[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Horse is back at library Crossdressing Luggage Snatcher and Ex-Biden Official Sam Brinton Gets Sweetheart Plea Deal Music The Ones That Didn't Make It Back Home [featuring Pacman @ 0:49 - 0:57 in his natural habitat] Let’s Talk About Grief | Death Anniversary Democrats Suddenly Change Slogan To 'Orange Man Good' America in SHOCK as New Footage of Jill Biden's 'ELDER ABUSE' Emerges | Dems FURIOUS: 'Jill is EVIL' Executions, reprisals and counter-executions - SS Polizei Regiment 19 versus the French Resistance Paratrooper kills german soldier and returns wedding photos to his family after 68 years AMeRiKaN GULaG... 'Christian Warrior Training' explodes as churches put faith in guns Major insurer gives brutal ultimatum to entire state: Let us put up prices by 50 percent or we will leave Biden Admin Issues Order Blocking Haitian Illegal Immigrants From Deportation Murder Rate in Socialist Venezuela Falls to 22-Year Low ISRAEL IS DESTROYING GAZA TO CONTROL THE WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT SHIPPING LANE Denmark to tax livestock farts and burps starting in 2030 Woman to serve longer prison time for offending migrant men who gang-raped a minor IDF says murder is okay after statistics show that Israel killed 75% of all journalists who died in 2023 Boeing to be criminally INDICTED for fraud 0:35 / 10:02 Nigel Farage Embarrasses Rishi Sunak & Keir Starmer AGAIN in New Speech! Norway to stockpile 82,500 tons of grain to prepare for famine and war Almost 200 Pages of Epstein Grand Jury Documents Released UK To Install Defibrillators in EVERY School Due to Sudden Rise in Heart Problems Pfizer purchased companies that produce drugs to treat the same conditions caused by covid vaccines It Now Takes An Annual Income Of $186,000 A Year For Americans To Feel Financially Secure Houthis Unleash 'Attacks' On Israeli, U.S. And UK Ships; 'Trio Of Evil Hit' | Full Detail Gaza hospital chief says he was severely tortured in Israeli prisons I'd like to thank Congress for using my Tax money to buy Zelenskys wife a Bugatti. Cancer-causing radium detected in US city's groundwater due to landfill teeming with nuclear waste from WWII-era atomic bomb efforts Tennessee Law Allowing Death Penalty For Pedophiles Goes Into Effect - Only Democrats Oppose It

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: Rosie's new 9/11 theories: Steel moved, Command co
Source: You Tube
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0vJVhRocFQ
Published: May 20, 2007
Author: The View
Post Date: 2007-05-20 21:19:19 by Zipporah
Ping List: *9-11*     Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 991
Comments: 88

Subscribe to *9-11*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

#1. To: Zipporah, nolu_chan, ALL (#0)

Here's what I posted the last time Rosie's nonsense was posted here:

She starts out by claiming that "ALL" the steel was removed and shipped off to "Canada" ... er ... "China", "right away". She says there is no metal to test. That is absolutely false. Hundreds of structural engineers and other investigators had plenty of time to visit the WTC site and see the steel insitu, before the steel was removed. Then it went to Fresh Kill where again they got to examine it and retain those samples they considered important to understanding what happened. And tens of thousands of pieces of steel are still being retained for historical purposes and future studies. Rosie is either uninformed or a partisan liar.

Next, in the video, she says that WTC 7 "got hit by nothing". She's either uninformed or a liar. It got hit by significant amounts of debris from the collapse of the towers. That debris ripped a huge hole out of the south side of building. According to the firemen who where on the scene, a 20 story high hole.

Then she claims there were "pools of molten steel" under all three buildings. Well I challenge you to name a single eyewitness who has actually and verifiably used the word "pool" to describe what they saw. I challenge you to name a single expert in fire or steel who says finding molten steel was impossible given the circumstances. I challenge you to tell us what kept any steel that was molten, molten for over 6 weeks after the collapse. Rosie seems to think it was bombs. Show me how that might work.

Next, she claims it took the towers "9 seconds" to fall and that is the same as "free-fall". Well her claim is FALSE. From numerous credible sources (including actual videos of the collapse which one can time) one can learn that the towers actually took about 15 seconds to collapse. One can look at hundreds of still images of the collapses and immediately see that there was debris free-falling much faster than the collapsing level of the towers were descending. She surely has to have seen these images. So Rosie is either a liar or hasn't bothered to apply the least bit of thought to interpreting what she saw or the least bit of energy into investigating the issue.

So not only do professionals in the areas of structures, demolition, materials, fire or macro-world physics NOT agree with Rosie. The facts of the matter don't either. All she is really doing is hurting the effort to find out what really happened on 9/11. There are good questions to ask but if *truthers* make no effort to stop idiots like Rosie from muddying the water with nonsense and lies, you will never find the truth. People like her are the *truth* movement's worst enemy.

And in anticipation of nolu_chan's "notice", let me add:

WARNING:: Truth Movement members almost seem unable to post articles that aren't deceptive or contain outright lies about what happened to the WTC structures and the Pentagon. And they seem to have particular trouble dealing with visual materials that prove their claims false. Why is that?

They continue to claim the towers collapsed in 10 seconds when video clearly shows they took 15 seconds to collapse. They continue to claim the entrance hole in the Pentagon was less than 20 feet across when photos convincingly prove it was closer to 90 feet. They continue to make an assortment of similar, demonstrably false claims despite all efforts to get them to change their ways.

Why can't *truthers* face the truth? They (and we) will never find out what really happened on 9/11, if they can't do that. Because a *Truth Movement* cannot be founded on disinformation and outright lies. That should be obvious to all. But apparently they can't see that either. It is sad.

---------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-05-20   21:43:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Who cares? I certainly dont..

Zipporah  posted on  2007-05-20   21:44:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Who cares? I certainly dont..

Thanks for proving my point.

---------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-05-20   21:46:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Thanks for proving my point.

Actually I didnt.. my point being arguing every jot and tittle wasnt my point in posting this .. so you have no clue what I meant .. so I did not prove you 'point'

Zipporah  posted on  2007-05-20   21:48:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

NOTICE: Because BeAChooser has been shown to repeatedly post spam and falsehoods, continued substantive response to his posts, including this one, is considered a waste of time. This NOTICE is the standard response to all BAC blather.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-05-20   23:14:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

In the video, 911 Mysteries: Demolitions, at 42:30, it shows an in-uniform Port Authority cop stating, "You'd get below and you'd see molten steel. Molten steel running down the channel rims. Like you're in a foundry."

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-05-20   23:24:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

http: //www.istructe.org/thestructuralengineer/files/se/SE172002.pdf

New York visit reveals extent of WTC disaster

The Ground Zero site where the World Trade Center towers once stood was the focus of the visit by Prof. David Blockley and Dr Keith Eaton to New York, on the first leg of their North American tour. They discussed developments on the site with Pablo Lopez and Andrew Pontecorvo of Mueser Rutledge.

Dr Eaton said: ‘We were given a fascinating insight into what had been happening at the site. Our hosts, under the firm’s principal engineer George Tamaro (F), had been constantly involved at Ground Zero for several months. They had been called in as foundation engineers within a week of 11 September, and had spent several months examining the stability of the debris and the diaphragm wall all around the site, commonly known as the “bathtub” They had been key individuals in advising on the excavation of the site, with a great deal of care being needed before debris could be removed in order to maintain the stability of the original slurry walls.

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ he continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. Other images explained the concerns of the New Jersey authorities over the PATH train tunnels (which had linked the WTC site to New Jersey across the Hudson River). These tunnels were leaking after the disaster, and might have allowed a tremendous amount of water to flood through into New Jersey. A 10m mass concrete plug was placed in the tunnels, just in case.

Ground Zero General Manager, Peter Rinaldi of the New York Port Authority (the owners of the site) joined them for a visit to view Ground Zero and explained what is currently happening. Dr Eaton said: ‘He too had been closely involved for the past 11 months, and clearly these engineers are continuing to play a vital part of all the ongoing operations – and will continue to do so over the next couple of years’.

At a meeting with Les Robertson, the principal structural engineering designer of the World Trade Center towers, and his senior partner Saw- Teen See, at their offices close to Ground Zero, some of their key projects were discussed, including an amazing new tall building in Shanghai. ‘We naturally discussed aspects of the World Trade Center towers, and the effects it had had on Les and the practice’ said Dr Eaton. ‘It was very sobering, and poignant, to see the view from Les’s office, where the twin towers once stood.’

-----

http://www.jhsph.edu/ Publications/Special/Welch.htm

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Late Fall 2001 Magazine

"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

-----

http:/ /findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200112/ai_n9015802

Serving on Sacred Ground

National Guard, 2001, by Gary Lounsbury

Ground Zero

Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. Massive steel girders were sandwiched in with crushed concrete. Someone told us that they weighed 1,000 pounds a foot. The collapse left them all blackened and twisted. They are among the few recognizable items in the rubble. You find scant evidence of the hundreds of offices that were once part of the twin towers. Most the furniture and equipment was pounded into dust. -----

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-05-20   23:48:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

In the video, 911 Mysteries: Demolitions

the best 911 film !

christine  posted on  2007-05-20   23:48:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

In the video, 911 Mysteries: Demolitions

Here's an excellent, claim by claim rebuttal of this silly movie:

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com

Read that, if you want to see how truly dishonest the so-called *Truth Movement* has become in pursuit of its agenda.

Among the claims in the 911 Mysteries video is this:

The World Trade Center Towers came down in approximately 10 seconds.

So right away, you see that once again a so-called *truth* movie lies about something that is obviously and easily determinable from videos taken that day. Why would they still be getting something as basic as this wrong more than a year after this was pointed out to the *Truth Movement*?

---------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-05-21   0:20:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

the best 911 film !

Particularly persuasive is the chapter on squibs. The video is very clear and compelling.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-05-21   0:28:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

christine - the best 911 film !

Particularly persuasive is the chapter on squibs. The video is very clear and compelling.

************

From http://www.911mysteriesguide.com

2.10 Squibs

Section 2.10.1

35:45 Let’s look carefully at the collapse itself. Notice the puffs of concrete issuing from the sides of the building well ahead of the collapse wave. Called “squibs” in demolition language, these are actual explosives – charges firing visibly through the exterior as gravity pulls the building down.

If you examine the available video of these puffs of concrete, you should take careful note of the manner in which they exit the building.

These puffs of dust and concrete happen in the reverse order of explosives. They exit the building and then increase in size over a short period. Almost as if they are being “squirted” out of the building.

As we stated before, explosives work the opposite way. The strongest point of an explosion is detonation. The dust cloud would then linger and perhaps disperse. It never increases its explosive strength over time.

As the buildings began to fall, a build-up of pressure caused a compression of air between floors. This pushed dust, smoke, debris and concrete out of small sections of the buildings side. NIST comments on this in their FAQ:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

“As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially. These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.”

We can confirm that air was moving through the towers moments before collapse by examining the following eyewitness accounts.
http://www.acfd.com/miracle_of_ladder_company_6.htm

----------

Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”

Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”

Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.”

----------

These “squibs” also appear to be minimal in number and none are visible at the impact point. There is, however, ample evidence to suggest that the collapse of both towers was caused by the sagging trusses pulling the perimeter columns inwards.

So we are left with: a collapse that was not initiated by explosives, puffs of air that look nothing like explosions and aren't causing any visible structural damage; and explanations for the cause of these puffs of air and debris. Things do not look good for the “puffs = explosives” case right now.

Section 2.10.2

37:00 Shattering from the top, engulfed by banana-peel plumes, these were no ordinary implosions.

9/11 Mysteries has switched between implosions and explosions several times throughout the film.

Section 2.10.3

37:10 The Twin Towers each consisted of three multi-story buildings set on top of one another. To sustain the weight of so many floors, the “sky lobbies” had to be extra-heavily reinforced.

37:24 Watch a big squib coming from the sky-lobby band.

This alleged squib causes no visible damage to the sky-lobby band. A common answer to this remark is that “the explosion occurred within the building, therefore it is not visible”. The problem with that is the way in which the building collapsed. The core of each tower fell 15-20 seconds after the rest of the building. If explosions occurred deep within the building, the cores would have fallen down at the same time (or even before) the rest of the building. This did not happen.

***********

WARNING:: Truth Movement members almost seem unable to post articles that aren't deceptive or contain outright lies about what happened to the WTC structures and the Pentagon. And they seem to have particular trouble dealing with visual materials that prove their claims false. Why is that?

They continue to claim the towers collapsed in 10 seconds when video clearly shows they took 15 seconds to collapse. They continue to claim the entrance hole in the Pentagon was less than 20 feet across when photos convincingly prove it was closer to 90 feet. They continue to make an assortment of similar, demonstrably false claims despite all efforts to get them to change their ways.

Why can't *truthers* face the truth? They (and we) will never find out what really happened on 9/11, if they can't do that. Because a *Truth Movement* cannot be founded on disinformation and outright lies. That should be obvious to all. But apparently they can't see that either. It is sad.

nolu_chan is particularly guilty of this behavior. He should thank me for pointing out errors in Truth Movement claims so they can be refined till they can stand up against all criticism. But instead, having tried and failed to challenge the sourced facts, logic and visual material that I've posted, he has decided to post a silly notice about me and then try to ignore what I post. That won't change the facts. It's not going to stop my correcting bogus claims when I see them. This will not do anything but make *truthers* look even more ridiculous and pathetic.

---------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-05-21   0:40:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

More nonsense from the kook BeAChooser. He lies just about every time he posts. He he can't be dumb enough to believe the crap he posts, so why the heck do we put up with an obvious paid government shill? Ban his ass, not just his name, his IP as well. If he comes back, ban him again.

God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

RickyJ  posted on  2007-05-21   1:17:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It's very interesting that a few of the "squibs" or "powerful debris ejections" are right in the reinforced mechanical floors. They also appear elsewhere from 10 stories to 40 stories ahead of the explosive detonation belt.

Forget NIST's pancake, piston or pile driver theories. Here is a good quote about the kind of "science" carried out by NIST. Even though is isn't refering to NIST. It's perfect.

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

Michael Crichton

One look at the videos shows that their is no mass pile driving anything. All that is left is air, dust and debris that has been blown. Most of the mass/debris is outside of the building.

Recently, one of the darlings of the skeptic movement, Dr Frank Greening has come out and been highly critical of NIST. While he isn't on board with the explosive theory, he has downgraded the NIST report to nothing more than another theory, and not the explanation.

Mark

"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer

Kamala  posted on  2007-05-21   7:20:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Oh dear, you're getting all upset again...and you didn't take your medicine either did you?

I asked you to clean your room, and until thats taken care of no bike riding for you.

BAC's Mom  posted on  2007-05-21   7:40:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Great - thank you

The blond ditz that runs out that steel "weakens at 275 degrees" takes the cake - has she no oven or grill?

Way too funny.

Dr.Ron Paul for President

Lod  posted on  2007-05-21   7:55:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

About that ditz, lodwick? Our side couldn't hire a better stooge. She's a blessing :)

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-05-21   8:01:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

About that ditz, lodwick?

Who is she, and why is she on the show?

Thanks.

Dr.Ron Paul for President

Lod  posted on  2007-05-21   8:11:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

All I know about her is that she's married to Tim Hasselbeck, a back-up QB for the NY Giants and she obviously doesn't cook her Thanksgiving turkey at temps above 275 degrees.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-05-21   8:22:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Good grief.

Thanks.

Dr.Ron Paul for President

Lod  posted on  2007-05-21   8:25:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Tim was obviously not going for brain-power when he married.

Dr.Ron Paul for President

Lod  posted on  2007-05-21   8:28:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So not only do professionals in the areas of structures, demolition, materials, fire or macro-world physics NOT agree with Rosie. The facts of the matter don't either.

I wonder if someone had asked EVERY structural engineer and demolition expert in the world prior to 9/11 if it would work to bring down a structure like one of the twin towers by flying a large jet into the top third of it, how many would have said "Hey - that MIGHT work!"?????

Answer: PROBABLY NOT A SINGLE ONE WOULD HAVE.....

BUT, demolition experts the world over should be VERY thankful to OBL, and those 19 Mooslim cohorts that set out to prove the worlds "experts" wrong!!! They showed that not only DOES it work, but with an extremely high success rate! In fact, 100% success rate (it would have worked on the Pentagon too, but that one was a little to "sprawled out")!

Just think of all the profit potential this has for demolition firms... Hell, all they need is to purchase some decommissioned aircraft; have it outfitted with remote control capability (Systems Planning Corporation - [Zakheim's old haunt] can help them with that, it's their specialty); buy 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (around 30 grand at today's prices); and in less than 2 hours have that sucker down!!!!! It'll save god-only-knows how many man-hours rigging buildings for weeks and months in advance, plus the costs of the explosives themselves, and the need for high paid professionals to handle those explosives. And that's for one of the world's LARGEST structures!! Why shit, if it's a small enough eye-sore (like a 20 story run-down old office they need to "take out" to make room for a parking lot for the new bank) they could probably even get by with a little old twin-engine Cessna - and get the job done REALLY dirt cheap!!!

Wonder when Controled Demolition Inc is gonna start using this newfound technology???

If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein

innieway  posted on  2007-05-21   8:33:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

ROTFLOL! (My turn.) ;0)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2007-05-21   8:46:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Brilliant.

Thanks.

Dr.Ron Paul for President

Lod  posted on  2007-05-21   8:50:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Just think of all the profit potential this has for demolition firms...

Especially when they can demonstrate that this new procedure also can take any nearby bonus building insured for $800M, drop it into its own basement, eliminate incriminating documents held by the Government that could cost billions, and leave all the surrounding buildings standing.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-05-21   9:49:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Especially when they can demonstrate that this new procedure also can take any nearby bonus building insured for $800M, drop it into its own basement, eliminate incriminating documents held by the Government that could cost billions, and leave all the surrounding buildings standing.

Just goes to show - when you want technology done RIGHT, go ask the big thinker that motivates around on horseback and lives in caves...

If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein

innieway  posted on  2007-05-21   9:54:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Just think of all the profit potential this has for demolition firms... Hell, all they need is to purchase some decommissioned aircraft; have it outfitted with remote control capability (Systems Planning Corporation - [Zakheim's old haunt] can help them with that, it's their specialty); buy 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (around 30 grand at today's prices); and in less than 2 hours have that sucker down!!!!! It'll save god-only-knows how many man-hours rigging buildings for weeks and months in advance, plus the costs of the explosives themselves, and the need for high paid professionals to handle those explosives. And that's for one of the world's LARGEST structures!! Why shit, if it's a small enough eye-sore (like a 20 story run-down old office they need to "take out" to make room for a parking lot for the new bank) they could probably even get by with a little old twin-engine Cessna - and get the job done REALLY dirt cheap!!!

Wonder when Controled Demolition Inc is gonna start using this newfound technology???

love it :P

christine  posted on  2007-05-21   12:42:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

One look at the videos shows that their is no mass pile driving anything. All that is left is air, dust and debris that has been blown. Most of the mass/debris is outside of the building.

Seems that now Kamala thinks the *Truth Movement* has been wrong the whole time they claimed the one sign of proof of a controlled demolition is that the towers collapsed into their own footprint. Now, all of a sudden, the videos show that "most of the mass/debris is outside the building." ROTFLOL!

Recently, one of the darlings of the skeptic movement, Dr Frank Greening has come out and been highly critical of NIST. While he isn't on board with the explosive theory, he has downgraded the NIST report to nothing more than another theory, and not the explanation.

You are right. Dr Greening is definitely NOT on board with the explosive theory ... or the microwave beam theory ... or the thermite bombs theory ... or the mini-nuke theory ... or the pod theory ... or the missile theory ... or the holographic planes-weren't- really-there theory. But he also isn't entirely pleased with NIST's efforts to deduce what happened either. And I have no problem with that view.

In fact, here is what he recently stated in a letter to JREF (http://mujca.com/jarry.htm ): "The model I based my calculation on was indeed quite crude, so I have endeavored to improve it by including the effects of variable column strength and mass shedding. I tested the improved model and found that the towers always exhibited a self-sustaining collapse for realistic values of the various input parameters."

In case you don't know, what he is saying is contrary to the continued claims of many in the *truth* community that the collapse would not have been self sustaining but would have require input via additional bombs all the way up and down the towers. Indeed, anyone who claims there were squibs seen in the video must believe that. Anyone who claims the tower could not have collapsed in even 15 seconds must believe that. Well, Dr Greening clearly does NOT.

Dr Greening goes on to say in that letter,

***********

"Nevertheless, while my model appeared to show that a gravity driven collapse of the Twin Towers was physically possible, I still had some doubts about collapse initiation. These doubts stemmed from the fact that my model assumes that the upper block of floors above the impact zone descends one storey under free fall, thereby providing more than enough energy to destroy the columns supporting the floor below and initiate a progressive collapse.

But did the collapse of each tower really begin with such a single floor failure? I studied the appropriate sections of the NIST Report seeking an answer to this question. It soon became apparent that the tipping of the upper section of each tower was a key feature of the collapse. Thus I began studying the tipping of WTC 1 & 2 and ultimately wrote two articles on this topic that were posted on 911Myths.

The research described in these articles showed that WTC 1 required almost 2 meters of downward displacement in the upper section of the building to initiate collapse. This is about two times the downward displacement required for the collapse of WTC 2, and six times NIST’s estimate of Dd(WTC 2) of about 30 cm based on its finite element computer model. In contrast, a simple energy analysis of the collapse shows that NIST’s small downward displacements lead to inferred collapse energies that are too low to be acceptable – we know the Twin Towers would not collapse that easily. Further, the geometry of a “Leaning WTC Tower” with an asymmetric downward displacement of 30 cm implies a tilt angle of less than ½ degree. Remarkably, however, NIST suggest that tilt angles before collapse initiation were more than 4° for WTC 1 & 2. Thus the NIST Final Report first underestimates the downward displacements within the Twin Towers, only to later overestimate the initial tilt angles to justify the collapse."

************

Now did you catch that last part? Dr Greening is right that there are inconsistencies in the NIST report related to the tilt. He says their calculations indicate a downward displacement on one side of the building of 30 cm which implies a tilt angle of less than 1/2 degree. But videos and photos do in fact show quite clearly that the angle was far more than 1/2 degree before the collapse of the rest of the floors began. What that means is that NISTs global structural models UNDERCOMPUTE the damage done to the structure by the impact and fires. The real world case tilted MORE than even their models say it did. And I have no problem with the notion that NIST's models undercomputed the damage done to and response of the structures. But Greening is still saying the overall behavior in NIST's models is quite consistent with what was actually observed. Whereas, what the *Truth Movement* claims happened ... IS NOT. So I'm curious as to why you would think Dr Greening is someone for your side to champion.

Dr Greening continues:

***********

"A close look at the failure of WTC 2 shows that the collapse began with a tilting or rotational motion of the upper section of the Tower about a “hinge” at the 80th floor. This rotational motion, which commenced at a tilt angle ~ 2°, was caused by an almost instantaneous multi-column failure that eliminated the structural support on one side of WTC 2 near the impact zone. Once set in motion, the upper block moved with a nearly “free” rotational trajectory of a body pivoting under the constant force of gravity. This behavior was sustained at tilt angles up to about 20°. Thereafter the motion of the block changed somewhat although the suggestion that the tilting suddenly stopped is not correct. What appears to happen is that the upper section was continuously crushed near the 80th floor by its own momentum so that the rotation was no longer that of a rigid body. Eventually the "hinge" at the northeast corner failed and the descending block took on a more vertical motion. Interestingly, once the hinge failed, and the pivot became frictionless, the motion of the center of gravity is predicted to become vertical, causing a shift in the rotational axis, as observed."

************

Now in case you don't know, that is still essentially what NIST said happened and again contrary to what the *Truth Movement* claims happened. Dr Greening is not someone you should be holding up as an example to promote your views, Mark. He fundamentally disagrees with the claims you make and theories you espouse.

Dr Greening continues ...

************

"For most of 2006 I switched my attention to two important aspects of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2: the pulverization of concrete and the sustained high temperatures of the rubble pile. First, I carried out an energy balance analysis of the collapse of WTC 1 that included the energy consumed in crushing concrete on one floor (234 MJ) and compared this to other contributions to the energy dissipated by the collapse. As expected, the plastic strain energy dissipated by the buckling of columns (284 MJ) was confirmed to be the largest drain on the kinetic energy driving the collapse, but the energy to pulverize the concrete was clearly an important additional energy sink. However, I also concluded that such energy sinks should be summed over two WTC floors per impact to allow for the simultaneous destruction of the uppermost floor of the lower fixed section, and the lowest floor of the descending section. Such an assumption leads to an energy decrement that still assures a self-sustaining progressive collapse of WTC 1 if the input kinetic energy is derived from a one-storey free fall of the upper block- a condition that must be modified in a tipping scenario."

***********

Now if you read the above carefully, you will see that Greening says the NIST scenario does successfully account for pulverization of the concrete AND sustained collapse ... again, in direct contradiction to what the *experts* and followers of the *truth* movement claim. So thanks for bringing Dr Greening into this conversation.

Finally, Dr Greening wrote:

**************

"The sustained high temperatures of the rubble pile proved to be more problematic. The NIST Report indicates that about 100 tonnes of burning material and smoldering “embers”, at 500 - 700° C, fell into the rubble pile when the Twin Towers collapsed. Propagation of smoldering combustion within the rubble pile was sustained by the indigenous supply of live load “fuel”- consisting of office furniture, paper, textiles and plastic materials - and oxygen. Setting aside the issue of oxygen availability, let us consider how long the available fuel could last. The heat flux of a smoldering fire is typically ~ 8 kW/m2 from which we may calculate the average fuel consumption rate within the rubble pile. NIST estimate that there was initially about 50,000 kg of combustible material on each floor of WTC 1 & 2. If we assume that material from about 5 floors was consumed before the Towers collapsed, about 5,250,000 kg of “fuel” was initially available within the rubble from each Tower. It is a simple matter to show that this fuel would be able to sustain the rubble pile fires for no more than about 30 days. However, it was not until December 19th 2001, or 100 days after 9/11, that the Governor of New York, George Pataki, officially declared the WTC fires to be totally extinguished. We are left wondering what “stoked” the rubble pile fires beyond the expected 30 days."

**************

Now first, note that Dr Greening is NOT saying the remnants of thermite bombs or undetonated thermite bombs fell into the rubble. He's simply saying that based on his estimates, the fire could not have sustained itself for 100 days so another explanation is needed.

However, his estimate has considerable uncertainty built into it.

First, the estimate of combustibles on each floor is a just an estimate. It might easily have been 20 or 30 percent more combustibles on average than what NIST concluded, especially if the fires got hot enough to cause items that otherwise might not burn to burn. And it isn't just tonnage that is important. It is the nature of the material in terms of how much heat is generated by those fires.

Second, he does NOT know how fast the fires were burning the material in the rubble pile with ANY degree of accuracy. He says the heat flux in a smoldering file is typically ~ 8 kW/m2. That is nothing more than a wag as far as applying it to the WTC site. It could just as easily have been twice or three times as much or half or a third that amount. And whether it can keep certain material molten for a given period also depends on how the combustibles are dispersed. There will be variations and some areas will end up with more than others. There could easily have been regions with two to three times as much combustibles as other regions. Perhaps that is why some areas still had molten metal months later but others did not. Also, very fine particles can create an insulating blanket, retaining the heat generated inside the rubble pile for much longer than he might have guessed. And, as Greening himself pointed out, the rubble pile contained all the materials needed for thermite like reactions to take place.

In short, I don't think you can for one minute claim that Dr Greening is in your camp, Mark, or that his speculations about what kept the fires going are anything more than rough speculation at this point. But he is right that someone at NIST should have looked at this since this is mighty interesting, if nothing else.

---------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-05-21   15:17:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I wonder if someone had asked EVERY structural engineer and demolition expert in the world prior to 9/11 if it would work to bring down a structure like one of the twin towers by flying a large jet into the top third of it, how many would have said "Hey - that MIGHT work!"?????

Answer: PROBABLY NOT A SINGLE ONE WOULD HAVE.....

Actually, I think you are wrong, in part because some structural engineers and demolition experts came forward right after 911 saying that they knew right away that the towers were in trouble.

http://www.usatoday.com/community/chat/2002-04-29-klein.htm "Why the Towers Fell': Larry Klein ... snip ... I had a chance to listen to someone who specializes in taking buildings down (imploding them), and he stated that when he saw the damage to the Towers he knew they were coming down, and he tried to call the New York City emergency agency and couldn't get through."

And if you told the rest of those professionals what we now know ... that the planes would impact the building at nearly maximum velocity, that the impact would shatter numerous structural members and severely damage fireproofing coatings on the remaining steel, that the planes had nearly full fuel tanks, that the fire suppression systems would NOT be functional in the towers, that fire fighters would be unable to reach and fight the fires either ... then I suspect a great many more would have had doubts about the structures, too.

---------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-05-21   15:18:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If these "engineer" and "demolition" experts really think that the towers were brought down due to the plane impacts and resulting fires then why is it that not a single one of these so-called "experts" have proved their theory with a real life model of the events of that day?

Answer: They can't, because they are really only experts at lying. Government stooges like yourself BAC patting each other on the back over 9/11.

Please ban this government stooge.

God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

RickyJ  posted on  2007-05-21   15:33:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I wonder if someone had asked EVERY structural engineer and demolition expert in the world....

I wonder if they asked the on-scene firefighters and EMS personnel about what they saw, what those statements might look like. No... wait... they did ask... and they looked something like this....

EXPLOSIONS IN WITNESS STATEMENTS

From official statements taken in FDNY World Trade Center Task Force Interviews

Each name hyperlinks to the PDF of the complete witness statement. [Complete except for government redactions.]

-----

Firefighter Richard BANACISKI, p. 3

We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

-----

Captain Karin DeSHORE (EMS), p. 15

Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.

I went inside and I told everybody that the other building or there was an explosion occurring up there and I said I think we have another major explosion. I don't know if we are all going to be safe here. I told them I can't force you, but I don't know if we are going to be safe here. I'm going to try to get as far away from this building as possible. Unbeknown to me, a half a block down was the water.

-----

Assistant Commissioner Stephen GREGORY , p. 14-16

A. No. I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever. But it's just strange that two people sort of say the same thing and neither one of us talked to each other about it. I mean, I don't know this guy from a hole in the wall. I was just standing next to him. I never met the man before in my life. He knew who I was I guess by my name on my coat and he called me up, you know, how are you doing? How's everything? And, oh, by the way did you ... It was just a little strange.

Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was an explosion up on the upper floors.

A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes. I don't know how far down this was already. I mean, we had heard the noise but, you know, I don't know.

-----

Firefighter Edward CACCHIA, p. 5

As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

-----

Batallion Chief Dominick Derubbio, p. 5

It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

-----

EMT Jason CHARLES, p. 29-30

As we're all walking to the back of the buklding through the freight -- not the freight -- the loading docks in the back of the building. We get to the back -- we don't even get to the back of the building. We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy shit, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said shit and everybody started running and I stared running behind them, and we get to the door. For some reason, like straight out of a movie, two people ran through the door together and got stuck in the doorway, and I'm like, oh, my God, this is not the time. So they squeezed through and they got through and I squeezed through them and ran around them because I just wanted to see which way the towers were falling.

-----

EMT Jason CHARLES, p. 40

So at that point now, we were just waiting for patients and nobody was coming in. It was like, you know. Then we ran into another Lieutenant, Lieutenant Davis. I think he's from Battalion 4, if I'm not mistaken.

(Tape side two.)

-- towers and I heard six loud explosions, and those six loud explosions changed my mind real quick and I went back over to the triage center and it was like you know what? Let me wait here. I had no helmet. I had nothing that would have protected me from anything that hit me in my head. So I stayed where I was at.

-----

EMT Greg BRADY, p. 7

We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.

-----

EMT Greg BRADY, p. 7

At that time, when I heard the 3 loud explosions, I started running west on Vesey Street towards the water. At that time, I couldn't run fast enough. The debris caught up with me, knocked my helmet off. I tumbled and then eventually I started running again. I made it behind a building on North End Avenue. I set up a triage area in that corner building and at that time I started treating patients.

-----

Paramedic Kevin DARNOWSKI, p. 8

At that time I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.

-----

Chief Frank CRUTHERS, p. 4

There were some units there, along with a Battalion Chief and I gave them some instructions as to what to try to do. And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse

-----

Lt. Neil BROSNAN, p. 8

Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped I thought it was an explosion.

-----

Fire Marshall John COYLE, p. 15-16

While I was down at Battery Park, I finally got through on my phone to my father and said, "I'm alive I just wanted to tell you, go to church, I'm alive. I just so narrowly excaped this thing." He said, "Where were you? You were there?" I said, "Yeah, I was right there when it blew up." He said, "You were there when the planes hit?" I said, "No, I was there when it exploded, the building exploded." He said, "You mean, when it fell down?" I said, "No, when it exploded."

I still didn't realized what had happened. I totally thought it had been blown up. That's just the perspective of looking up at it, it seemed to have exploded out. But that I guess was the force of the upper stories collapsing down.

-----

Father John Delendick (FDNY), p. 5

We heard a rumbling noise, and it appeared that that first tower, the south tower, had exploded, the top of it. That's what I saw, what a lot of us saw. We ran down underneath the Financial Center.

-----

Captain Karin DeSHORE (EMS), p. 11

I can't tell you how long it was before it died down. I just felt like the darkness the loneliness and being alone was the worst thing I ever experienced in my life and not being able to breathe. There was no air. Whatever this explosion was simply sucked all the oxygen out of the air. You couldn't breathe and the feeling of suffocation, I can't explain no further on that.

-----

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-05-22   0:44:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

In #6, I made a minor error and identified the speaker in the film as a Port Authority cop. I have found an online copy of that statement with some additional footage not included in the snippet on the DVD film.

The speaker is Captain Philip Ruvolo of the FDNY.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287

"You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava."

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-05-22   5:26:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Here are a few of recent quotes from Dr Greening:

Even NIST argues that no structural element in the Twin Towers saw a heat flux much higher than about 100 kW/m^2 for more than about 15 minutes.

As for NIST being CONSERVATIVE in its estimates of heating by the fires, if you read how case A and B were arrived at you will find that NIST made assumptions or changes to the FDS to achieve higher temperatures in going from case A to case B! For example, soffits were (arbitrarily) added to deliberately create a high temperature environment close to the ceilings in case B!

What was the justification for doing that? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yes, and about those NIST fire simulations.

See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G and the discussion of the experimental and computer model UNCERTAINTY.

Uncertainty in the SFRM thickness was such that the uncertainty in the steel temperature was 20 % from this alone.

Now add the uncertainty from the thermo-physical properties of the materials in a truss assembly from things like the moisture content of the Blaze-shield...

Then add the uncertainty in the steel temperature due to the uncertainty in the heat release rate of 20 %...

Then look at Tables 12-9 and 12-10 and see variations of as much as 400 deg C in the predicted temperatures of a particular WTC 1 floor at a particular time.

Then see NIST NCSTAR 1-5F for an explanation of the difference between case A and case B and tell me if this is good science, or just self-fullfilling. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The dislodging of fireproofing is not proven. It is an hypothesis that allows NIST to calculate that the steel weakened sufficiently for the towers to collapse. But there is no PROOF this happened.... hence it is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophesy.

In this respect the NIST study is not a scientific investigation of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. It's a feel-good study about whether or not the Twin Towers met the applicable codes. Unfortunately for NIST the towers were built during code changes that resulted in a moving target for the designers (and NIST!). Some things that were ok at the start of construction were eventually not ok. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIST has assumed conventional "fuels" were the only source of heat and are therefore stuck in the hydrocarbon flame temperature box. This limits the achievable air temperatures to about 1100 deg C (I think!). NIST realize this and even invoke the presence of "soffits" to trap more heat near the ceilings in case B -see NCSTAR 1-5F. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In NIST NCSTAR 1-2 we find figures showing the estimated damage to the floor trusses and floor slabs. For WTC 1 these show severe damage only to floors 95 and 96, with minor damage to floors 94 and 97. Nevertheless in NCSTAR 1-6 NIST show insulation damage to FIVE floors! More precisely, the diagrams, such as those in Figure 5-14, indicate that about 30 % of the insulation was "damaged" on floors 94, 95, 96 and 97, plus minor insulation damage to floor 98. How could floor 94 be as damaged as floor 95 when the damage estimate is based, as NIST clearly state, on this criterion?

"If the room furnishings were damaged or destroyed by the debris field, then the insulation on the steel trusses ABOVE these furnishings was assumed to be dislodged."

But this is not the only problem with NIST's analysis of insulation damage in the Twin Towers because NIST is very vague about the meaning of the term "insulation damage". I would assume that "damage" means partial destruction or removal. However, it appears that "damage" actually means "complete removal" when applied to the FDS model.

In this sense the NIST Report is not "CONSERVATIVE" as it claims to be. In fact, I would say that NIST removed insulation until heating of the steel sufficient to bring down the towers was achieved. This is why I claim that the NIST Report is a self-fulfilling prophesy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My concerns are centered on the performance of passive fire protection materials on the truss assemblies in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 and statements made by engineers in the NIST report on this VERY IMPORTANT topic.

So let's look closely at the NIST Report's statements on "damage" to the passive fire protection, or SFRM on the trusses in the Twin Towers, as in these quotes:

NCSTAR 1-2: "The aircraft impact damage to the EXTERIOR of the WTC towers could be visibly identified from the video and photographic records. However, no visible information could be obtained for the extent of damage to the INTERIOR of the towers."

And:

"The extent of dislodged fireproofing was ESTIMATED by considering fireproofing damage only to structural components in the direct path of the debris."

And:

"The truss floor system on floors 94 through 96 were damaged and sagged downward as a result of the impact loading."

So far so good...., but now we go to NCSTAR 1-6 to find more information on the question as to HOW NIST actually estimated the thermal insulation damage:

"The insulation damage estimates were conservative as they ignored possible damaged and dislodged insulation in a much larger region that was not in the direct path of the debris but was subject to strong vibrations during and after the aircraft impact. A robust criteria to generate a coherent pattern of vibration-induced disloging could not be established."

And:

"Where partition walls and furnishings remained intact, the insulation was also ASSUMED to remain intact."

And:

"This ASSUMPTION was consistent with the level of modeling detail... if substantial portions of the insulation were removed."

At this point I start to get the feeling that NIST is admitting that it really is unable to say anything definitive about the true extent of "insulation damage".

But "insulation damage" is key to NIST's explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

And the NIST Report is supposed to convey the message "CASE CLOSED"

Nevertheless, NIST's conclusions appear to be based on "estimates", "indications", "if" and "might have resulted in" statements and an almost total lack of meaningful experimental data! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The place to look for NIST's estimates of the loss of SFRM is NIST NCSTAR 1-5G. Here you will find diagrams indicating estimates of the "fireproofing damage" for WTC 1 & 2. Focussing on WTC 1 for simplicity, I would say that NIST's diagrams suggest that fireproofing was removed from over 25 % of the floor areas for floors 95, 96, 97 and 98. That would imply that about 25 tonnes of insulation was dislodged by the aircraft impacts!

NIST also estimate that, on average, accelerations of over 40 g's, and sometimes as high as 300 g's, were required to dislodge SFRM from planar steel surfaces by hard impact.

So much for the idea that the SFRM was easy to dislodge. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for NIST being CONSERVATIVE in its estimates of heating by the fires, if you read how case A and B were arrived at you will find that NIST made assumptions or changes to the FDS to achieve higher temperatures in going from case A to case B! For example, soffits were (arbitrarily) added to deliberately create a high temperature environment close to the ceilings in case B! What was the justification for doing that?" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIST's diagrams suggest that fireproofing was removed from over 25 % of the floor areas for floors 95, 96, 97 and 98. That would imply that about 25 tonnes of insulation was dislodged by the aircraft impacts." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G and the discussion of the experimental and computer model UNCERTAINTY.

Uncertainty in the SFRM thickness was such that the uncertainty in the steel temperature was 20 % from this alone.

Now add the uncertainty from the thermo-physical properties of the materials in a truss assembly from things like the moisture content of the Blaze-shield...

Then add the uncertainty in the steel temperature due to the uncertainty in the heat release rate of 20 %...

Then look at Tables 12-9 and 12-10 and see variations of as much as 400 deg C in the predicted temperatures of a particular WTC 1 floor at a particular time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIST is not consistent in its reporting of the tilting of WTC 2 prior to collapse. Thus in Figure 9-14 (page 308) of Chapter 9 we read in reference to WTC 2 just before global collapse:

“The entire section of the building above the impact zone…began tilting as a rigid block about 7° - 8° to the east and about 3° - 4° to the south. …. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the east as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.”

However, on page 169 of the NIST Report, in a Section called Observations and Timeline of Structural Events, we read in reference to WTC 2, (See item 11 of Table 6-2):

“ The building section above the impact area tilted to the east and south. …. Rotation of approximately 4 to 5 degrees to the south and 20 to 25 degrees to the east occurred before the building section begins to fall vertically.”

Thus we see NIST claiming, on the one hand, that WTC 2 “rotated 20 to 25 degrees as it began to fall”, while on the other hand claiming elsewhere that WTC 2 “rotated 20 to 25 degrees before it began to fall.”

The suggestion that WTC 2 rotated by up to 25 degrees before it began to fall is very significant since it would indicate that the top of WTC 2 fell over rather than fell down! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, if any WTC collapse theory is to gain full acceptance it must, at the very minimum, be able to explain certain well-documented phenomena such as:

· Sudden on-set of the collapse of each tower

· Near free fall descent of the block of floors above each impact zone

· Pulverization and ejection of concrete during the collapse

· The completeness of the destruction of each tower

· Sustained high temperatures in the rubble pile long after 9/11

Most, if not all, of these phenomena have been quoted as being problematic in some way to the currently proposed collapse theories. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To who like the NIST Report - great! Then perhaps you could explain how NIST's collapse initiation mechanism works with maximum pre-collapse downward displacements of only 33 cm? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the collapse of the Twin Towers was extremely complex. That's why NIST took so long to come up with its collapse model. Trouble is the model itself gets so complex you start to lose any sense of cause and effect. It's a bit like these climate change models..... you can get a believable answer that may be completely wrong. So, I guess I am complaining about NIST's approach and failure to consider the collapse itself. I know that wasn't part of its mandate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the NISTIANs are convinced that theirs is the one and only TRUE STORY because they have studied what happened with their engineer's tool box. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed! This is not surprising because NIST was using kerosene or hydrocarbon/cellulosic-based fuels. NIST WANTED high temperatures to support the idea that the structural steel was weakened by heating effects.

Nevertheless, some steel appears to have melted in the WTC prior to the collapse of the buildings. Interestingly some of the NISTIANs posting on this site appear to be bothered by that, preferring to deny the physical evidence for molten iron. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conspiracy theories only come from doubt. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am curious what Bush meant when he said we should not "tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would probably be the bureaucrats at NISTthat would be the problem. The "we must have consensus" guys. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, I would say that the presence of molten iron in the WTC is inconsistent with the NIST Report’s conclusion that temperatures in the towers during 9/11 were well below the melting point of iron or steel."

Please explain why you now have no trouble with molten iron in the WTC because some "experts" say molten iron is to be "expected" in building fires; meanwhile NIST cannot generate temperatures within 400 deg C of the melting point of iron!

Which "experts" do you prefer to believe? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it is sadly lacking in some contentious areas. Thus, when it comes to the pulverization of the concrete, the ejection of debris, the chemical analysis of WTC dust, etc, the NIST Report is of little or no use.

Of course, there are those who would say that post-collapse initiation issues were of no interest to NIST but I would argue that this is simply not true! A good example would be the metallurgical examination of recovered steel samples. NIST concludes that the samples were in the debris pile at the WTC site when the corrosion products developed. Thus NIST asserts WITHOUT PROOF that the observed degradation of the WTC steel occurred AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING. Interestingly, the FEMA Report is more equivocal on this topic. Thus in Appendix C of the FEMA Report we read in reference to the infamous sulfidation of the steel: “It is possible that the corrosion is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.”

I find it quite amazing that such an important issue remains unresolved to this day. But I guess it’s no more amazing than the fact that the cause of the collapse of WTC 7 also remains unresolved! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NCSTAR 1-5G, page 91: "It should be noted that there is a wide variation of time-temperature curves that hold at different points in the structure and that these curves DO NOT resemble those from a standard time-temperature curve used in furnace tests."

So it is good to see NIST spelling out this kind of discrepancy! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this PREFACE we find GOALS and OBJECTIVES listed separately. Interestingly the GOALS appear to be engineering goals and the OBJECTIVES are more obviously scientific. So I guess NIST achieved it's engineering goals... but, ironically, failed on some scientific objectives?!?! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark

"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer

Kamala  posted on  2007-05-22   8:17:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I am curious what Bush meant when he said we should not "tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories".

Georgie made that statement within a few days after the incident. What WONDERFUL prophetic powers he has!!! It's almost as if he KNEW what the "official explanation" would be, and that years of applied scientific study and critical thinking concerning the incident would result in questioning (AKA "outrageous conspiracy theories") that "official explanation".

Too bad his powers of prophecy failed to produce Iraqi WMDs. Oh well, not to fear, we needed to LIBERATE those poor Iraqis anyhow - er give them democracy - er raise their standards of living - er, er - well at least they're NOT in a civil war....

And as an aside - YOU GO IZZY!!!! You've been taking shit from those Palis too long! Give 'em a taste of their own medicine...

If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein

innieway  posted on  2007-05-22   8:51:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I wonder if they asked the on-scene firefighters and EMS personnel about what they saw, what those statements might look like. No... wait... they did ask... and they looked something like this....

EXPLOSIONS IN WITNESS STATEMENTS

Hey - they're NOT supposed to believe their lying eyes and ears!!! They're supposed to believe what our government says (they would never lie to us would they?).

If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein

innieway  posted on  2007-05-22   8:56:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

· Pulverization and ejection of concrete during the collapse

· The completeness of the destruction of each tower

to me, it's as simple as that. NIST's explanation is utter and complete BS when it never addresses this.

christine  posted on  2007-05-22   9:30:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Unless ALL the steel is preserved and the chain of custody of this evidence is preserved with it marked to denote where it was when removed, you have evidence tampering and evidence destruction.

Thank you kindly for listening while I explained why you are full of shit -- as usual.

Now, go fuck yourself.

Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2007-05-22   9:39:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I am curious what Bush meant when he said we should not "tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories".

Georgie made that statement within a few days after the incident.

And more recently Poppy made an inappropriate and similar odd reference, but re: JFK's death, during Ford's funeral.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/030107daddybush.htm

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington

robin  posted on  2007-05-22   9:46:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Firefighter Richard BANACISKI, p. 3 We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Here is some more of what Banaciski testified seeing (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAP HIC/9110253.PDf ).

Referring to WTC 7, he said: "They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about."

Now I don' t think this firemen could tell you with absolute certainty that what he saw were explosions caused by explosives or thermite (as opposed to the rupture of structure members during buckling or gas being forced out of the structure by air compressed due to the collapse above it), but I bet he knows with a 100% certainty what a huge hole in WTC 7 and tremendous fires in it looked like ... things the *truth* movement has denied were the case in WTC 7.

Captain Karin DeSHORE (EMS), p. 15 Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. I went inside and I told everybody that the other building or there was an explosion occurring up there and I said I think we have another major explosion. I don't know if we are all going to be safe here.

Karin DeShore also had more to say in her interview than just the above (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRA PHIC/9110192.PDf ).

For example, upon arriving at the WTC site which is well before the towers collapsed, she said "We could see the smoke coming out of the buildings, explosions, you know, dark smoke coming out of both buildings."

So even before the collapse ... in fact, long before the collapse, she was saying she could see "explosions". Is part of the truther theory that bombs or thermite were already going off in the towers? Or did Karin just use the word explosion loosely?

And here's some more of what she said about the first collapse: "My back was towards the building, trying to push everybody up. Grassy hill was there and up underneath that overpass, when somebody just simply shouted and have no idea who it was, it's blowing. I had no clue what was going on. I never turned around because a sound came from somewhere that I never heard before. Some people compared it with an airplane. It was the worst sound of a rolling sound, not a thunder. I can't explain it, what it was. All I know is -- and a force started to come hit me in my back. I can't explain it. You had to be there. All I know is I had to run because I thought there was an explosion."

Again, we find Karin using the word explosion quite loosely. Even when she "had no clue what was going on." A little later in the interview she says "I was unaware what was happening. I thought it was a major explosion. I didn't know the building was collapsing." And later still "Whatever this explosion was simply sucked all the oxygen out of the air."

So when she uses the word explosion in what nolu_chan quoted her saying some time BEFORE the second tower collapsed, why are we supposed to believe she was 100% certain it was due to explosives or thermite going off? What she interpreted as "explosions" were occurring long enough before the collapse that she had time to go inside another building, warn them, tell them she was going to get as far away as possible, take an injured fireman and 2 elderly ladies out of the building and another half a block further away. Then she had more conversations and is quoted in the interview thinking "So here these explosions were getting bigger and louder and bigger and louder and I told everybody if this building totally explodes, still unaware that the other building had collapsed, I'm going in the water". Then she and those she was with still had time to carry all the injured down to the water and get them on a boat.

And then once again, while facing away from the towers, a tower collapses and again she describes it as an explosion. So I'm sorry, nolu, but her use of the world explosion is not all that significant in terms of proving bombs or thermite were used. Your quoting her out of context does suggests something. What you are doing is called "quote mining", a dishonest tactic the *truth* movement has used to make folks believe people like Karin were really describing the use of explosives in the towers. In my opinion, you disrespect Karin and the others when you pull this stunt.

Assistant Commissioner Stephen GREGORY , p. 14-16

Here is more of that Stephen Gregory said (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRA PHIC/9110008.PDf ).

In talking about the first collapse he said: "At that point in time we heard a rumble, we heard a noise, and then the building came down. All we saw was dust and everything just started to get very chaotic. At that point in time all of us at the command post, firefighters, chiefs, myself, we turned around, we started to run south, down West Street towards Albany. Looking back over my shoulder, I realized that I wasn't able to outrun whatever was coming because it looked like a giant wave behind us, so I went up against a chain-link fence, I got down on one knee, I put my hands over my head to hold my helmet on so I wouldn't get hit in the head with anything, and we just proceeded to get clobbered with all kinds of debris. ... snip ... The air got very thick, very dirty. It was very difficult to breathe. I was choking. I proceeded to at some point in time -- again, I lost track of time -- to give an urgent or a Mayday message on the radio, which I subsequently listened to myself and I have a cassette of that, indicating that something had happened. I asked a dispatcher if they were aware of it because during the time that it got very black and very quiet, my radio cut out completely. Apparently the dust in the air cut the radio signal out. The radio just hummed for maybe about 30 seconds and then it came back on again. At that point in time I called Manhattan. I was answered. I asked them if they were aware of an explosion at the World Trade Center."

Tell us nolu ... does his use of the word explosion here indicate his certainty that explosives were used to bring the WTC tower down? And the portion you quoted has him saying he saw low level flashes "on the lower levels" of the building ... "like when they demolish a building". But tell us, NC ... when they deliberately demolish a building with flashes on the lower levels ... does it collapse from the top or the bottom? The bottom, right? But this one collapsed from the top down. Care to explain that? What would be the purpose of such lower level explosives?

Firefighter Edward CACCHIA, p. 5 As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

You mean Edward CACHIA. Well notice that Mr Cachia said he "originally" thought it was due to internal detonation explosives. But I guess he no longer feels that way. Right? And he also had more to say than this one quote mined from his interview (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/91102 51.PDF ):

"At that point in time, we're looking up at the north tower. I remember my officer saying, "I have a feeling this one is going to come down too." Just as he said that, that tower came down it looked like at the point of impact. We actually witnessed both towers coming down visually. We happened to be looking at that particular time. With that, the tower came down."

Why no mention of explosions during this collapse? Wouldn't that suggest the government brought down one with explosives but used something else for the other ... like a energy beam from space or the basement?

EMT Jason CHARLES, p. 29-30

Here's more of what Jason Charles said (http://a1022.g.akamai.net/f/1022/8160/1d/www.newsday.com/in cludes/fdny-9-11/pdf/9110486.pdf ):

"Then a detective came up and said we're pulling back to Chambers. I'm like word? He's said yeah because Tower 1 is going to come down. He said the same thing. I was like all right. At that point I looked up at Tower 1 and I could see that she was leaning slightly but not much, and as I looked over to -- I looked at the tower, I looked at everybody else and everybody else is hauling -- everybody is walking up, walking south towards Chambers. So the officer offers me some water, I take it, starting to drink it as I'm walking, and I'm walking because he said we got to pull back."

And if you follow his description further, you'll find it was quite a while before that tower actually came down. So why was the tower leaning, NC, if it was bombs and thermite that did it? And you are quote mining again because in what you quoted, he was not suggesting for one moment that what brought the towers down was a ground level explosion. What he was saying is that he was for the second time hearing that sound of a towers debris hitting the earth ... that "twisting metal wreckage again". And you are again disrespecting a witness, NC, by using his quotes out of context.

Now I don't care to take the time to go through the rest of what you posted, but I bet the story is the same in each case. Because quote mining is what *truthers* do.

WARNING:: Truth Movement members almost seem unable to post articles that aren't deceptive or contain outright lies about what happened to the WTC structures and the Pentagon. And they seem to have particular trouble dealing with visual materials that prove their claims false. Why is that?

They continue to claim the towers collapsed in 10 seconds when video clearly shows they took 15 seconds to collapse. They continue to claim the entrance hole in the Pentagon was less than 20 feet across when photos convincingly prove it was closer to 90 feet. They continue to make an assortment of similar, demonstrably false claims despite all efforts to get them to change their ways.

Why can't *truthers* face the truth? They (and we) will never find out what really happened on 9/11, if they can't do that. Because a *Truth Movement* cannot be founded on disinformation and outright lies. That should be obvious to all. But apparently they can't see that either. It is sad.

nolu_chan is particularly guilty of this behavior. He should thank me for pointing out errors in Truth Movement claims so they can be refined till they can stand up against all criticism. But instead, having tried and failed to challenge the sourced facts, logic and visual material that I've posted, he has decided to post a silly notice about me and then try to ignore what I post. That won't change the facts. It's not going to stop my correcting bogus claims when I see them. This will not do anything but make *truthers* look even more ridiculous and pathetic.

---------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-05-23   13:10:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G and the discussion of the experimental and computer model UNCERTAINTY.

Yes, modeling is an uncertain business. But what Mark doesn't tell you is that fire code models are still widely regarded as the best means currently available of determining conditions inside complex burning structures. And note that despite all these uncertainities, the peak temperatures that steel samples were determined to have experienced agreed quite nicely with what the models computed steel would have seen in the locations from which those samples came.

The dislodging of fireproofing is not proven. It is an hypothesis that allows NIST to calculate that the steel weakened sufficiently for the towers to collapse. But there is no PROOF this happened....

Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence this happened. First, as pointed out in the NIST reports, visual imagery shows that fireproofing did come off structural elements in the towers. Second, engineers didn't suggest this happened without good reason. Those reasons are clearly identified in the NIST reports. To suggest that fireproofing wouldn't come off during a high speed impact is actually the more ridiculous notion. Which is why no real experts in steel and fireproofing or impact have joined Dr Greening or the *truth* movement in suggesting that.

Now readers should know that Mark in a previous discussion of this subject declared that NIST concluded "vibration played no role in shaking off the 2.2- 2.5 inches of upgraded SFRM". Well that was false. What NIST did was say that loss of fireproofing due to vibration was not included in the models. They said "insulation damage estimates were limited to areas subject to direct debris impact."

In fact, http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf states:

"The insulation damage estimates were conservative as they ignored possibly damaged and dislodged insulation in a much larger region that was not in the direct path of the debris but was subject to strong vibrations during and after the aircraft impact. A robust criteria to generate a coherent pattern of vibration- induced dislodging could not be established due to (1) the numerical noise inherent in the acceleration time-histories on structural components obtained from the aircraft impact analyses, and (2) lack of data on the strength of insulation materials under such a high rate of loading with sharp peaks in a very short duration. However, there were indications that insulation damage occurred over a larger region than that estimated. Photographic evidence showed insulation dislodged from exterior columns not directly impacted by debris (NIST NCSTAR 1-3C). The towers underwent a period of strong impact loading for about .6 to .7 s. Further, video analysis showed that WTC 2 vibrated for over 4 minutes after aircraft impact with amplitudes in excess of 20 inches at the roof top (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A). First person interviews of building occupants indicated that building vibrations due to aircraft impact were strong enough to dislodge ceiling tiles and collapse walls throughout the height of both WTC towers and to cause nearly all elevators to stop functioning (NIST NCSTAR 1-7)."

Now as to whether fireproofing would have been dislodged by direct impacts of plane debris, here are some excerpts from http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR 1-2.pdf (the final NIST report on this subject):

***********

5.2.3 Damage to Fire Protection for Structural Steel

The aircraft impact simulation models included not only the structural components of the towers and aircraft, but also representations of the partition walls and building contents and furnishings (modular office workstations). The results of the analyses included damage to the partition walls, workstations, and structural elememts. Such damage estimates were crucial for the estimation of areas with dislodged insulation as explained in this section.

Estimates of the post-impact condition of the fire protection was based on criteria that considered damage to structural components, building partitions, and furnishings along with the debris field as calculated from the aircraft impact analyses. Estimates for the extent of dislodged insulation considered insulation damage to structural components only in the direct path of debris, as follows:

- Core columns had sprayed fire-resistance material (SFRM), gypsum wallboard enclosures, or a combination of both. Insulation was assumed to be dislodged from the columns if they were subject to direct debris impact that could fail wall partitions in the immediate vicinity. The representative bending strength of building partitions in the impact simulations was 500 psi (NIST NCSTAR 1-2), while the representative adhesion and cohesive strength of SFRM measured in the laboratory by NIST was generally less than 12 psi (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A). Gypsum column enclosures were also assumed to have a lesser representative strength than wall columns.

To consider that insulation on core columns was damaged, the predicted debris impact had to be sufficient to fail building partitions immediately in front of the columns. If the wall partitions remained intact in the core area after interactions with the debris field, then the insulation on core columns behind these partitions was assumed to remain intact. If wall partitions were damaged or destroyed by the debris field, then insulation on core columns behind these partitions was assumed to be dislodged over that floor height.

- To consider that insulation on exterior columns was damaged, the debris impact had to damage or destroy office furnishings (modular office workstations) adjacent to the columns. If the office furnishings remained intact after interaction with the debris field, then the insulation on the inside face of the exterior columns behind these furnishings was assumed to remain intact. If the room furnishings were damaged or destroyed after interaction with the debris field, then the insulation on the inside face of the exterior columns in the vicinity was assumed to be dislodged over that floor height. The other three faces of the exterior columns were protected by windows and/or aluminum cladding and were assumed to have no insulation damage.

- To consider that SFRM on floor trusses was damaged, the debris impact had to be sufficient to damage or destroy room furnishings (modular office furniture) in the same area of the affected floor. If the room furnishings remained intact, then the insulation on the steel trusses above the furnishings was assumed to remain intact. If the room furnishings were damaged or destroyed by the debris field, then the insulation on the steel trusses above these furnishings was assumed to be dislodged.

The insulation damage estimates were conservative as they ignored damage and dislodged insulation in a much larger region that was not in the direct path of the debris but was subject to strong vibrations during and after the aircraft impact (BAC - the rest of this paragraph was quoted earlier but basically it indicates that photographic evidence shows that vibrations were sufficient to dislodge insulation from structural elements not impacted by debris.)

****************

Now apparently, it's Dr Greening's (and Mark's) opinion that debris which could destroy partitions and structural members in the analysis models could not remove sprayed on fireproofing with measured adhesive and cohesive strength of less than 12 psi? Frankly, I think this is yet another case of someone with no expertise in a given subject making claims he knows nothing about. Dr Greening should stick to chemistry ... such as the composition of thermite and the conditions underwhich thermite like reactions would occur. He only embarrasses himself, like that sub-atomic physicist named Jones embarrassed himself, when he makes declarations in areas for which he has little education and NO experience.

Now that isn't the first instance in which Mark has been dishonest in his description of NIST and the facts. Here's a direct quote by Mark in a previous discussion of the fireproofing and the temperatures reached in the fire:

"Even without SFRM, the time the office fires burned in the area of limited outer girder bowing, wasn't long enough to raise steel temperatures. The limited heating and suspected loss of SFRM to the perimeter columns played no role in the collapse. All steel tested from the fire zones bare this out.

Contrary to what Marked claimed, the steel tests actually validate the NIST modeling because the tested specimens did not come for the regions in the simulations where they found the highest temperatures. They came from regions in the models where similar temperatures to those determined for those test specimens were calculated. Second, the steel test procedures used were limited to specimens subject to relatively low temperatures (roughly 250 C) because they depended on paint still being on the specimens. Third, the detailed analyses done by NIST and reported in NCSTAR 1- 6 clearly show that the temperatures in structural members without fireproofing were indeed high enough for long enough to seriously weaken structural members.

Mark went on to claim

"No matter what airliner impact case NIST plugged into the model A,B,C or D, no simulation produced the observable events of impact and the debris path."

The impact modeling is discussed in great detail in http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR 1-2.pdf. Here is what it says for WTC 1:

"The exterior wall damage was the one structural system for which direct visual evidence of the impact damage was available. Therefore, the comparison of the calculated and observed exterior wall damage provided a partial validation of the analysis methodologies used in the global impact analyses. A comparison of the north exterior wall observed and calculated damage from the base case WTC 1 global impact analysis is shown in Figure E-28. The comparison of the calculated and observed damage indicated that the geometry and location of the impact damage zone were in good agreement. This agreement in the position and shape of the impact damage served to validate the geometry of the aircraft model, including the aircraft orientation, trajectory, and flight distortions of the wings."

"The comparison also indicated a good agreement in the magnitude and mode of impact damage on the exterior wall. The exterior wall completely failed in the regions of the fuselage, engine, and fuel-filled wing section impacts. Damage to the exterior wall was observed all the way out to the wing tips, but the exterior columns were not completely failed in the outer wing and vertical stabilizer impact regions. Failure of the exterior columns occurred both at the bolted connections between the column ends and at various locations in the column depending on local severity of the impact load and the proximity of the bolted connection to the impact. The agreement of both the mode and magnitude of the impact damage served to partially validate the constitutive and damage modeling of the aircraft and exterior wall of the tower."

Here is what the report says about base case WTC 2 analysis:

"The comparison of the calculated and observed damage indicated that the geometry and location of the impact damage were in good agreement. This agreement served to validate the geometry of the aircraft model, including the aircraft orientation, trajectory, and flight distortions of the wings. The agreement of both the mode and magnitude of impact damage served to partially validate the constitutive and damage modeling of the aircraft and exterior wall of the tower."

And for the more severe case analysis:

"The calculated damage to the south wall from the more severe WTC 2 global impact analysis is shown in Figure E-54. A comparison of the south exterior wall observed (Figure E-46a) and calculated (Figure E-54) damage from the more severe WTC 2 global impact analysis indicated that the calculated and observed magnitude and mode of impact damage were still in good agreement."

And then there is this from the same report

*****************

"The observables available to help validate the global impact analyses included the following:

- Damage to the building exterior (exterior walls and floors in the immediate vicinity of the impact) documented by photographic evidence.

- Aircraft debris external to the towers (landing gear for WTC 1 and a landing gear and an engine for WTC 2) as documented by photographic evidence.

- Eyewitness accounts from survivors who were inside the towers (blocked or passable stairwells).

An example of such comparison was a detailed comparison between the observed and calculated damage (from the base case analysis) to the north wall of WTC 1 and the south wall of WTC 2. The comparison included the mode, magnitude, and location of failure around the hole creatd by the aircraft impact. The color code included in the following: (1) green circles indicating a proper match of the failure mode and magnitude between the observed and calculated damage, (2) yellow circles indicating a proper match in the failure mode, but not the magnitude, (3) red circles indicating that the failure mode and magnitude predicted by the calculation did not match that was observed, and (4) black circles indicating that the observed damage was obscured by smoke, fire or other factors. The comparisons shown in Figure E-62 and Figure E-63 for WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively, indicate the overall agreement with the observed damage was very good."

Not all the observables were perfectly matched by the simulations due to the uncertainties in exact impact conditions, the imperfect knowledge of the interior tower contents, the chaotic behavior of the aircraft breakup and subsequent debris motion, and the limitations of the models. In general, however, the results of the simulations matched these observables reasonably well."

********************

Mark is trying to paint a false picture of the NIST analyses. Just as he is trying to paint a false picture about the validity of statements by Dr Greening on subjects Dr Greening knows little about ... either through education or experience.

And here's another example of Dr Greening doing that. He states

NIST also estimate that, on average, accelerations of over 40 g's, and sometimes as high as 300 g's, were required to dislodge SFRM from planar steel surfaces by hard impact. So much for the idea that the SFRM was easy to dislodge.

First of all, keep in mind that NIST did not assume that any SFRM was dislodged due to motions of the structure. Only due to impact. And second, how high of accelerations does Dr Greening think occur during a hard impact? Do the numbers that he quoted have anything to do with such estimates? NO.

Here's a document produced in 2005

http://www.fire. nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build05/PDF/b05035.pdf

It states that "for values representative of the upgraded thermal insulation on the floor trusses, an acceleration of about 80 g would be required to dislodge a 2.5 in. thick layer of well-bonded SFRM from a planar surface." For bars, the report states "the smallest required acceleration is about 40 g, which corresponds to a large bar having a thick layer of the higher density SFRM with low strength ... snip .... For a 1.2 in. diameter bar with 2.5 in. thickness of SFRM and density of 19 pcf, which are representative of the conditions of the upgraded insulation on the floor trusses, the acceleration required to dislodge the SFRM would vary from 55 g to 230 g, depending on the strength characteristics within the assumed ranges given above." Then it states "these models apply to members not directly impacted by debris."

The lesson is that one can get into serious trouble straying from one's area of expertise. Regardless of whether its Jones or Ryan or Woods or Greening.

Now perhaps Dr Greening should have looked at Appendix C of the above linked report. It's titled "Debris Impact Tests of BLAZE-SHIELD DC/F Sprayed Fire-Resistive Material".

It says "tests were performed to provide evidence regarding the assumption that, withing the debris field created by the aircraft impact into WTC 1 and WTC 2, the SFRM used for thermal insulation of structural members was damaged and dislodged." As far as the tests are concerned, the report states "the impact kinetic energies from the projectiles were significantly lower than those from actual impacting debris in the WTC towers due to differences in size (mass). However, when the impact kinetic energies were normalized by the impact area, the impact conditions used in the tests approximated those in the towers ...".

The report concludes that "based on the observations made in the ballistic impact tests, the SFRM was dislodged by direct impact with solid objects that had a kinetic energy per unit impact area approaching 10^^4 to 10^^5 ft lb/ft^^2 (10^^5 to 10^^6 J/m^^2). In addition, SFRM that was not dislodged after the debris impact lost its adhesion to the steel surface in all but one test. The SFRM on the steel plate was dislodged upon impact of the projectiles, except for the ballistic impact at a 60 degree angle to the plate. ... snip ... The tests results demonstrated that there was dislodgement of SFRM at locations subject to direct debris impact. ... snip ... In the WTC towers, where the debris fields were larger than the dimensions of steel componentes (i.e., such as trusses, beams, and columns), these testes show that SFRM would have been dislodged for a wide range of debris sizes and speeds. The test results support the assumption that, within the debris field created by the aircraft impact into WTC 1 and WTC 2, the SFRM used for thermal insulation of structural members was damaged and dislodged."

Regardless of what Dr Greening says or Mark believes ...

Nevertheless, some steel appears to have melted in the WTC prior to the collapse of the buildings.

This is not proven. Not by a long shot. As I've demonstrated in several earlier threads.

---------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-05-23   13:16:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Tell us nolu ...

NOTICE: Because BeAChooser has been shown to repeatedly post spam and falsehoods, continued substantive response to his posts, including this one, is considered a waste of time. This NOTICE is the standard response to all BAC blather.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-05-23   14:15:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Comments (41 - 88) not displayed.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]