WTC Structural Failure Hearings

[dotcoma]

gr8, I have asked you before to stop with the 4 topics in a row. I am pretty sure it is against the rules. Nobody is reading all of this. You are making it impossible to debate with you.

Oh, and this source that says FEMA was denied access...how do you know to trust them? How do you know they did not just make that up to make their story stand unchallenged?

Oh, and how many times do you need to hear from people who do have experience with the towers that there was no melting, but rather the beams were just made unstable by the heat?

Do you not understand that even slight amounts of heat can alter the integrity of steal?

The top was heavy enough to cause the pancake-like destruction we all witnessed. This is what happens when top-heavy steal supports start to give at the top.

I am not surprised why the owner here tried to get conspiracy stuff to the other forum at one point. Some people must see this hillarious stuff and wonder why they should even bother. :)

[giuliano]

Quote by: dotcoma Do you not understand that even slight amounts of heat can alter the integrity of steal?

that's not really true. from my engineering days, i recall (vaguely) you normally have to go above around 700 deg. Celcius to start working carbon steel.

this depends on a range of factors but certainly "slight amounts of heat" won't be enough to get steel high enough to exhibit phase changes.

i haven't read the entire thread here, but from memory the heat given off by the burning jet fuel was enough to raise the temperature of the buildings' steel structure above melting point, which is around 1300 deg. C.

[dotcoma]

No you are right giulian-I should not have said "slight". It is something like 700c.

[gr8fuldaniel]

If you had checked my link you would have seen that everything is documented with sources. This web page: The Investigation of Building 7's Collapse Has links that lead to articles like the following from a respected firefighters periodical.

This would be a pretty good indication of the kind of investigation they ran:

Firefighter Mag Raps 9/11 Probe By Joe Calderone NY Daily News (archived on rense) Chief of Investigations 1-4-2 "A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce." The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." Fire Engineering counted FDNY Deputy Chief Raymond Downey, the department's chief structural expert, among its senior advisers. Downey was killed in the Sept. 11 attack. John Jay College's fire engineering expert, Prof. Glenn Corbett, serves as the magazine's technical editor. A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, with backing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been studying some aspects of the collapse. But Manning and others say that probe has not looked at all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence. A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers," the editorial stated. A FEMA spokesman, John Czwartacki, said agency officials had not yet seen the editorial and declined to comment. Norida Torriente, a spokeswoman for the American Society of Civil Engineers, described her group's study as a "beginning" and "not a definitive work." Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has joined a group of relatives of firefighters who died in the attack in calling for a blue-ribbon panel to study the collapse. "We have to learn from incidents through investigation to determine what types of codes should be in place and what are the best practices for high-rise construction," Manning told the Daily News. "The World Trade Center is not the only lightweight, core construction high-rise in the U.S. It's a typical method of construction."

Ther is no rule about how often I can post, so quit whining. I am not going wait around for hours while you decide whether to post again or not. Usually when people lose an argument you just dont hear from them again. You are in check right now.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: dotcoma I am well aware of these events and the possibility for inside jobs, but 9/11 consisted of 3,000 civilians dying, and billions lost-even for bushies corporate friends. I think if he wanted to have something happen to unify the country it could have been on a much smaller scale. Also, there is too much evidence now concerning Al Qaeda participating in flight schools, documents showing their desire to hijack planes, etc. I suppose you guys would just dismiss these as made up. I honestly think some of you are letting your hate for Bush get in the way of reason...

dotcoma, my hate for Bush has EMPOWERED my reason!! Do I think he devised this on his own? No way; he's not smart enough... But he sure covered for the perps, didn't he?

And maybe Al Qaeda did participate that day. I don't like them at all. They are an enemy of civilization and anyone with a conscience would hate them as well as Bush and his neocon cronies. They have all TOGETHER concocted this plan for an endless war to empower and enrich themselves and impoverish the people of the US. They are all enemies of mine and yours too, if you only knew.

But the plan was to demolish the WTC and place the blame on the Muslim Fundamentalists. This would unite opinion in the US on the need for WAR. War is immensely profitable for those who invest in it. Obviously on that day SOMEONE had no conscience. Someone is a heartless bastard, probably a group of people. I agree it was a conspiracy. You just don't want to agree with me on who the conspirators were. You say OBL and his cronies, while I widen the conspiracy to conscienceless elements within the US Gov.

Maybe you still think that Washington DC is your friend, and the friend of democracy. I have found that the US has been ruled undemocratically and unconstitutionally for many decades. The power elite doesn't share that information, but it is available and has been exposed on this forum. You have failed to understand that DC is your OVERLORD, not your representatives. They despise you and wish to use your money for their nefarious, selfish ends. They have no regard for your life or anyone's except their own. Can you honestly say you are unaware of the conscienceless nature of the US Gov? Do you think the Warren Commission gave us an accurate picture of President Kennedy's assasination?

They didn't trust the suicide hijackers that day, IMO. The crashes were necessary in order to cover the scheduled demolition, and if Atta, et al. chickened out at the last minute the plan would go awry. I think the conspirators killed everyone aboard the flights in question with gas, then flew the planes by remote. But that is simply speculation. Certainly the means of remote control is available. The machinery of government is powerful and information is easily manipulated by those who own the media. However no one can control every means of communication, so the story and its variants have leaked.

Quote by: Nono Did Roosevelt actively bait the Japanese? Or just stand back and knowingly allow them to do what came naturally? I'd lean toward the second possibility...

Not if you read Stinnett, Day of Deceit. http://www.pearlharbor41.com/notes.htm

Cover notes from Day of Deceit Pearl Harbor was not an accident, a mere failure of American intelligence, or a brilliant Japanese military coup. It was the result of a carefully orchestrated design, initiated at the highest levels of our government. According to a key memorandum, eight steps were taken to make sure we would enter the war by this means. Pearl Harbor was the only way, leading officials felt, to galvanize the reluctant American public into action... After decades of Freedom of Information Act requests, Robert B. Stinnett has gathered the long-hidden evidence that shatters every shibboleth of Pearl Harbor. It shows that not only was the attack expected, it was deliberately provoked through an eight-step program devised by the Navy... The evidence is overwhelming. At the highest levels---on FDR's desk--America had ample warning of the pending attack. At those same levels, it was understood that the isolationist American public would not support a declaration of war unless we were attacked first. The result was a plan to anger Japan, to keep the loyal officers responsible for Pearl Harbor in the dark, and thus to drag America into the greatest war of her existence....

The US is not an innocent nation acting only when provoked. Its honorable founding documents subverted and superseded, it is subject to MONSTERS who occupy the Oval Office, bringing death and destruction to the world, and profit and power to their elitist friends.

[gr8fuldaniel]

This is a better article on the criminal destruction of a crime scene. Same link as the last one, further down the page

NY TIMES December 25, 2001 THE TOWERS Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall "In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer. Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three- day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation...Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments..."This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied," said one team member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press. "FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said...Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the fire protection engineering department at the University of Maryland, said he believed the decision could ultimately compromise any investigation of the collapses. "I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling," Dr. Mowrer said.

Looks like Guliani was in a big hurry to spoil the crime scene. What do we need evidence for when we have Karl Rove/Condi Rice/Rummy and GWBush to spell it all out for us.We should just believe. Drink the Kool-aid and believe.

[dotcoma]

gr8, I am glad your ego has given you the typical arrogance to assume you are winning an online argument (which is impossible in this situation). Your premise in this entire topic has no definitive answer, so I am afraid check-mate won't come for you-especially if all you contribute is the copy and paste skill. Sorry I do not post as often as you if that is how you interpret someone losing a debate-unfortunately I have a sixy-hour job that tends to keep me away from your [img postings of sheep and ostrich. What's funny is you really must believe that everyone else is a sheep :) I always love how people convince themselves that they are not a member of some flock of fox news worshippers.

You ignored my last post about the logic behind the collapse. Do you not understand how the integrity of metal would change after 700c, and how such a heavy load losing it's support would cause a pancake response?

I honestly do want to step out of this discussion because as I talk to you, and as you say things like "it could only be explosives" I wonder if you even came here to argue at all.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Great Post Patrick!!
You explain things very eloquently.

dotcoma, I am an American. I use farenheit I dont know the formula for F = C.

Quote by: dotcoma, Oh, and how many times do you need to hear from people who do have experience with the towers that there was no melting, but rather the beams were just made unstable by the heat?

First of all there was molten metal in the basements of both main towers and WTC7 (more on that below). Also, I already addressed that with this letter from a structural engineer for UL:

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. <snip> However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse. <snip> This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

Which brings us back to exactly why we need to have open public hearings for the WTC structural failure. The topic of this thread. If all towers are death traps for fire fighters who rush in to save lives only to be crushed because the building code is lax. This is immoral. Evil. On the other hand. If thermite explosives were used at the core where the structure is attatched to bedrock. Which would explain molten metal 3 months later even though there was no oxygen to fuel this molten mess smothered in debris

How do you explain the molten steel found at bedrock?

Exclusive to American Free Press By Christopher Bollyn American Free Press has learned of pools of “molten steel” found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic “spikes” at the beginning of each collapse. These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to collapse. In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of “literally molten steel” were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed. Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site. <snip> AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. “Yes,” he said, “hot spots of molten steel in the basements.” These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, “Think of the jet fuel.” Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by “paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they ‘pancaked’ into the basement.” However, some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.

How do you explain away these seismic spikes?

Link The above image is a seismographical readout at the time of the attacks and collapse of the WTC. You can clearly see on the top line the small peaks of the planes impacts. But here is where it gets interesting, check out those two really BIG spikes on the 3rd and 4th lines. Those spikes represent the collapse of the towers. Notice the shape of these spikes, the highest peak is actually at the beginning. A strange anomaly when you consider the nature of a collapse is more gradual than explosive, with the vibrations becoming more and more intense as each floor collapses onto the next. But this isnt the case in the seismograph. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Check out this teaser from Globe and Mail:

Alexander Pope in a prose convertible PAUL WILLIAM ROBERTS Today's Paper: Saturday, February 26, 2005 12:00 AM Page F9 Hunter telephoned me on Feb. 19, the night before his death. He sounded scared. It wasn't always easy to understand what he said, particularly over the phone, he mumbled, yet when there was something he really wanted you to understand, you did. He'd been working on a story about the World Trade Center attacks and had stumbled across what he felt was hard evidence showing the towers had been brought down not by the airplanes that flew into them but by explosive charges set off in their foundations. Now he thought someone was out to stop him publishing it: ''They're gonna make it look like suicide,'' he said. ''I know how these bastards think ......

The rest requires a subscription. If anyone gets this article maybe you can email it to me. You can get a 2 week free trial but I dont have a credit card right now.
What do you think? Was Hunter S.Thompson "suicided"?
PAUL WILLIAM ROBERTS seems credible to me. Heres his Bio.

[gr8fuldaniel]

1975 WTC fire burned six floors for three hours
News article found from 1975. posted on Liberty Think The Fire Chief sounds appalled that there is no Fire sprinkler system. I would be surprised if there still were no sprinkler system on 911. Thats why the fires were nearly out when the explosions brought the towers down. After only an hour.

[Nono]

Somehow I don't think spraying water would extinguish burning jet fuel. That's certainly not what fire services at airports use.

[Mia]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Why?[/b]

As I pointed out in my last post: Were you aware WTC7 was also a controlled demo? I dont believe they have ever denied that, that one was. We have the tape of the Fire Marshall (I believe thats his title) ordering them to "Pull It", the term for blasting a building.

The fire was nearly extenguished.

Are you aware of how many Steel Beams must melt at the same time for those buildings to fall? Around the elevator shafts at the core of the towers (Where the supprt is strongest)Those beams (Fireproofed) would need to reach 3000 degrees, yet the diesel fuel couldnt really pool around the shafts because it would cascade down the shaft to the basement. The subway.
In my 2nd post in this thread I offered this letter from 911 Truth: That is from the second letter on the page.

Then there is this from the Boulder Weekly: Yet Rudy Guliani sealed the fate of brave firemen by wherehousing millions of dollars worth of working radios for Manhatten First Responders, Knowing that the two-way radios in use would not work in towers. They wanted those buildings to come down.[/quote]


Could the airplanes have contained explosives? I remember it seemed strange that everything collapsed after the firefighters went in. I remember the news saying it appeared there were explosions. Like it was on purpose to do so after the rescuers went in so there'd be even more victims.

Also, why is it imossible for the collapse to have been from the initial crash and resulting damage/fires?

I'm not any kind of an expert in how the buildings were constructed and what they could withstand, but to a layperson it seems reasonable that a crash of that magnitude and the resulting structural damage could cause it to collapse.

[Nono]

Quote by: Mia Are you aware of how many Steel Beams must melt at the same time for those buildings to fall?

How many?

As has been pointed out ad nauseum on this board, they didn't have to melt. They only had to soften (not the same thing) enough to collapse under the weight bearing down on them from above. The shock of each successive collapsing floor continously added to the mass, so that by the time it reached the non-burning floors the force was irresistable.

I couldn't swear that there wasn't some elaborate conspiracy and that there aren't today thousands of people walking around with thorough knowledge of it but keeping strangely quiet. I just don't see how such a thing is necessary to have produced the events in question.

By the way, Giuliani apparently had a supply of gasoline or diesel fuel way up in his Führerbunker to supply an emergency generator. To hell with radios.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Nono Somehow I don't think spraying water would extinguish burning jet fuel. That's certainly not what fire services at airports use

The jet fuel burned out in minutes. The tower that mysteriously collapsed first, was hit first and most of the fuel followed the trajectory of the plane and dumped out through the corner of the building:


nearly all fuel left the building at time of impact.
If this were a towering inferno, where are the flames at time of collapse? zero.

The official "storybook" admits it wasnt the fuel, but office furniture, that destroyed both towers.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Mia could you fix your last post.
The first 3 paragraphs are supposed to be quoting me. Thanx

[gr8fuldaniel]

It is impossible impossible impossible impossible impossible impossible, (sorry, finger stuck)
for the amount of steel necessary to soften enough to weaken the structure. The Core is like a beehive, Do you realize how many little walls in a beehive have to be softened by a flame for it to collapse? And its made of wax. Heat does not flow favorably through steel. The cold steel near the flame cools the hot spot. You need a perfect blue tip with an oxy-acetylene torch to soften steel. Smoky office furniture does not offer the quality of flame necessary to soften steel. ESPECIALLY ASBESTOS COATED STEEL.

[Nono]

Quote by: gr8 Do you realize how many ... ?

No I don't. And I've seen so many conflicting figures from metallurigists and other experts that my head is fairly spinning. A hell of a lot of them seem to see no problem with the official version, though.

The first plane hit straight on, and most of the fuel went into the building. How fast it was consumed doubtless had something to do with the oxygen supply.

The second plane hit a glancing blow, which caused much of the fuel to spray back out the other side, yes, but also weakened the building in an uneven manner. This certainly put stress loads on the structure that were more destructive in their way than all that fuel burning in the other building. It also hit lower down, right? Therefore there was more weight above the damaged portions.

None of us is really qualified to judge this. I apply Occam's Razor. The official version -- for all its holes -- is endlessly less complicated and leak-prone than the government-conspiracy version, which requires a huge army of conspirators. Aren't they having problems sleeping at night? Or have they been conveniently knocked off?

[gr8fuldaniel]

If there is nothing to hide answer 3 questions:

a) Where are the black boxes?

b) Why havent they released the video from the gas station across the street from the Pentagon?

3) Why did ATC director destroy tapes from 911, and why wasnt he fired? Did he get a medal of freedom?

What is the difference between these 2 pics?

1st pic is Spain Feb 2005 this fire raged for 20 hours. Same type structure, still standing.
2nd pic Sept 2001 fires were extinguished had only burned 56 and 85 minutes before collapsing. First time tower ever collapsed from plane crash or fire.

[Mia]

G8, I can't fix it. Nono even replied to me as if I said what you did, which is how it looks.