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:
: 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.
#21. To: BeAChooser, Nolu Chan, Christine, Zipporah, Kamala, Red Jones, SKYDRIFTER, Everyone Interested In How Silly The Government's Official Collapse Story REALLY Sounds (#1)
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???
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.
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...
#32. To: innieway, nolu_chan, christine, Ricky J., Zipporah (#25)
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?!?! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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...