WTC Structural Failure Hearings

[gr8fuldaniel]

Do the families have a right to know why so many structures failed on 911? Doesnt everyone who works in a high rise have the right to know whether the tower they work in is a potential death trap?

[SIZE=2] Unit Plans Closed Hearings on Collapse of the Towers[/SIZE] NY Times By JIM DWYER November 12, 2004 The federal agency investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center said this week that some of its deliberations would take place in secret, including discussions on possible changes to national building codes and standards. The announcement has been sharply protested by advocates for families of the 9/11 victims, who said they were considering a lawsuit to force the agency to open the meetings to the public. For more than two years, the agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, has been studying how the trade center was built and why it fell. A draft of its final report is due in January. In an e-mail notice sent earlier this week, the institute said that its construction advisory committee, a group of experts overseeing the investigation, would meet for 10 hours on Nov. 22 at its headquarters in Gaithersburg, Md., but that only the first 2 hours would be public.

[SIZE=2]UL Executive Speaks Out on WTC Study [/SIZE] 911 Truth "The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." November 12: An executive of the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused its collapse, in a letter yesterday to the head of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell. The author of the letter, Kevin Ryan, is site manager at Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana, a division of Underwriters Laboratories, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, its performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company.

[gr8fuldaniel]

This would explain the need for closed hearings.

Dr. Gayle, Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly. As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel ? burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory." 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. more...........@ 911 Truth <Clip> ---------------------------------------------------- Kevin Ryan Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories

The truth be known those buildings had a little help in their demise. Secrecy begets tyranny.

[Suburbanite]

It doesn't sound too tyrannical, just like run of the mill every day shitty contractors.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Contractors? The you mean the demolition contractors who pulled those towers and failed to make it look like terrorists?

[Dieval]

yet another conspiracy theory, eh gr8?

[Nono]

I'm willing to at least listen to conspiracy theories if I can imagine clear motivation on the part of conspirators.

But I can't imagine anything that would have motivated anybody to "fire a missile at" the Pentagon or "demolish" the WTC. Indeed, in both cases it seems obvious that airplanes were flown into them, which did plenty of damage.

What then was supposedly the point of what must have been an incredibly complicated and risky fake, but one that seems to have come off absolutely perfectly? What was the point? What's so unacceptable about the idea that people hijacked airliners and did the damage that way?

[gr8fuldaniel]

I am not saying there were no airliners. Just that there was a little extra help from explosives . Actually implosives may be more accurate. These were controlled demolitions. The only "obvious" conclusion for BOTH towers collapsing within itself. Diesel fuel does not burn hot enough to even soften steel. Let alone MELT multiple fireproofed massive steel beams. Impossible. Never happened before and never will happen.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Dieval, yet another conspiracy theory, eh gr8?

Same one, it just wasnt ever waved away with an air of disdain, like you expected.

Edit to add:
BTW, its not just a theory when the facts are on my side.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, Same one, it just wasnt ever waved away with an air of disdain, like you expected.

alteast you realize it's only a conspiracy theory..

Edit - I guess you can't even admit that...there's no hope for you..

[gr8fuldaniel]

I dont have a problem with the truth, when it doesnt line up with the official story. If you have to choose one other, go with truth.

Reality is for people who cant handle the official story.

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, I am not saying there were no airliners. Just that there was a little extra help from explosives . Actually implosives may be more accurate. These were controlled demolitions. The only "obvious" conclusion for BOTH towers collapsing within itself. Diesel fuel does not burn hot enough to even soften steel. Let alone MELT multiple fireproofed massive steel beams. Impossible. Never happened before and never will happen.

Now I know you read this somewhere, how true it is makes me wonder though.

[PatrickHenry]

9/11 WAS a conspiracy! We just have a different opinion of WHO the conspirators were.

Sean may have been involved... At least he was not very keen on discussing this issue. Butterfaced it, then CLOSED the thread....

He also butterfaced a thread I resurrected from obscurity, called Poll: 9/11
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=805

That's OK Sean, I luv ya' anyway...

Here's a photo of the dust squibs from the explosives. I have seen other photos where they are even more visible.

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?s...t=0&#entry51790

But most of you deniers won't take it seriously, because you are Conspiracy Theorists of the Official Theory... Heh.
However, the anomalies may eventually overtake the common wisdom.

I started to wonder what Osama was getting from admitting he did it after denying it previously. His video from the week before the election has him taking credit. But he couldn't make NORAD stand down or overcome the laws of physics in weakening steel with smoky, cool burning fires.

I figure Osama gets a lot of cred from the Muslim Jihad community by saying it was alQaeda. He is already a big target so what does he have to lose? And he gets high praise from the Arab street for poking a stick in America's eye. No matter that he couldn't have pulled it off.

[Nono]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel I am not saying there were no airliners. Just that there was a little extra help from explosives .

Why?

[Nono]

Originally posted by PH 9/11 WAS a conspiracy! We just have a different opinion of WHO the conspirators were. Sean may have been involved...

Yes, I didn't agree about that butterfacing either, though we did end up going around in circles, each camp trotting out it's own metallurgical sources. Nevertheless, it's a valid topic of debate.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Nono,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nono,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-gr8fuldaniel I am not saying there were no airliners. Just that there was a little extra help from explosives .

Why?[/b][/quote]As I pointed out in my last post:

The only "obvious" conclusion for BOTH towers collapsing within itself. Diesel fuel does not burn hot enough to even soften steel. Let alone MELT multiple fireproofed massive steel beams. Impossible. Never happened before and never will happen.

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:

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. more ...........@ 911 Truth

That is from the second letter on the page.

Then there is this from the Boulder Weekly:

Aside from spotty air defense, there are other things about the events on Sept. 11 that don’t sit well with some people–most significantly, the collapse of the World Trade Center. "The fact that the towers were detonated versus falling down… that’s pretty well accepted by most everyone [in the 9/11 Truth Movement]," says Matthews. "Independent investigators have proven through physics and fire studies, etc., that the buildings could not have fallen the way that they were." Matthews and others point to a 2002 editorial in Fire Engineering magazine that states, "The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers."

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.

[gr8fuldaniel]

When I offerred the letter from 911Truth in my last post I really should have included the previous paragraph as well:

But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel ? burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory." 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.

Edit to add LINK

[Suburbanite]

what about impact?

[Nono]

Well, dan, neither you nor I are metallurgists or architects. We depend on others for expertise in these things. I hold no brief for the "official version" and agree that there are some funny things about 911 that have never, as far as I know, been satisfactorily explained (e.g. Where was the air force to defend the Pentagon?).

However, I can remember various experts confirming that aviation fuel was indeed enough to cause the collapse of the WTC (including a British architect of such buildings who told the BBC he tried to telephone the NY authorities to warn them that the buildings were bound to collapse).

I'd just like to point out two things:

1) these planes didn't run on "diesel" fuel (that was Giuliani's personal stash up there in the airborne bunker);

2) the beams didn't have to melt, just soften enough to buckle under the weight of what was above them, thus triggering an avalanche effect.

And I repeat my question "Why?" Not why do some people doubt the official version, but why would a controlled demolition have been carried out and then covered up?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Nono,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nono,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'd just like to point out two things: 1) these planes didn't run on "diesel" fuel (that was Giuliani's personal stash up there in the airborne bunker);[/b]

Ooops, you are right, I did say Diesel, My mistake. Jet fuel is more of a kerosene. I know better, sorry.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nono,
2) the beams didn't have to melt, just soften enough to buckle under the weight of what was above them, thus triggering an avalanche effect.[/quote] I thought the letter in my 2nd post on this thread answered that pretty well. Maybe this link will explain it better. It makes sense to me. Seem to be very scientific and quotes FEMA as saying:

we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Click the link to get all the calculus and algorythms (not my forte ) 911 Review Summarizing: We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F). Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse. It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media. "In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments." Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers. Conclusion: The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center. So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?

And I repeat my question "Why?" Not why do some people doubt the official version, but why would a controlled demolition have been carried out and then covered up?

Do you mean why not just let the fire fighters extinguish the fires? We may never know, Maybe to destroy evidence of an empty commercial airliner. It could have been radio controlled. They could not afford to gamble the passengers overwhelming the hijackers with "box cutters". The black boxes were found, why were they spirited away?
Or;
Do you mean "why" as in the ultimate "Ends to justify the means" ?
In that case they needed a catylyst for war. You cant just declare a war out of the blue, and the
1) Pentagon had to make money to justify its existense.The rationale for Perpetual War is outlined pretty well by Gore Vidal:

Link Author of Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace: How We Got To Be So Hated The United States has been engaged in what the great historian Charles A. Beard called "perpetual war for perpetual peace." The Federation of American Scientists has catalogued nearly two hundred military incursions since 1945 in which the United States has been the agressor. In a series of penetrating and alarming essays, whose centerpiece is a commentary on the events of September 11, 2002 (deemed too controversial to be published in America until now), Gore Vidal challendes the comforting consensus following both September 11th and Timothy McVey's bombing of the bederal building in Oklahoma City: these were simply the acts of "evil-doers". "None of these explanations made much sense, but our rulers for more that half a century have made sure that we are never to be told the truth about anything that our government has done to other people, not to mention our own. That our ruling junta might have seriously provoked McVeigh and Osama was never dealt with. We consumers don't need to be told the why of anything. Certainly those of us who are in the why-business have a difficult time in getting through the corporate-sponsored American media, so I thought it useful to describe here the various provocations on our side that drove both bin Laden and McVeigh to such terrible acts," says Vidal in his book.

2) Bush had to repay campaign donations with specific strategic and profitable wars (Afghanistan was prime for a pipeline, Iraq for the largest untapped oil reserves in the world)
3) Advancement of an Armegeddon project by our pinhead in chief. He has tipped his hand to this more than once. On one occassion when asked how would the war be paid by future generations? Bush responded "There wont be any future"

(Edit only to add link for Gore Vidal piece.)

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by Suburbanite, what about impact?