See other 9/11 Articles
Title: View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed
Source:
www.serendipity
URL Source: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/soldier5.htm
Published: Oct 22, 2006
Author: anonymous Finn
Post Date: 2006-10-22 12:30:26 by robin
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 2631
Comments: 275
View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's. Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the durability of a steel trunk. With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). In the skyscrapers of the WTC the surroundings were not at all ideal as there were far too many steel columns and they led heat away from the burning area. WTC 1 burned for 102 minutes and WTC 2 for 56 minutes only. A fire burning much longer, from 10 to 20 hours, could slowly increase the burning temperature down to perhaps 1100 °C (approx. 2010 °F). Provided there is more substance to burn, such a fire will damage concrete and irons, but not severely heavy steel constructions. In mid-February in Madrid, the Windsor Tower (see above) burned for over 20 hours, which led to a fire stronger and hotter than that in the WTC, but even the collapses of the Windsor Tower caused by the very strong and long-enduring fire were minimal and limited to the upper floors. If either of the WTC tower had started to collapse because of fires the collapse would have been limited to only a few of the floors and then stopped. The impossibility of a gravitational collapse is closer seen in other documents. A collapse would produce large pieces, and does not explain reports of fine dust from concrete, huge amounts of dust and pieces of steel ejected outwards. Destruction of the towers by explosions is clear according to the photographs and reports of the eye witnesses. In the picture below, a range of cutting charges have just exploded in the down left sector and a typical white cloud is formed outwards from the wall. Down right, explosions are seen as well. Even a flame is seen. In video tapes taken of the so-called collapses of the WTC, more explosions of these cutting charges can be seen. The explosions advance quickly, with a gap of a couple of floors, cutting the strong steel pillars in the outer wall. The explosions are timed so that it appears that the tower collapses occur in the same timing as in a gravitational collapse. The explosions are not completely synchronized in timing, probably a few charges are triggered by radio, and other charges explode out of the impulses of one of these charges (infrared, pressure wave). More challenging problems to the demolition men, however, were the central cores of the buildings and the 47 steel pillars more robust than the ones on the outer rounds. The pillars of the central cores were made of steel even 100 + 100 mm thick, thicker than the side armours of a battle tank. Cutting those, even with explosives, is extremely difficult. One would need to surround the whole pillars, every single pillar on every floor intended to get blasted, with powerful cutting charges. These charges would have needed to be placed in such a way that the users of the skyscrapers could not notice these preparations. As seen in the following pictures, the cores of the towers were not distracted by thousands of powerful cutting charges but by a modern thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb. In the picture below, a hydrogen bomb explosion, the bomb having been placed in the cellar and directed to the core, has reached the roof of the tower and the upper parts of the outer walls. On its way up the waves of fire pressure partially penetrated about 100 floors of concrete and steel. Over ten million degrees of heat caused by a hydrogen bomb sublimised all water within the concrete in a moment. Water exploded extremely quickly into 24-fold volume and totally pulverized the concrete. Even people and computers that were in the buildings disappeared turning into heat and light. That is why almost nothing of them was found in the ruins. Burning radiation is absorbed in steel so quickly that steel heats up immediately over its melting point 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F) and above its boiling point around 3000 C (approx. 5430 °F). In the pictures down below, super hot groups of steel pillars and columns, torn from wall by pressure wave, are sublimized. They immediately turn into a vaporized form, binding heat as quickly as possible. Bursts upwards, even visible in the picture below, are not possible for a gravitational collapse or for cutting charges which are used horizontally. In the upper picture the explosion is in theory 100 times stronger than in the picture below, but in practice the difference is only four times due to the capability of direction of the small hydrogen bomb. In the picture at the right, the brown shades caused by a hydrogen bomb are seen, while the top of the tower that is already collapsing is breaking down and the posture straightens up as the hydrogen bomb pulverized the core and it lost all its resistance. The piles point the blasts of the cutting charges. (Gehue plate 12) Extremely hot, sublimating pieces are not created with many methods. For comparison, pictures of subterranean nuclear explosions where the explosion is blasting onto surface and into the air: Ess1.2 Kt WTC 2 Banberry 10 Kt underground Radioactivity in air creates shades of brown. (The subterranean nuke in the picture on the right is 10 times stronger than the small nuke on the left.) This is the reason why the FBI did not search the crime scene. Ground zeros of nuclear weapons are a health risk and belong to the FEMA. Poster Comment: For the rest of this: Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11 Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11 Written in spring 2005, a modestly language-corrected version Corrected by another person than the original author. The photographs attached in this non-profit distribution are for securing volatile, important evidence on 9/11 for discussion and education. Author hereby grants full permission to reproduce the drawing 'The Bombs in the WTC' and his writings. You are encouraged to mail, publish and mass produce these documents or your enhanced versions of them. Due to concerns for his personal safety, the author has chosen to remain anonymous. And a glance at some of what he's fighting for (to keep it fair and balanced): 
Storax Sedan 104 Kt shallow underground
Steel pillars are turned into dust. 
The author has chosen to remain anonymous so I'll post this photo of a Finnish soldier. Why? Well because I like looking at Finns, even with green faces.
/9_11/$FILE/9_11.jpg)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 252.
#1. To: robin (#0)
Uhhhhhhhhhh...
Hey, he might be. What do you find wrong with his conclusions? BTW, there are other links I listed above the silly photos.
Uhhhhhhhhh.
Do you really believe the official govt story about how the towers "pancaked" and fell?
Well, Uhhhh is about the most intelligent offering I have. I failed structural engineering but I do not buy that there was extensive termite damage. I could have just given you a ping but there is no humor in that.
Sorry to hear you actually believe the govt version over the Laws of Physics. Have you viewed any of the 9/11 videos?
Have you viewed any of the 9/11 videos? Sorry to hear you actually believe the govt version over the Laws of Physics. Here I am trying to be helpful and am chastised for my effort. I believe NOTHING the government tells me but I did do rather well in physics. For instance, the law of gravity as discerned by Sir Isaac ruled at 9/11. Videos??? Many.. Have listened to endless "experts" from all sides of the argument. When anyone finally drags some poor soul in front of the cameras and he says, "I did it", I will be eager to listen.
Okay, so what do you believe, if you don't believe the govt and you did well in physics? Let's just take the speed at which the buildings fell. Well documented from a variety of sources. I mean no disrespect, I hope you know that. BTW, there are a few new 9/11 videos that are better at explaining this than others. If you should want those links, I can post them.
What do I believe??? I saw what others saw. Aircraft hit the towers, resulting in a breaching of structural integrity, the law of gravity took over and down they came. One structural engineer posed the following question. "Considering that the buildings fell very nearly within their own footprints, why would anyone intent on destruction and slaughter be so careful, why not arrange to have the building topple so as to kill thousands more and cause widespread destruction"... There was no rebuttal.
I believe the belief in impossible conspiracies is a poison, one that will damage people for the rest of their lives. I know people out there who have been obsessed for almost 45 years over the Kennedy murder. So what if they prove there were three shooters, or his own driver shot him? What will they live for after that? What kind of life is that?
What kind of life is there in swallowing everything the govt tells you, without question? What kind of life is there for someone to deny the Laws of Physics because the govt tells them they don't matter anymore? That what they saw is not what they saw on 9/11? To paraphrase Burkeman1 this morning, If Tony Snow got up and said the sun now rises in the west and sets in the east, there are people who would just accept it.
What kind of life is there for someone to deny the Laws of Physics because the govt tells them they don't matter anymore? I don't believe anything the government tells me. You have used "the Laws of Physics" so often, and capitalized it every time, that it is clear to me you know nothing about them.
Are you of the "wet noodle" theory that Destro holds to? http://srikant.org/core/phy11sep.html Laws of Physics : A Primer Belal E. Baaquie Core Curriculum National University of Singapore (corbeb@nus.edu.sg)
I was raised in a steel mill town and understand steel a lot better then you do. Heat doesn't turn steel into wet noodles. It just weakens it. I'll give you another hint as to what happened. Steel joints in buildings aren't welded; they're riveted. And those joints pop loose. I've seen medium-sized tornadoes bend steel I-beams and pop the joints loose. Wind, not 20 tons of flying metal, going over 300 mph, loaded with over 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.
According to one of the design engineers of the towers, their joints were both bolted AND welded together - those buildings were engineered to take two hits, simultaneously, from the largest civilian plane of the day, Boeing 707's.
Stop trying to confuse him with the facts or the "Laws of Physics". lol. He's good for a laugh and an insight into a shill, but he's not intelligent enough for a good waste of time.
It would not matter - just 400-500 degrees F would reduce the strength of steel by half. "Laws of Physics".
In your world they would, but not in reality.
It is my world - I work for a steel beam maker.
Well then, hush my mouth. All those qualifications and I'm arguing. Who do I think I am?
Not a case of who you are - but where do you get the notion that you can say the heat of a fire at such and such degrees does not weaken steel? It is a fact that around 500degrees C steel loses a majority of its strength. This was denied. I call out the person - where is your cred to say such a thing?
#68. To: angle, lodwick (#66) It would not matter - just 400-500 degrees F would reduce the strength of steel by half. Now you say: It is a fact that around 500degrees C steel loses a majority of its strength. You're a lousy shill, but in case there may be one person out there considering that you may have any credibility, this post's for them.
Excuse me for mistyping F when I should have written C - in any case you tell me at what temperature steel loses strength in? Can you tell me a temperature by temperature analysis of the lowering of steel strength till failure?
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900º C (1,500- 1,700º F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600º C (1,100º F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments). At temperatures above 800º C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7. Why couldn't such dramatic reductions in the strength of the steel precipitate such total collapse events? High-rise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would needed to survive the most extreme conditions anticipated. It may take well over a ten-fold reduction in strength to cause a structural failure. If a steel structure does experience a collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse tends to remain localized to the area that experienced the high temperatures. The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
Because they don't have an aircraft shear their support structures - the WTC and WTC7 were not your standard frame built skyscrapers - There were no internal beams for example - so you can get that open air office. See examples: http://www.concretethinking.org/main.asp?page=827 The ability of structural steel to withstand major fires is under scrutiny. The latest findings of the US-based National Institute of Standards and Technology into the collapse of the World Trade Center couple with the recent collapse in fire of the perimeter steel columns of the Madrid Windsor Torre building question the performance of structural steel in fires in high rise buildings. And it is not just in high rise buildings. The avocation by the UK Chief Fire Officers' Association of a boycott of fire fighters entering burning steel framed superstores and warehouses is also raising questions about the use of steel for low rise buildings reports Anna Scothern, Head of Performance at The Concrete Centre. http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/nc/ne/?id=101283 Madrid: A fire of an unknown source has affected one of Madrid's most famous skyscraper. The fire began at the 21st floor at about 22.30 GMT Saturday 12th of February and rapedly extended along the building. Torre Windsor had been under renovation works for the past year and fortunately the building remained empty. Part of the facade has collapsed and firefighters had to abandoned the building due to the risk of collpasing of the structure.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html "Never before in history has a steel high rise building collapsed simply because of fire. On 9/11, by coincidence, three such buildings collapsed in ten to fifteen seconds, almost freefall speed. In other words, if you dropped a brick from the top of the World Trade Center it would have taken about that time to hit the ground."
Except in Madrid. There goes your exceptionalisim argument.
You chose a really bad example to make your point; Madrid's fire helps make the demolition of the WTC more clear. First of all the facade of a building has a lot of non-structural stuff attached to it, like gargoyles (you're probably acquainted with a few) and other rather poorly attached doo-dads, as these columns must have been. Maybe you'd have better luck arguing about the Pentagon crash. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html The Madrid Skyscraper Fire Sunday 13 February 2005 With morning light, the damage from the spectacular blaze that lit up the night and attracted thousands of onlookers was evident. The top floors were little more than charred steel twisted into destroyed shapes. Everything else was burned away. Roads for two to three blocks in all directions were closed off to traffic, including the main north-south artery Castellana boulevard. Fire trucks, emergency and police vehicles blocked the intersections, while service was curtailed on three subway lines that ran below or near the building. The dirty white smoke that poured upward from the building was visible from several kilometres (miles) away. Against the night sky, bright orange flames shot out the sides and top of building, producing thick columns of black smoke. At about 3 am (0200GMT), at least six of the upper floors collapsed in a shower of flaming metal debris. As the fire burned into the night, all that was visible of the upper parts of the building was the flaming, gutted remains of steel-reinforced concrete floors. The Windsor Building fire provides a graphic illustration of an 800ºC inferno: The fire was so bright it illuminated Madrid: Click images below for full sized photos Madrid to dismantle fire-gutted skyscraper Thursday February 17 MADRID (Reuters) - A 32-storey Madrid skyscraper gutted by the biggest blaze in the city's history will be taken apart piece by piece from the outside because it is too dangerous to enter, a townhall official says. Madrid's eighth tallest building was reduced to a blackened concrete skeleton at the weekend when a fire that lit up the night sky like a huge torch devoured the 106-metre-high building from the top down. "Given the seriousness and extent of the damage ... the adoption of any security measure to avoid new collapses would be totally useless," urban affairs councillor Pilar Martinez said on Thursday. "As a result it will be declared a ruin and (we will proceed with) its complete demolition," she added. A system of cranes will be set up to allow the charred remains, in the heart of the city's financial district, to be picked apart from outside. "It can't be done from inside because of the state of the building, so the cranes will have to be outside and (workers) will cut it apart piece by piece and bring it down." See also: The Collapse of WTC 1: Madrid Exposes a Fundamental Flaw The Collapse of WTC 1: The fire in WTC 1 is reported to have burned at 800ºC and was located roughly 17 storeys from the top of the building meaning the inner core supported only 6 additional floors of weight above the fire zone in comparison to the Windsor Building. WTC 1 collapsed after only 85 minutes, reportedly through core failure. Don't you find this odd? Let's take a look at the cores of the buildings. Windsor Building Core: WTC 1 Core: It is obvious that the core of WTC 1 was far more robust than the Windsor Building's core - this is to be expected since the building was 110 storeys high. Okay, the core of WTC 1 was solid, but an airliner flew directly fly into it. Could this be the reason for the quick collapse? The above indicates that at least 50% of WTC 1's core was intact after Flight 11 hit the building, and the fact that the building remained standing proves the intact core columns could support the weight of floors above the impact level without problems. This leaves a quandary because we are told that the 800ºC temperatures which the Windsor Building's core columns withstood for 18 hours wrecked the intact core columns of WTC 1 in only 85 minutes. Okay, let's assume that some of WTC 1's remaining core columns of were damaged by the plane impact, maybe this could account for the quick collapse of the building. Well, this might be plausible if an 800ºC fire burned at the airliner impact level, but these temperatures did not exist inside WTC 1. When you add to the above the mysterious demise of the building's core you have to conclude that either a fundamental flaw existed in WTC 1's inner core construction, or a fundamental flaw exists in the official explanation of the building's collapse. "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
From the University of Sydney, Australia - School of Civil Engineering: http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.s html I value their judgment over your non-experts acting like experts. You would think a civil engineering school from overseas would see through this ruse you claim exists - but sadly for your fevered mind they do not - because your theory is scientific bull.
Funny, there's no mention of the Madrid fire. But there is this interesting note you might have missed at the end: This section added 14 January 2006 ************************ Why don't you quote from Michael Chertoff's cousin's article in Popular Mechanics?
I can't believe FEMA said this. Steel is a very good conductor of heat, which would have made it very hard to heat up enough at any one point to lose half of its strength at that point. All of the steel supporting structures in that building were connected. If fire was heating one part of the building to the point of the steel losing half of its strength, then the rest of the steel on that floor would have been scorching hot, way too hot to touch as we see the woman in the photo clearly doing. Also the firemen reached the impact floor and reported only two small pockets of fire that they were sure they could knock out with only two hoses right before the South tower started to collapse.
Excellent point Ricky, but you're not an Aussie expert who quotes from FEMA.
Why is someone whose jab is to be able to crunch such figures fooled - from another country no less - but you non experts know better than him?
We've given you Dr. Steven Jones as a credentialed professor at BYU ( or was until he got canned ). Not many people want to disagree with the Bush Crime Family and the NeoSheviks, so they post anonymously. That doesn't mean their facts are not straight. But you prefer to get your Enough said. We know who you're playing for. You won't spend a moment considering all the evidence presented on more than one thread. You just spew garbage from FEMA and the Chertoffs like all the other Rove minions. You have NO credibility. Goodbye!
You're too polite. Here's the latest comprehensive site: http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/10/21/911_twin_towers_coll apse_independent.htm This should set their knees a quaking:
it's obvious that no matter what is presented, Destro's going to hold to the "steel turns to wet noodles" theory. unbelievable.
You work in the steel business? Do you think they fire proof steel beams for show?
It's fire proofed because even small fires can compromise the integrity of the heat treating and the structure would have to be razed because it's not possible to replace or even shore up main beams in most locations. So, one critical member that is ten pounds below the rated tensile strength could result in the demolition of a multi million dollar structure simply because the beam although still safe, no longer exceeds the minimum rating standards for structural steel. Fire Proofing is to protect insurance company stock holders, not occupants of steel framed structures. If there is a fire and the fire proofing is still intact, it tells the inspectors that NDT is not necessary and the building can be renovated. Although steel can burn (fast oxidation as opposed to slow-rust) it requires blast furnace temperatures, and structural fires rarely approach the required heat or burn time for that.
Do you make stuff up by pulling them out of your arse because you don't want to be one upped without a comeback? The planes slamming into the building scrapped the sprayed on fireproofing off the beams or the building would have stood up. That plus the unique design of using the outer skin as a load bearing wall also helped wealen the structure - if the WTC had been built in the classic design of internal steel girders then the building may have stood up at least below the impact zone. The spray-on fireproofing to the steel structure (beams, columns and decking) prevented the collapse of this Los Angeles high-rise in 1988. A sprinkler system had recently been installed but was not yet activated. The spray-on fireproofing saved lives and property. The First Interstate Bank Building was back in use a few months after the incident. http://www.concretethinking.org/main.asp?page=827 The ability of structural steel to withstand major fires is under scrutiny. The latest findings of the US-based National Institute of Standards and Technology into the collapse of the World Trade Center couple with the recent collapse in fire of the perimeter steel columns of the Madrid Windsor Torre building question the performance of structural steel in fires in high rise buildings. And it is not just in high rise buildings. The avocation by the UK Chief Fire Officers' Association of a boycott of fire fighters entering burning steel framed superstores and warehouses is also raising questions about the use of steel for low rise buildings reports Anna Scothern, Head of Performance at The Concrete Centre. http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/nc/ne/?id=101283 Madrid: A fire of an unknown source has affected one of Madrid's most famous skyscraper. The fire began at the 21st floor at about 22.30 GMT Saturday 12th of February and rapedly extended along the building. Torre Windsor had been under renovation works for the past year and fortunately the building remained empty. Part of the facade has collapsed and firefighters had to abandoned the building due to the risk of collpasing of the structure.
What do cases of raging fires in high rises around the world have to do with the smokey little camp fires that burned briefly in NY? Hell, the buildings were down in an hour, and there no raging infernos according to the firefighter who calmly radioed that they could knock it down with two lines. (Actually one but he didn't want to be a hotdog) You are getting so frantic that you're projecting raging infernos from other parts of the world to the WTC, and putting up a smoke screen of bad language to boot. That ain't what happened. And, there will be no costly changes to the building codes. They know it's bullshit and so do you. And, too many Jewish landlords that are presently envious would start to squeal if they had to pay to maintain the lie! Even if there was no fireproofing, the heat sink effect of interconnected steel would never allow any of the skeleton to reach critical failure temperatures. The building would have been condemned, but that would have still left Silverstein with a cost prohibitive demolition. The estimated cost of the scaffolding alone was over two billion dollars! Instead of relying on frightened govt licensed "experts" (who saw what happened to the first who spoke the truth) you need to ask mathematicians to calculate the odds. It's no accident that not one has calculated the odds of three steel framed high rises owned by the same man collapsing the same day, and each into their own footprints! HAH! Can you say "Mathematically impossible"? And, then ask for the calculations on mysterious players betting that the airlines stocks would also freefall! And, since it's virtually impossible to buy untraceable stocks, why is it that those mystery "speculators" are yet to be identified? And, here is the simplest way to prove that you're shilling for the murdering bastards. Why don't you explain what FEMA could not and tell us why WTC 7 collapsed into it's own footprint? You dare not admit that you don't know, even though FEMA apparently doesn't. And that will be ample proof of your desperation to safely dismiss you as the govt/Zionist tool that you are. And NORAD does 100 intercepts a year without a miss, but that day they missed four, including a penetration into the most protected airspace in the world! What are the odds? Save your frantic, frightened obscene fairie tales for the kiddies. In fact, they'll know that you're either lying or demented or both soon enough. And then you won't be here to hurl insults anymore. I know what you're going to say. "Shit, fuck, cunt, piss, doo doo caca wee wee BJ", right?
That right there is a red flag. If there was a real threat of fires collapsing skyscrapers the codes would have been passed. All the "engineers" know deep down, fire didn't bring down the towers. It would cost trillions of dollars to upgrade all the highrises in the U.S.
All the "engineers" know deep down, fire didn't bring down the towers. It would cost trillions of dollars to upgrade all the highrises in the U.S. You got it! And, how many changes to the fire code have been passed so far? Better yet, who is even investigating it? HEADLINES YOU'LL NEVER SEE: *CONGRESS AUTHORIZES A BILLION TO REWRITE NFPA CODE!* I've installed massive transformers in buildings, and I know that if one of them catches fire and alters the structural steel above in any way, the building is totaled. It doesn't have to melt the steel, it only has to alter it's specs in any way and the insurance company is screwed. Fireproofing is cheap insurance against small fires, and it doesn't do much of anything against raging infernos which burn and blast it away like any other paper based product. Fire proofing (which is paper mache-soaked in flame retardent chemicals sprayed on wet) is to protect the steel from the low end of the fire spectrum. My Bible, The National Electrical Code is a chapter of the National Fire Code. I've worked with fire prevention for decades, so, I get a little weary when ignorance speaks the loudest. Let's hear from the "expert" again about how a paper-based coating on steel is all that stood between the WTC standing and collapsing! HAH!
What you have stated is what Kevin Ryan former UL scientist has stated. In NISTS own reports, NIST built live scale floor load models of the twin towers. NIST conducted experiments with and without fireproofing. Each model was fired up at 2000 degrees for 2 hours. Neither model collapsed, or had any damage what so ever.
Neither model collapsed, or had any damage what so ever. well, well, funny how some are sticking to theories that even NIST has abandoned, isn't it?
#253. To: christine (#252)
I've seen the NIST videos and photos of the floor model tests. It was really something to see. Giant open fire furnaces blowing right on the floor girders and trusses. NIST didn't "like" the results, so they went to computer modeling.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestView of a Military Expert:
#2. To: Cynicom (#1)
(Edited)
#3. To: robin (#2)
What do you find wrong with his conclusions?
#4. To: Cynicom (#3)
#5. To: robin (#4)
Do you really believe the official govt story about how the towers "pancaked" and fell?
#6. To: Cynicom (#5)
#7. To: robin (#6)
Sorry to hear you actually believe the govt version over the Laws of Physics.
#9. To: Cynicom (#7)
#12. To: robin (#9)
Okay, so what do you believe, if you don't believe the govt and you did well in physics?
#14. To: Cynicom (#12)
I saw what others saw. Aircraft hit the towers, resulting in a breaching of structural integrity, the law of gravity took over and down they came.
#20. To: YertleTurtle, Burkeman1 (#14)
#39. To: robin (#20)
(Edited)
What kind of life is there in swallowing everything the govt tells you, without question?
#40. To: YertleTurtle (#39)
(Edited)
#41. To: robin (#40)
(Edited)
Are you of the "wet noodle" theory that Destro holds to?
#44. To: YertleTurtle (#41)
Steel joints in buildings aren't welded; they're riveted. And those joints pop loose.
#66. To: lodwick (#44)
their joints were both bolted AND welded together
#68. To: angle, lodwick (#66)
their joints were both bolted AND welded together
#103. To: Destro (#68)
It would not matter - just 400-500 degrees F would reduce the strength of steel by half.
#110. To: RickyJ (#103)
In your world they would, but not in reality.
#156. To: Destro (#110)
I work for a steel beam maker.
#158. To: angle (#156)
Well then, hush my mouth. All those qualifications and I'm arguing. Who do I think I am?
#161. To: Destro (#158)
First you say:
#169. To: angle (#161)
First you say:
#178. To: Destro (#169)
#183. To: rickyj, angle (#178)
Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7. Why couldn't such dramatic reductions in the strength of the steel precipitate such total collapse events?
#186. To: Destro (#183)
#187. To: robin (#186)
#193. To: Destro (#187)
Amazingly, a construction crane remained perched on the roof.
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4127075 Firefighters shot jets of water onto one of Madrid’s tallest office buildings this morning, fighting to control a blaze that burned all night and threatened to bring down the 32-story skyscraper.
“We are battling Madrid’s most important fire in its history,” said mayor Alberto Ruiz-Gallardon speaking from the scene at about 9am (0800GMT).
“The situation right now is still of high risk,” he added, 10 hours after fire engulfed the Windsor Building in the heart of Madrid’s business and banking district. “It will take hours until this fire is declared under control.”
Amazingly, a construction crane remained perched on the roof.
A filmy soot covered nearby sidewalks and buildings, and a smell of burnt metal hung in the air. 
There were no reported injuries except for three firefighters who suffered smoke inhalation and exhaustion. At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F), said Javier Sanz, head of Madrid firefighters, on Sunday. The building, reportedly the fourth largest in Madrid, was believed unoccupied when the fire broke out.
The cause was not immediately determined, though emergency services spokesman Javier Ayuso said firefighters think it may have been an electrical short circuit.
Police evacuated a nearby apartment building and hosed down neighbouring office buildings to keep the fire from spreading.
Most of the Windsor Building, about 106 metres (350 feet) high, housed offices of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a multinational financial services company. The fire appeared to start about three-quarters of the way up the building.
Construction of the Windsor Building began in 1973 and was completed in 1979. The shiny gold building was a landmark structure in Madrid’s business district. The building had been surrounded with scaffolding due to recent repairs.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050217/325/fcpak.html
The 9/11 WTC Fires: Where's the Inferno?
Madrid Exposes a Fundamental FlawThe Windsor Building was of a similar truss design to the twin towers, the fire started 11 storeys from the top of the building, and it burned at temperatures of 800ºC for more than 18 hours [AFP]. The core of the building did not fail. 
The core was designed to support the entire weight of the buildings several times over. Far more than a mere "service core", it comprised of 47 steel box columns tied together at each floor by steel plates, similar to the 52" deep spandrel plates that tied the perimeter columns together. The largest of these core columns were 18"x36", with steel walls 4" thick near the base and tapering in thickness toward the top, and was anchored directly to the bedrock. The aluminum wings and the planes' fuselage would have been almost instantly shredded into pieces the size of an adult's fist, said Tomasz Wierzbicki, director of the impact and crashworthiness laboratory at M.I.T. Engines and other heavy parts continued to the core, but by working out the amount of energy involved, Dr. Wierzbicki and a student, Liang Xue, determined that at most half the inner columns could have been broken or severely mangled. [New York Times] 
#197. To: robin (#193)
#201. To: Destro (#197)
(Edited)
FEMA!!!!
This website generates many queries from people in response to some of the other theories that are put forward relating to the collapse - namely that it was a controlled explosion.
The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behaviour of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The official FEMA report written by engineering experts came to this conclusion based on the evidence.
However, should additional evidence come to light that supports a different theory, the author is willing to reassess his views.
The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.
There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.
The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.
Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.
What about World Trade Center 7?
I have not studied WTC in any great detail and cannot offer any theories on its collapse mechanism. In the chaos of the day, little attention was paid to WTC7, so there is less evidence available on the damage it sustained before it collapsed. However, some questions that you may want to ponder ...
* While it did not receive any direct impact form the planes, how much debris hit at as the main towers collapsed and what damage did it cause?
* To what extent (if any) did the shock or vibrations caused by the collapse of WTC1 & 2 affect the integrity of WTC7?
* Did any unseen damage to the WTC7 foundations occur in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?
* Did any of the fire suppression systems in WTC7 function?
The author respect people's right to question theories, but at the present time the author does not believe there is enough evidence for him to change his views on this incident.
#206. To: robin (#201)
There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter.
#207. To: RickyJ (#206)
#209. To: robin, RickyJ (#207)
Excellent point Ricky, but you're not an Aussie expert who quotes from FEMA.
#211. To: Destro (#209)
facts talking points and propaganda from the Chertoffs and FEMA.
#217. To: robin (#211)
#218. To: angle, Destro (#217)
#219. To: christine (#218)
it's obvious that no matter what is presented, Destro's going to hold to the "steel turns to wet noodles" theory. unbelievable.
#224. To: Destro, christine (#219)
Do you think they fire proof steel beams for show?
#225. To: HOUNDDAWG (#224)
Fire Proofing is to protect insurance company stock holders, not occupants of steel framed structures.
#236. To: Destro (#225)
#242. To: HOUNDDAWG (#236)
And, there will be no costly changes to the building codes. They know it's bullshit and so do you. And, too many Jewish landlords that are presently envious would start to squeal if they had to pay to maintain the lie!
#246. To: Kamala (#242)
That right there is a red flag. If there was a real threat of fires collapsing skyscrapers the codes would have been passed.
#250. To: HOUNDDAWG (#246)
#252. To: Kamala (#250)
NIST conducted experiments with and without fireproofing. Each model was fired up at 2000 degrees for 2 hours.
Replies to Comment # 252.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 252.
