covering the Salomon leasing of the building which had been completed just two years earlier.

Salomon had wanted to build a new structure in order to house its high-technology operations, but due to stock market crash in 1987 it was unable to. The company searched for an existing building that they could use and found one in Larry Silverstein's WTC 7.

The Times reported:

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...
In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.


''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

The entire article can be read here.

What this amounted to, as the Times pointed out, was that WTC7, specifically designed to be deconstructed and altered, became "a building within a building". An extraordinary adaptable and highly reinforced structure for the modern business age.
........This is of course also partially the reason why in 1999 the building was chosen to house Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's $13 million emergency crisis centre on the 27th floor.

When I looked up how many tons of steel WTC 7 was built with, it only mentions 350 tons. So if 375 more tons of steel was added then there was 675 tons was there hen it collapsed.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007/010307BBC_WTC7.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

muttkat

Banned
Banned
One could use "Controlled demolition" to simulate the effects of the fire, sure. You could use explosives, or some kind of thermal lance type thing to cut and weaken connections in just the right order. However there is no evidence this was done. And it was certainly not doe with conventional demolition charges, as it was too quite.

BUt yet again, the point here is that the NIST hypothesis is plausible. It's also by far the simplest hypothesis in the Occam sense. Requiring nothing at all in addition to what was observed. Debris impacts, fires, time, collapse.

When you state that NIST hypothesis is plausible, how can that be when this type of collapse has never happened in the history....? So how can NIST come up with this conclusion "new phenomena" "thermal expansion" ? I don't even think it was peer reviewed. I look up the definition of hypothesis and it states:

....wikipedia
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.[1] A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[2]


In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it.
Then NIST omitted the high temperatures. Also if NIST stated there were no explosions then Barry Jennings would have to be a liar and theeres the fireman who heard the countdown and of course said we..."pull it".

James Glanz wrote: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” [15] Glanz’s statement was, in fact, quite an understatement. The full truth is that the fires in the building could not have brought the steel anywhere close to the temperature – about 1,482°C (2,700°F) – needed for it to melt.

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.[1][10][11]

In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.......

.........Particles of Metal in the Dust: The Deutsche Bank building, which was right next to the Twin Towers, was heavily contaminated by dust produced by their destruction. But Deutsche Bank’s insurance company refused to pay for the clean-up, claiming that this dust had not resulted from the destruction of the WTC. So Deutsche Bank hired the RJ Lee Group to do a study, which showed that the dust in the Deutsche Bank was WTC dust, which had a unique signature. Part of this signature was “Spherical iron . . . particles.” [20] This meant, the RJ Lee Group said, that iron had “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.” [21] The study even showed that, whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted almost 6 percent of WTC Dust – meaning almost 150 times as much as normal. [22]

The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been reached “at which lead would have undergone vaporization” [23] – meaning 1,749°C (3,180°F). [24]

Another study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose of which was to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Besides also finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this study found that molybdenum had been melted. This finding was especially significant, because this metal does not melt until it reaches 2,623°C (4,753°F).

http://globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201

I remember reading in the past that the engineers whose names were on the NIST report weren't shown the complete finished version of the report, which they didn't agree with some of the data, but I'm still looking for that.



 

Boston

Active Member
Well done Muttkat, this particular bit I have always thought the smoking gun for those who argue there was no evidence for controlled demolition.

Oh and there were actually three studies all finding similar results

In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.......

.........Particles of Metal in the Dust: The Deutsche Bank building, which was right next to the Twin Towers, was heavily contaminated by dust produced by their destruction. But Deutsche Bank’s insurance company refused to pay for the clean-up, claiming that this dust had not resulted from the destruction of the WTC. So Deutsche Bank hired the RJ Lee Group to do a study, which showed that the dust in the Deutsche Bank was WTC dust, which had a unique signature. Part of this signature was “Spherical iron . . . particles.” [20] This meant, the RJ Lee Group said, that iron had “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.” [21] The study even showed that, whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted almost 6 percent of WTC Dust – meaning almost 150 times as much as normal. [22]

The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been reached “at which lead would have undergone vaporization” [23] – meaning 1,749°C (3,180°F). [24]

Another study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose of which was to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Besides also finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this study found that molybdenum had been melted. This finding was especially significant, because this metal does not melt until it reaches 2,623°C (4,753°F).

http://globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201

I brought up this point earlier, but it was ignored. Its not that iron sphericals aren't found in typical concrete dust, its the quantity that was found. Even if you could show that some light weight aggregate was used ( its used quite often ) that contains a higher concentration of iron sphericals, ( unlikely ) you'd still have to explain the molybdenum and lead findings. So there's actually multiple unique characteristics in the debris that does lead one to think high temp demolitions could have been used. Combine that with the eerily similar characteristics of the collapse to a controlled demolition and the very idea that NIST would not consider controlled demolition, simply due to a lack of sufficiently loud explosions, and you end up with the millions of people world wide who just shake there heads in disbelief that NIST could even suggest fires caused this global and symmetrical collapse.

But then again, the true believers will simply overlook the actual data, and instead, wish to consider the blatant suppositions and conjecture NIST uses in order to cobble together its little fairy tale.

I'm still amazed they haven't been sued yet. No court would refute these findings when placed in an objective environment side by side with the NIST scenario.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So what did the Union of Concerned Scientists say about the dust? Because you quote makes it look like they said something.

RJ Lee was not at all surprised by the microspheres. He expected them.
 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
So what did the Union of Concerned Scientists say about the dust? Because you quote makes it look like they said something.

RJ Lee was not at all surprised by the microspheres. He expected them.

RJ Lee wasn't surprised that the metal or dust samples showed that temperatures were close to 3000 F? I figured it would of. After all, so many people have used NIST as the official statement. Showing these temps should throw out any of the NIST fairytales we've had to endure.
 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
Well done Muttkat, this particular bit I have always thought the smoking gun for those who argue there was no evidence for controlled demolition.

Oh and there were actually three studies all finding similar results



I brought up this point earlier, but it was ignored. Its not that iron sphericals aren't found in typical concrete dust, its the quantity that was found. Even if you could show that some light weight aggregate was used ( its used quite often ) that contains a higher concentration of iron sphericals, ( unlikely ) you'd still have to explain the molybdenum and lead findings. So there's actually multiple unique characteristics in the debris that does lead one to think high temp demolitions could have been used. Combine that with the eerily similar characteristics of the collapse to a controlled demolition and the very idea that NIST would not consider controlled demolition, simply due to a lack of sufficiently loud explosions, and you end up with the millions of people world wide who just shake there heads in disbelief that NIST could even suggest fires caused this global and symmetrical collapse.

But then again, the true believers will simply overlook the actual data, and instead, wish to consider the blatant suppositions and conjecture NIST uses in order to cobble together its little fairy tale.

I'm still amazed they haven't been sued yet. No court would refute these findings when placed in an objective environment side by side with the NIST scenario.

Thank you, thank you, for the compliment. I've gotten 2 in the last couple days. It's been a rare occurrence around here. Good truthful facts usually get the silent treatment around here.
 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
Thank you, thank you, for the compliment. I've gotten 2 in the last couple days. It's been a rare occurrence around here. Good truthful facts usually get the silent treatment around here.

I forgot to ask who was the other group to do a study? Have you heard of Kurt Sonnenfeld?

 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
Yes:

You can hear the noise of the building collapsing, but no explosions.

Compare with actual demolitiosn from similar distances.

Being thats probably an official video from the govt, they probably snuffed out any sounds of any explosions. The govt lied about so many things on 911, its hard to believe anything of the official fairytale, which I believe very little of it. There are various statements from responders as to the building would be coming down.


I'm guessing this is WTC 7 and that this is the alarm for the demolition.

 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
Being thats probably an official video from the govt, they probably snuffed out any sounds of any explosions. The govt lied about so many things on 911, its hard to believe anything of the official fairytale, which I believe very little of it. There are various statements from responders as to the building would be coming down.


I'm guessing this is WTC 7 and that this is the alarm for the demolition.

Being thats probably an official video from the govt, they probably snuffed out any sounds of any explosions. The govt lied about so many things on 911, its hard to believe anything of the official fairytale, which I believe very little of it. There are various statements from responders as to the building would be coming down.


I'm guessing this is WTC 7 and that this is the alarm for the demolition.

I forgot to ask who was the other group to do a study? Have you heard of Kurt Sonnenfeld?

 

Boston

Active Member
So what did the Union of Concerned Scientists say about the dust? Because you quote makes it look like they said something.

RJ Lee was not at all surprised by the microspheres. He expected them.

as anyone would expect them to be present in concrete dust, however, the "quantity" that was found is the issue, not that they found sphericals, but that they found "a lot" of sphericals, like hundreds of times the expected amount. Seems kinda fishy to me, but then again, I don't believe a symmetrical free fall failure can result from asymmetrical damage

I am kinda curious about what you think they said about this tho, do you have a link to there site thats specific to the quantity of sphericals found and that it was typical of what they might have expected, cause I keep reading from other sites that the quantity was significantly higher than what might be expected
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
I believe that in another thread, fly ash was mentioned as a constituent of the cement used to make the concrete, and that small spherules of iron oxide are a normal constituent of fly ash.

Fly ash is made in very hight temperatures indeed: it is what remains when fine particles of coal are burnt in a fluidized bed power station furnace.

Lead and molybdenum are also found in traces in coal, so may also be in fly ash produced from coal.

Concrete may or may not be made up using fly ash. Constituent parts of concrete dust will definitely reflect the temperatures their constituents were subjected to.

It seems to me there is nothing solid left of this idea until the above points (loads of "may"s and "if"s) are addressed.
 
Last edited:

dirk

New Member
Can someone tell me what the purpose is of going into technical details if you 're not an expert (construction engineer/demolition expert ...) on this topic. This discussion leads to nothing, that is clear.
But as an outsider, i see 2 facts that can 't be ignored :
- it never happened before (steel building collapsing by fires) and probably will never happen again. That is extremely weird.
- If 15000 scientists (and not the least) say something is wrong, the investigation should be done again. Period.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
never happened before (steel building collapsing by fires) and probably will never happen again. That is extremely weird.
It's weird because it's wrong.

Steel structures have been collapsing due to fires ever since steel has ever been used to construct buildings. Steel is OK and unchanged until its temperature gets to 475 deg C. Temperatures above that, given time, will ALWAYS result in collapse, as the steel slowly becomes plastic as it loses its crystal structure, replacing it with another. A plastic material subject to loading will deform under that load. There are examples on this site.

If 15000 scientists (and not the least) say something is wrong, the investigation should be done again. Period.
I think you will find that these people are NOT all "scientists". I think you will find very few "engineers" either. Those "engineers" that "speak up" are saying palpably-untrue things. Their organization also has concealed evidence which, if released, would "damage their position". That's not something you have to do if you are solely interested in truth.

Can someone tell me what the purpose is of going into technical details if you're not an expert
To immediately indicate to an expert that you are wrong, I expect, from my own experience. Does degree level Metallurgy and 38 years in engineering count? I wonder, sometimes.
 
Last edited:

dirk

New Member
It's weird because it's wrong.

Steel structures have been collapsing due to fires ever since steel has ever been used to construct buildings. Steel is OK and unchanged until its temperature gets to 475 deg C. Temperatures above that, given time, will ALWAYS result in collapse, as the steel slowly becomes plastic as it loses its crystal structure, replacing it with another. A plastic material subject to loading will deform under that load. There are examples on this site.


I think you will find that these people are NOT all "scientists". I think you will find very few "engineers" either. Those "engineers" that "speak up" are saying palpably-untrue things. Their organization also has concealed evidence which, if released, would "damage their position". That's not something you have to do if you are solely interested in truth.


To immediately indicate to an expert that you are wrong, I expect, from my own experience. Does degree level Metallurgy and 38 years in engineering count? I wonder, sometimes.

Which building examples Jazzy?
15000 bad informed people? amongst Nobel Prize winners?
I wonder why your tone is so aggressive.
 

Boston

Active Member
I believe that in another thread, fly ash was mentioned as a constituent of the cement used to make the concrete, and that small spherules of iron oxide are a normal constituent of fly ash. Sure they were expected, but not in concentrations 150 times what was expected
In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.......

.........Particles of Metal in the Dust: The Deutsche Bank building, which was right next to the Twin Towers, was heavily contaminated by dust produced by their destruction. But Deutsche Bank’s insurance company refused to pay for the clean-up, claiming that this dust had not resulted from the destruction of the WTC. So Deutsche Bank hired the RJ Lee Group to do a study, which showed that the dust in the Deutsche Bank was WTC dust, which had a unique signature. Part of this signature was “Spherical iron . . . particles.” [20] This meant, the RJ Lee Group said, that iron had “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.” [21] The study even showed that, whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted almost 6 percent of WTC Dust – meaning almost 150 times as much as normal. [22]

The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been reached “at which lead would have undergone vaporization” [23] – meaning 1,749°C (3,180°F). [24]

Another study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose of which was to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Besides also finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this study found that molybdenum had been melted. This finding was especially significant, because this metal does not melt until it reaches 2,623°C (4,753°F).

http://globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201

So its quite obvious that there is another source of these iron sphericals in play here

Ignoring the data is no way to form a conclusion let alone a wildly unlikely hypothesis
 

Boston

Active Member
It's weird because it's wrong.

Oh ? Can you direct us to any other symmetrical collapses exactly synonymous with a controlled demolition due to fire, obviously not. Even the Madrid fire which did experience localized failure over time was absolutely nothing like the WTC 7 global collapse, not even close actually, and thats about the best example of steel weakening and partial collapse I've yet to see. The simple truth is, there is no example you can give to show its even happened once before, let alone that steel structures have been collapsing due to fire ever since steel has been used to construct buildings.

Steel structures have been collapsing due to fires ever since steel has ever been used to construct buildings. Steel is OK and unchanged until its temperature gets to 475 deg C. Temperatures above that, given time, will ALWAYS result in collapse, as the steel slowly becomes plastic as it loses its crystal structure, replacing it with another. A plastic material subject to loading will deform under that load. There are examples on this site.

Beams will react by sagging in towards the heat source, for the most part, columns will compress, but the surrounding connective structures will play a large part in the deformation process. Also steel will retain most of its strength to temps much much higher than 475°C and it will also work harden once the fires begin to subside and as heat transfers throughout the steel structure. IE as soon as the fire begins to cool, the steel will gain more strength than it lost, Hmmmmmmm, I wonder if NIST mentioned anything about that little treasure :rolleyes:

The mechanical properties of two fire-resistant (FR) structural steels and an S275 steel have been investigated from room temperature up to 700°C, with the aim of assessing the viability of FR steels. The major focus has been on the tensile and creep properties of the steels at high temperature and the effect of these properties on the fire resistance of model steel beams. It has been found that the FR steels performed significantly better than the S275 at high temperature, retaining 50% of their room temperature strength at a temperature of approximately 650°C. The S275 steel retained 50% strength to a temperature of 550°C, this being consistent with literature values. In creep tests carried out at 600°C, the FR steels also exhibited lower maximum strains and strain rates than the S275. The improved strength reduction factors led to a significant increase in fire resistance for a model steel beam with various floor slab configurations, showing that FR steels can become a practical alternative to conventional structural

The typical office fire burns substantially lower than about 550°C although it may for very brief periods of time ( flash over ) reach about 800°C. Which is one reason substantial safety margins are applied to the engineering process.

11.3.2. At what temperature does a typical fire burn?

The duration and the maximum temperature of a fire in a building compartment depends on several factors including the amount and configuration of available combustibles, ventilation conditions, properties of the compartment enclosure, weather conditions, etc. In common circumstances, the maximum temperature of a fully developed building fire will rarely exceed 1800°F. The average gas temperature in a fully developed fire is not likely to reach 1500°F. Temperatures of fires that have not developed to post-flashover stage will not exceed 1000°F.


I think you will find that these people are NOT all "scientists". I think you will find very few "engineers" either. Those "engineers" that "speak up" are saying palpably-untrue things. Their organization also has concealed evidence which, if released, would "damage their position". That's not something you have to do if you are solely interested in truth.

Ah so you believe there is a conspiracy :oops: That these people are just lying :rolleyes: and that they are concealing evidence damaging to there position o_O

I'd say there is no finer example of a condition known in psychology as "transference" yet seen on this forum. You have nailed to a tea exactly what NIST is doing and yet wish to blame exactly that on those who are simply pointing out the massive errors within the NIST fairytale. For instance why isn't the huge data pool on ultra high temps existing at WTC 7 even considered within the NIST report.



To immediately indicate to an expert that you are wrong, I expect, from my own experience. Does degree level Metallurgy and 38 years in engineering count? I wonder, sometimes.

Your not the only one with a degree :eek: Might not be an English degree but none the less :rolleyes: I'm kinda surprised at the degree in matallurgy tho or you would have been quick to agree that yellow/white glowing steel ( as clearly seen in multiple photographs of the WTC site ) represents temps of something in the 1100~1200°C range, which is wildly outside the range of any office fire. I'd call that highly suspicious :confused: wouldn't you ?


The hard reality is that calling academic superiority on visual evidence is not a very compelling argument. The visual evidence simply can't be explained away.

Small dispersed and fading office fires and minimal structural damage, does not lead to a total symmetrical collapse, ever, without some serious help from controlled demolitions.

I'm calling the NIST fairytale Debunked if for no other reason it ignores completely the evidence of temps wildly in excess of that possible within a hydrocarbon based office type open fire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Which building examples Jazzy?
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/9-...stent-with-a-progressive-collapse.364/page-10

15000 bad informed people? amongst Nobel Prize winners?
Your info doubleplus ungood. Amongst anyone.

I wonder why your tone is so aggressive.
What, me, old boy?

I suppose contradicting you seems aggressive. Perhaps you could guide me on this: tell me how to contradict you in a way you could feel happy about it, and I'll gladly oblige you.

Either way, consider yourself contradicted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Sure they (fly ash spherules) were expected, but not in concentrations 150 times what was expected
That is a specious claim. Any claim made about the movement of dust runs that risk for obvious reasons.

So its quite obvious that there is another source of these iron sphericals in play here
Yes. I have suggested before that 104 floors sliding past 50 steel columns at 120 mph for a quarter of a mile might have made a few.

Ignoring the data is no way to form a conclusion let alone a wildly unlikely hypothesis
I couldn't have put it better myself.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
direct us to any other symmetrical collapses exactly synonymous
Not the right word at all. See above. There are examples on this site.

Beams will react by sagging - columns will compress - steel will retain most of its strength
Quite correct. The degree to which the material is no longer straight and square is critical.

it will also work harden once the fires begin to subside
That is false.

Ah so you believe there is a conspiracy? That these people are just lying and that they are concealing evidence damaging to their position?
I do. They know that notoriety will increase their cash-flow.

I'd say there is no finer example of a condition known in psychology as "transference" yet seen on this forum. You have nailed to a tea exactly what NIST is doing and yet wish to blame exactly that on those who are simply pointing out the massive errors within the NIST fairytale. For instance why isn't the huge data pool on ultra high temps existing at WTC 7 even considered within the NIST report.
I cannot make the slightest sense out of the above group of words.

But I do like "nailed to a tea". May I use this?

yellow/white glowing steel (as clearly seen in multiple photographs of the WTC site) represents temps of something in the 1100~1200°C range
I disagree. There is no sign of such material, of that color, in any WTC picture I have ever seen.

The hard reality is that calling academic superiority on visual evidence is not a very compelling argument. The visual evidence simply can't be explained away.
It can be interpreted differently by someone with considerably greater experience.

Small dispersed and fading office fires do not lead to a total symmetrical collapse
No collapse at the WTC was symmetrical.

temps wildly in excess of that possible within a hydrocarbon based office type open fire.
Get back to the helicopter footage. Climb a thousand feet. You are looking at an angled slash through thirty box-section tubular columns 45 centimeters wide by 7 millimeters thick. The slash extends through six twelve foot high floors, seventy two feet in all. It is a seventy foot high chimney. A woman stands in it, unburnt, because the fire is two hundred feet behind her and seventy feet above her. A breeze is blowing past her at 25 mph.

That's not a normal office fire.

Consider a skyscraper which has had fires burning within it for seven hours, long enough for steel temperatures to get to 600 deg C and remain that way even when the fire had died down. Why? Because it was insulated. All that time it would be creeping and settling. Why? Because it was loaded steel above its transition point. Where was it going? To its failure point. It had time on its side.

That's not a normal office fire, either.
 
Last edited:

muttkat

Banned
Banned
I believe that in another thread, fly ash was mentioned as a constituent of the cement used to make the concrete, and that small spherules of iron oxide are a normal constituent of fly ash.

Fly ash is made in very hight temperatures indeed: it is what remains when fine particles of coal are burnt in a fluidized bed power station furnace.

Lead and molybdenum are also found in traces in coal, so may also be in fly ash produced from coal.

Concrete may or may not be made up using fly ash. Constituent parts of concrete dust will definitely reflect the temperatures their constituents were subjected to.

It seems to me there is nothing solid left of this idea until the above points (loads of "may"s and "if"s) are addressed.



Then theres all this concrete melted together with metal.........
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account


Then theres all this concrete melted together with metal.........
Concrete doesn't melt. It is destroyed before it can possibly melt, because it gets its strength from crystals which contain water of crystallization. That water separates from the crystals at around 700+ deg C. The steel cannot melt until it reaches around 1500 deg C.

What you see here are several compacted floors. Their truss steelwork is entangled. Nothing is melted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
S NIST's Response to AE911Truth's WTC7 Girder Objection 9/11 73
Oystein Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study 9/11 26
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
Mick West TFTRH #25 - Jason Bermas: Producer of Loose Change, Shade, Invisible Empire Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Mick West Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis 9/11 183
Pepijn van Erp WTC7: Determining the Accelerations involved - Methods and Accuracy 9/11 41
Mick West A wider perspective on the WTC7 collapse 9/11 2
Mick West Some New-ish WTC7 Photos (and video?) Corner Damage 9/11 6
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West WTC7 South Side Photos 9/11 2
Mick West WTC7 Smoke Movement Before and After Penthouse Collapse 9/11 7
John85 How could the interior collapse in WTC7 Move West Without More Visible Exterior Damage 9/11 63
Mick West WTC7: Is AE911's (and NIST's) Focus on A2001 Justified if it Was Not "Key" in NIST's Global Model? 9/11 181
Mick West WTC7 Penthouse Falling Window Wave 9/11 65
Jeffrey Orling The Role of Diesel Fuel in WTC7 9/11 12
Mick West First Interstate Tower Fire - Comparison with WTC Towers and WTC7 9/11 5
Mick West Kai Kostack's WTC7 Collapse Simulation using BCB and Blender 9/11 10
Mick West Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7? 9/11 12
Mick West How Hot Could The WTC7 Fires Burned, and How Hot could the Steel be? 9/11 2
gerrycan Did NIST examine Steel from WTC7? 9/11 16
gerrycan Movement of Column 79 as Expressed in WTC7 UAF Presentation 9/11 13
Mick West Debunked: UAF Study Shows WTC7 Could Not Have Collapsed from Fire 9/11 43
Mick West Debunked: CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: ‘We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11’ [HOAX] 9/11 12
Whitebeard Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons 9/11 84
Cube Radio What is this woman hearing as WTC7 collapses behind her 9/11 40
Mick West How Buckling Led to "Free Fall" acceleration for part of WTC7's Collapse. 9/11 129
benthamitemetric Other WTC7 Investigations: Aegis Insurance v. 7 World Trade Company Expert Reports 9/11 39
Oystein Debunked: "WTC7 Sound Evidence of Explosions" by Chandler/AE911T 9/11 31
Oystein AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project 9/11 1340
Cube Radio Sulfur at WTC7: how could it come from gypsum as the BBC claimed? 9/11 75
jaydeehess Why little to no analysis of steel from WTC7? 9/11 45
gerrycan AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False 9/11 161
Ron J WTC7 Firefighting 9/11 48
gerrycan WTC7 - Can YOU Spot The Difference? 9/11 52
Cairenn The plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11 9/11 429
Oxymoron How much of the Smoke Around WTC7 actually from WTC7? 9/11 20
Mick West What would a new WTC7 Collapse Investigation look like? 9/11 127
mynym WTC7 and other Buildings, the Significance of Sheer Studs 9/11 1
Representative Press WTC7 Fire Temperatures and effects on the East Floor System 9/11 58
Representative Press Significance of WTC7 9/11 36
ColtCabana FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro's statement on WTC7 9/11 135
gerrycan Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered 9/11 841
Josh Heuer The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse 9/11 528
Oxymoron WTC4 fire photo labeled as WTC7 on 911 memorial timeline site. 9/11 60
Mick West Debunked: WTC7 vs. Chechnya's Tallest Building Fire (Grozny-City Complex) 9/11 24
Mick West Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
Mick West Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis 9/11 175
Tazmanian Debunked: 9/11 Melted cars near WTC7 9/11 79
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top