This is doublethink again, Mick. You don't find what you don't look for. NIST didn't examine a single piece of steel from the building and it didn't look for evidence of explosive residue. Why don't you address hiper's point at post 401? There are standard regulations governing how investigations of this kind should be carried out which NIST ignored. Why is that OK with you?
This is doublethink again, Mick. You don't find what you don't look for. NIST didn't examine a single piece of steel from the building and it didn't look for evidence of explosive residue. Why don't you address hiper's point at post 401? There are standard regulations governing how investigations of this kind should be carried out which NIST ignored. Why is that OK with you?
What exactly did NIST ignore? And if they broke the law in doing so, then how did they get away with it? Why does Richard Gage not bring a lawsuit?
I suspect the answer is that the regulations do not apply, as they were intended to be used in arson investigations. It was quite obvious what caused the fires.
This is doublethink again, Mick. You don't find what you don't look for. NIST didn't examine a single piece of steel from the building and it didn't look for evidence of explosive residue
Male Bovine Feeces. They did and they obviosly didn't have to! The analysis goes on for several pages.
C.2 Sample1(FromWTC7)
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron
metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the
Figure C-1 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Eroded A36 wide-flange beam.
These persons found unreacted thermitic material in the WTC dust.
If NIST had tested the dust they would have found the same unreacted material and NCSTAR 1-9 ; which is basically entirely woven around the "collapse by fire" avenue ; would never have come to be.
Because they would have known the collapse was due to involvement of the discovered chemical agent.
It was vital for the NIST investigation that the dust would not be tested and so it was NIST's primary job to steer clear of that avenue of investigation.
You do understand that the components of thermite are two of the most common substances that you would find in the dust from the WTC. Aluminum powder and rust.
You do understand that the components of thermite are two of the most common substances that you would find in the dust from the WTC. Aluminum powder and rust.
14. Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.
Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound’s thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.
Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
What exactly did NIST ignore? And if they broke the law in doing so, then how did they get away with it? Why does Richard Gage not bring a lawsuit?
I suspect the answer is that the regulations do not apply, as they were intended to be used in arson investigations. It was quite obvious what caused the fires.
16. For its study of WTC 7, why didn’t NIST follow the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines for conducting a fire investigation?
NFPA 921, “Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations,” is a recommended methodology for optimizing investigations. NFPA 921 acknowledges that each investigation is unique, and that some investigations will require broader procedures than it can accommodate. This was especially true for NIST’s WTC investigation, which responded to events that were much more than typical fires or explosions.
However, NIST’s WTC 7 investigation did follow the core tenet of NFPA 921, which is the application of the scientific method. The investigation was carefully planned, sources of information were identified and contacted, the building fire and collapse event and the investigation were documented, available evidence was obtained (including documents about the design and construction of the structure), and the origin of the fire was determined based on images, laboratory testing (conducted for the towers, but applicable to WTC 7), and mathematical analyses.
Additionally, in its study of WTC 7, NIST considered all available data and evaluated a range of possible collapse mechanisms: uncontrolled fires on the tenant floors, fuel oil fires, hypothetical blast events, and fires within the Con Ed substation. NIST developed a working hypothesis, modeled the fires and the building, and then used the models to test the hypothesis against the observed behavior of the building. This approach is fully consistent with the principles of scientific inquiry.
27. Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?
Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and to facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.
Let's stop for a moment and look at what is needed to 'implode' a building
To understand an implosion, Krauthammer said, one must first understand the difference between an explosion and an implosion. An explosion, he said, is a process by which energy is propelled from a source to the surroundings.
"It's an expanding volume of energy, and whatever gets in its way gets damaged," he explained. "If you simply put an explosive charge in the center of a building, the walls are going to fly out, and everything is going to go all over the place."
An implosion uses explosions, but in a controlled way. In an implosion, "the building is going to fall inside itself, instead of out and away," Krauthammer said. "It looks like the building just sort of sits down on itself and forms a pile of rubble in the center."
To get a building to fall in such a fashion, Krauthammer said, imploders take advantage of the fact that most buildings have much more of a support skeleton than they need.
Often before laying explosives, he said, imploders analyze a building to decide which support members can be weakened mechanically, by cutting or removing bolts, without causing the structure to collapse.
"Buildings are quite redundant -- removing one support, or even a few supports is not going to cause the whole building to come down," explained the specialist in short-term impacts on buildings.
Then, once the building is brought "almost to the verge of collapse," he said, imploders place explosive charges at the final few critical weight-bearing locations.
When the charges are detonated, "iIt simply removes the last few safety pins," Krauthammer said. "Gravity takes over, and the building falls down in a predetermined sequence."
Gravity, not the explosion of the charges, is what brings the building down, he said.
"The principles are quite simple, but the execution is quite delicate," Krauthammer added.
The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.
The Reading Grain Facility in Philadelphia, Pa., was blasted by Controlled Demolition Group, Ltd. in the winter of 1999.
Photo courtesy ImplosionWorld.com
Demolition blasters load explosives on several different levels of the building so that the building structure falls down on itself at multiple points. When everything is planned and executed correctly, the total damage of the explosives and falling building material is sufficient to collapse the structure entirely, so cleanup crews are left with only a pile of rubble.
In order to demolish a building safely, blasters must map out each element of the implosion ahead of time. The first step is to examine architectural blueprints of the building, if they can be located, to determine how the building is put together. Next, the blaster crew tours the building (several times), jotting down notes about the support structure on each floor. Once they have gathered all the raw data they need, the blasters hammer out a plan of attack. Drawing from past experiences with similar buildings, they decide what explosives to use, where to position them in the building and how to time their detonations. In some cases, the blasters may develop 3-D computer models of the structure so they can test out their plan ahead of time in a virtual world.
The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble.
Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.
Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.
The Hayes Homes, in Newark, N.J.: The 10-story housing project was demolished in three separate phases, over the course of three years. Even though all the buildings had exactly the same design, blasters handled the implosions differently for each phase. These towers were blasted by Engineered Demolition, Inc. in the summer of 1999.
Photo courtesy ImplosionWorld.com
According to Brent Blanchard, an implosion expert with the demolition consulting firm Protec Documentation Services, virtually every building in the world is unique. And for any given building, there are any number of ways a blasting crew might bring it down. Blanchard notes the demolition of the Hayes Homes, a 10-building housing project in Newark, New Jersey, which was demolished in three separate phases over the course of three years. "A different blasting firm performed each phase," Blanchard says, "and although all of the buildings were identical, each blaster chose a slightly different type of explosive and loaded varying numbers of support columns. They even brought the buildings down in different mathematical sequences, with varying amounts of time factored in between each building's collapse."
Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories. In a 20-story building, for example, the blasters might blow the columns on the first and second floor, as well as the 12th and 15th floors. In most cases, blowing the support structures on the lower floors is sufficient for collapsing the building, but loading columns on upper floors helps break the building material into smaller pieces as it falls. This makes for easier cleanup following the blast.
Once the blasters have figured out how to set up an implosion, it's time to prepare the building. In the next section, we'll find out what's involved in pre-detonation prepping and see how blasters rig the explosives for a precisely timed demolition.
Now is there any LINK at all to bin Laden and any company or trained building 'imploders'? This is NOT a simple thing to do.
There is nothing to indicate that they expected the buildings to fall. Cause a fire that would burn for days and days and the crashes that would kill hundreds was more than likely what they expected.
Male Bovine Feeces. They did and they obviosly didn't have to! The analysis goes on for several pages.
C.2 Sample1(FromWTC7)
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron
metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the
Figure C-1 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Eroded A36 wide-flange beam.
Delighted you mention this, unregistered. You are referring to the steel in FEMA 403 Appendix C, as was I when I brought the question up. Do try to assimilate what has been said just a few posts before if you are going to jump in and accuse someone of bullshitting. I suppose the fact that the quote you have pasted here was from a FEMA document might've been obvious to you from the words "FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY" at the end of it, but apparently not.
The question I was asking is this: where is that steel (or any physical steel from the building) referred to or analysed in the final NIST WTC 7 report? Instead of a consideration of any of the actual steel from the building, we have references to NCSTAR documents such as 1-3D and 1-3E which assert that no steel was recovered from WTC 7 -- even though the FEMA quote you have helpfully pasted here proves that this was not the case. Because it made no attempt to examine the actual steel from the building that FEMA recovered, NIST says it was obliged to estimate the properties of the steel "completely from the literature" (NCSTAR 1-3D p273) and resort to a computer model which, as we all know, it will not allow independent experts to fully examine.
This is not competent investigation. Where is the steel, which can only be described as critical evidence? Did NIST lose it? It seems so. This was convenient for NIST as, since it lost the steel, it did not need to consider the eutectic attack on the steel you mention or the source of this "hot corrosion". The source of the sulphur has been suggested by others to be the gypsum walls in the building, but this can be eliminated as there was no accompanying calcium penetrating the steel, and gypsum is calcium sulphate.
I am asking you to propose HOW any charges could have been set in ANY of the buildings. Multiple charges and thermite would not work, then they would have had to cut through the columns to weaken them.
If the steel was the same as what was used in the Trade centers, would there have been a separate need to study it.
You are still wanting DNA tests on the equine droppings after the Stock Show parade, because you think they belong to ZEBRAS.
Are we to understand from this that you think it is perfectly fine that not even a single piece of physical steel from the building was tested in the investigation, given that steel from the building was available?
I continue to find this comment utterly extraordinary. It is not as if explosives are the only (or even first) thing that a competent investigation would test for if it had actual physical evidence from the building to examine.
I'm afraid I find your metaphor facile. You seem to be saying that there is no need to look at physical evidence when conducting an investigation, because you have pre-determined its conclusion.
You do understand that the components of thermite are two of the most common substances that you would find in the dust from the WTC. Aluminum powder and rust.
The chips they found should not have been there. This was not a hap hazard bringing together of aluminum and iron oxide.
This is a material that is made up out of nano sized particles that are uniform and symmetrical.
"active thermitic material discovered in dust from the 9/11 world trade center catastrophe"
The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31
None of the papers have so far been refuted in the scientific literature... they are unchallenged in the scientific sense and stand as in indictment of the official story of 9/11.
I mean what kind of a country is this where independent researchers find chemical agents in the dust
and the government itself and the government institution in charge of the investigation does not even :
1- bother to test the dust in the first place
2- bother to refute the indictment of papers that do find stuff in the dust
This kind of behavior is a disgrace and makes it officially a LA-LA-LAND-country.
Iron oxide (red) primer paint and metallic aluminum (silver) paint was used to protect the WTC steelwork. Finely-divided iron oxide and aluminum powders are very nearly the recipe for thermite.
However, they never found enough alumina (aluminum oxide) to account for any reaction. Alumina is white, hard, gritty, and easy to see. Thermite when burnt leaves copious quantities of this material around its conflagration site. Somehow these were never discovered.
It's up there with all those other things for which there's also no evidence: God, Intelligent Design, Chemtrails, fairies at the bottom of the garden, and 9-11 "truth".
Have you noticed that NONE of the 'the buildings were imploded' folks have any answers to how the charges could have been planted and the columns weakened ahead of time?
Actually, 100,000 tons of painted steelwork sliding down ten miles of painted steel columns IS "a haphazard bringing together of aluminum and iron oxide".
This is a material that is made up out of nano sized particles that are uniform and symmetrical.
IRON SPARKS, RED PRIMER, RED PRIMER AND SILVER PAINT TOGETHER.
What really annoys is the feeling that you really hope nobody will mention these facts, and that way you'll "get away with it".
Shall we go through this again?
STEEL MAKES SPARKS. When a spark occurs, what you see is a fine particle of iron oxidizing so thoroughly IT MELTS, FORMS A SPHERE, and solidifies as AN "IRON-RICH SPHERE" (of iron oxide). You could ask yourself the question "Is it likely that half a million tons of steel struck sparks when it fell a thousand feet?" if you like.
PAINT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MADE OF NANOMATERIALS.
RED OXIDE PRIMER AND ALUMINUM PAINT ARE SIMILAR TO THERMITE. Check the Hindenburg Disaster out. It was coated in these and burnt rather brightly as a consequence. Not, of course, relative to the magnesium structure, and all that hydrogen gas...
"One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
"The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters."
"The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed."
None of these collapsed.. I guess wtc7 was just badly built... And yet it housed a blast proof self oxygen generating office.
a New York Times article revealed that Building Seven also served as a secret CIA center. It was a CIA base of operations in New York City. So it's a very interesting list -- in particular, then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, which was housed in a fortified bunker on the twenty-third floor of this building. This bunker had an independent air and water supply, had bullet- and blast-resistant glass, and overlooked the Twin Towers.
"One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
"The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters."
"The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed."
None of these collapsed.. I guess wtc7 was just badly built... And yet the CIA housed a blast proof self oxygen generating office.
a New York Times article revealed that Building Seven also served as a secret CIA center. It was a CIA base of operations in New York City. So it's a very interesting list -- in particular, then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, which was housed in a fortified bunker on the twenty-third floor of this building. This bunker had an independent air and water supply, had bullet- and blast-resistant glass, and overlooked the Twin Towers.
And the structural design and age of these buildings was EXACTLY the same or very similar to WTC-7? The fires burned in areas that had the same loads as that of WTC-7! The steel was of the same composition?
Anyone with a science-based education knows that if you alter the basic conditions of an experiment or an event you can't expect the same results! Well logically you can't.....
Ya know....the NIST did't test for alien disintegration rays either. Can you prove that there were none? And hey, maybe this was all holographicly done and WTC-7 as been there all along only to have its facia rebuilt later..... Oh! Didn't David Copperfield or some illusionist make buildings disappear? Does anyone know where he was at the time.....
I am not going to allow you to change the subject. I had asked about the implosion theory. The other buildings that had damage would have needed to have been built the same way and NONE of them had damage from falling debris. I fail to see why they are 'models'.
HOW were explosives planted, and HOW were columns pre weakened? How did ANY one know where the building would be damaged? and where the fires would take place?
Now please explain how an implosion caused this
firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.
The building was bulging over 2 hours before it collapsed.
The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[6] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2).[7] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[8] The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[9] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the 7th floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[7]
Transfer trusses used on the 5–7th floors to redistribute load to the foundation
A shipping and receiving ramp, which served the entire World Trade Center complex, occupied the eastern quarter of the 7 World Trade Center footprint. The building was open below the 3rd floor, providing space for truck clearance on the shipping ramp.[7] The spray-on fireproofing for structural steel elements was gypsum-based Monokote which had a two-hour fire rating for steel beams, girders and trusses, and a three-hour rating for columns.[2]
Mechanical equipment was installed on floors four through seven, including 12 transformers on the 5th floor. Several emergency generators installed in the building were used by the Office of Emergency Management, Salomon Smith Barney, and other tenants.[2] In order to supply the generators, 24,000 gallons (91,000 L) of diesel fuel were stored below ground level.[10] Fuel oil distribution components were located at ground level, up to the ninth floor.[11] After the World Trade Center bombings of February 26, 1993, New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani decided to situate the emergency command center and associated fuel tanks at 7 World Trade Center. Although this decision was criticized in light of the events of 9/11, the fuel in the building is today not believed to have contributed to the collapse of the building.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18] The roof of the building included a small west penthouse and a larger east mechanical penthouse.
...
Most of three existing floors were removed as tenants continued to occupy other floors, and more than 350 tons (U.S.) of steel were added to construct three double-height trading floors. Nine diesel generators were installed on the 5th floor as part of a backup power station. "Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building – and it's an occupied building, which complicates the situation," said a district manager of Silverstein Properties. The unusual task was possible, said Larry Silverstein, because it was designed to allow for "entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors....
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building[30] and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.[9] The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41
...
At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[37] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[38] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.
...
The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit
Of course, you neglected to include the Windsor building fire in Madrid. It did have significant portions of its steel collapse. The only thing that kept it standing was its concrete core:
The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor. The
Again it's perfectly ok for debunkers to conjecture
Of course, you neglected to include the Windsor building fire in Madrid. It did have significant portions of its steel collapse. The only thing that kept it standing was its concrete core:
Again, science does not involve coming up with a theory before examining the evidence. That happens after evidence is examined. Is that really so hard to grasp? FEMA had physical evidence in the form of steel from WTC 7 and recommended further investigation of it because of its mysterious condition. However, NIST said there was no steel to examine and created a theory without examining a single piece of physical steel from the building.
Again, science does not involve coming up with a theory before examining the evidence. That happens after evidence is examined. Is that really so hard to grasp? FEMA had physical evidence in the form of steel from WTC 7 and recommended further investigation of it because of its mysterious condition. However, NIST said there was no steel to examine and created a theory without examining a single piece of physical steel from the building.
27. Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?
Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and to facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.
So now it fell down? Sorry, pleading 'no implosion' won't work here. The implications of thermite and explosions ALL point at you and others pushing an implosion theory.
So now it fell down? Sorry, pleading 'no implosion' won't work here. The implications of thermite and explosions ALL point at you and others pushing an implosion theory.
I have only seen you talking about an 'implosion', no one else. Which clearly shows your lack of understanding about demolitions. Implosions are a very specific type of demolition which necessitates removing masses of material from the building before hand such that it is like a skeleton. As has been demonstrated on this thread earlier. The only other types of viable 'implosions' are where you have domes or stadii etc Simply put you could not 'implode' the WTC's as it would be physically impossible without months of deconstruction and even then I doubt they would be suitable.
Are you trying to suggest that the actual design of a building doesn't have any impact as it how it would withstand a fire??
As for your reading skills- read it again:
The columns completely collapsed and partially- as in part of it- came to rest on the upper technical floor- the other part of the "partially" fell all the way to ground.
Nonetheless, it demonstrates that fire can cause steel structures to fail- much like the overpass collapse in Oakland:
A tanker truck carrying approximately 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline caught on fire on the Interstate 80/880 interchange in Oakland, California early Sunday morning around 3:40 AM. The fire resulted in the collapse of at least two sections of bridges at the interchange
No. Are you suggesting these other buildings which did not collapse were of a superior and stronger design and construction.
As for your reading skills- read it again:
The columns completely collapsed and partially- as in part of it- came to rest on the upper technical floor- the other part of the "partially" fell all the way to ground.
I don't have to read it again, I got it the first time. That some 'bits fell off', during an inferno of many hours does not constitute a collapse in such circumstances in any universe that I know. Partial collapses are well known and ALWAYS happen to some degree in a major fire, be it a ceiling or a wall or whatever. The point being, they do NOT totally collapse unless they are prefixed by the letters WTC.
Apples and pink elephants.
Nonetheless, it demonstrates that fire can cause steel structures to fail- much like the overpass collapse in Oakland:
A tanker truck carrying approximately 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline caught on fire on the Interstate 80/880 interchange in Oakland, California early Sunday morning around 3:40 AM. The fire resulted in the collapse of at least two sections of bridges at the interchange
Again, science does not involve coming up with a theory before examining the evidence. That happens after evidence is examined. Is that really so hard to grasp? FEMA had physical evidence in the form of steel from WTC 7 and recommended further investigation of it because of its mysterious condition. However, NIST said there was no steel to examine and created a theory without examining a single piece of physical steel from the building.
You don't seem to comprehend . . . computer simulations are the preferred way for NIST to prove their most important theories . . . there is no real need for physical evidence, nor is there really a need to share the data they used to make their simulations fit the video evidence . . .
27. Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?
Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and to facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.
And the reference to the WTC 7 steel FEMA documented in this is where? My point is that NIST lied by omission in excluding it, and what you have quoted here proves it.
Are you now about to cast doubt on the quality of FEMA's study of the steel: its provenance, accuracy or chain of custody, perhaps?
I am hearing, 'It didn't happen that way." and they 'Failed to look other ways it could have happened'. But to do the second you need a plausible theory. I am NOT seeing any of those. I guess the Enterprise could have dropped in from the movies and 'beamed out' some of the supports.
That the WTC fire-exposed steel lost half its strength, was only the beginning of the story. It also crept, in other words, became plastic and allowed loadings to be transferred, columns to be bent away from their center line, beams to expand beyond their design limits, and the affected floors to sag to the point where their fixings sheared off. The columns cannot stand on their own, and rely on the floors for structural stability. Once floors detach, they may cascade the floors beneath by impact. The unsupported columns will immediately buckle, as their stability diminishes proportionally to the square of their unrestrained length.
Such events will happen to any slender column long span beam structure unprotected from fire. That's why there's a security palaver.
That some 'bits fell off', during an inferno of many hours does not constitute a collapse in such circumstances in any universe that I know.
Verinage is a technique which uses rams to push out key structural points on a pre prepared building, (gutted and structural supports removed), the resultant collapse results in the top and bottom sections mutually crushing each other by use of gravity. Sometimes, despite the 'weakening' preparations, gravity is not enough to destroy the building and large parts sometimes remain.
However, this is still not an implosion. A true implosion is when a prepared demolition brings the building down and it collapses inwards. It matters not what method is used to bring it down, it could be explosives or verinage. There are some videos claiming to be implosions which are technically not as they simply fall straight down.
Here is a goodish example of an implosion.
Exactly what brought the towers down... I don't know but the official story has massive holes in it as far as I am concerned.
It would be helpful if NIST were to make their data available but they won't.
In the meantime, we have other buildings burning longer and more fiercely without collapsing and the only ones to collapse are prefixed WTC.
Quite frankly, I am not sure that all of our modern buildings are built as sturdy as they used to be. A few years back, there was a condo here in Dallas that was under construction and a single wind gust collapsed it. It happened at night so no one was injured.
