9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

Maybe this more detailed examination of the NIST's insulation removal hypothesis will satisfy you?

From a presentation by Kevin Ryan

" Fireproofing widely dislodged?

The idea that fireproofing was removed from most of the structural steel surfaces of the impact zones is essential to NIST's theory. NIST sought to "prove" that the plane crashes could do this by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could have knocked off large amounts of spray-on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas, Ryan makes another argument based on the available energy.

NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1

** Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *
* Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing
* For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area

**Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT"

MM

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. It satisfies me that it's possible. You're making the assumption that "most" or all of the fireproofing was removed. This wouldn't need to be true. And, frankly, a 747 hitting a building sure sounds like the power of thousands of shotgun blasts to me, besides carrying more sheer weight.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, it managed to make a large hole in the WTC and somehow all the core columns were perfectly intact... In cartoon land maybe.

And yet they didn't pull the answer out of their ass as can be seen by the hundreds of pages written about the aircraft impact alone.

20 minutes? Huh? Fire proofed? Huh? Do you even know how NIST arrived at its temperature models on each floor?

Do you really expect me to believe that the fire proofing remained on the steel around the impact area after it was hit by a 767 at 500mph and the explosion that followed? We're back to cartoon troofer physics once again.

So? It's well understood by experts why the south tower was first to go.

I don't know about that, but I think some common sense can be applied here to assume much of the steel in the impacted area was either naked, severed, damaged, weakened by high temperatures if not all of the above.

But NIST went beyond that and detailed their calculations for their conclusions.

Firstly, it is logical that the fireproofing was removed.

Secondly, if their models didn't work with all the fireproofing intact, then they would have tried the simulation without the fireproofing and I guess that's when they got the result that the building would have collapsed.

I really ought to read the 10,000 page NIST report sometime...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not questioning damage to the core columns.

I'm questioning the accuracy of conclusions that are overly dependent on the output from computer modeling software.

The most advanced version of the WTC software was used in the Final WTC7 Draft Report.

Did you watch NIST's video output from their Final Model?

It supposedly shows the true collapse shape for a building with WTC7's dimensions.

NIST's report editors expect the public to believe that WTC7 folded up because column 79 failed and less than a second later, columns 80 and 81 failed as well.

WTC7 was a huge, 47-story building, a totally interconnected, steel framework.

It's floors were the size of football fields.

NIST is arguing that with the collapse of the east penthouse, WTC7 was engulfed by a major 7 second internal collapse, that outwardly showed nothing more than a few broken windows.

During this 7 second period, the entire north face remained completely stable.

MM

 

WTC7 was more enigmatic than the WTC 1 + 2 towers, which is what troofers love. You love the fact you can not see what was happening inside the tower as the fires raged for 8 hours. I see no reason to be suspicious about why it collapsed, especially in light of quotes from firefighters who described its deteriorating state and eventually pulled away from it.

The problem is that you don't have an alternative theory that makes any sense. It's unproven that it is possible to bring a building like that down with thermite, and if explosives are your preference, then you have to explain why there was no explosion heard for miles in the moment before it collapsed.

 

Yeah: why are there these massive explosions when thermite actually goes hiss, not boom?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The 20 minute figure is NIST's and they make reference to it in both the WTC Collapse Final Report and in their August 2008 WTC7 Final Draft Report.

We know the structural steel was fireproofed.

We also know that a normal expectation would have a debris spray moving forward in the direction of the original aircraft impacts, striking only what's directly in it's path.

SFRM coated the core columns and floor trusses on all exposed sides of the steel, and not just the steel lying directly in the debris path.

The greatest damage to SFRM coated structural steel occurred in the area of the greatest impact.

Interestingly, NIST says it was the opposite side of the building in WTC1, and the east wall of WTC 2, that were the hottest.

Case in point the woman standing in the gaping entrance hole to WTC1 (North Tower).

MM

 

What specifically do they say about the 20 minute figure? We know that all buildings that collapsed on 9/11 were on fire for longer than 20 minutes.

With or without fireproofing, the floor trusses sagged. A sign that the steel was losing strength. Guess what... this is exactly where the collapse was initiated. Mystery over.

Would you expect any different? The aircraft piled combustable office materials to the far end of the building and it's no surprise this is where fires were more intense. And of course, there were pockets where people would not have been killed by the heat.

 

Have you read any of NIST's work or are you just echoing what you hear from others?

In the case of WTC 7, NIST said; "Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 (4.0 lb/ft2 on Floors 7 to 9 and 6.4 lb/ft2 on Floors 11 to 13) persisted in any given location for approximately 20 minutes to 30 minutes."

If you can't understand the significance of that NIST statement, then there is little point in responding to you.

It's a sign that the steel floor trusses were expanding from heat and bending downward as this expansion was resisted by the stronger columns. The trusses were pushing against the columns but unless hot enough to lose their rigidity, would not pull on the columns.

You can't "suck and blow" at the same time.

The trusses did not begin acting like hanging chains.

Yes but you've been arguing that the SFRM removal was concentrated in the area of the aircraft impacts.

KennyJC: "Do you really expect me to believe that the fire proofing remained on the steel around the impact area after it was hit by a 767 at 500mph and the explosion that followed? We're back to cartoon troofer physics once again....I think some common sense can be applied here to assume much of the steel in the impacted area was either naked, severed, damaged, weakened by high temperatures if not all of the above."

There is little reasonable argument to support the removal of SFRM in the areas where NIST estimated the greatest heat and fire occurrences.

The SFRM coated steel in those WTC 1 and WTC 2 locations, should have withstood their respective 102 minute and 56 minute fire durations.

MM

 

The fires in WTC 7 were ignited as a result of the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was approximately 370 ft to the south."
NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation xxxi

Your statement in effect claims that fires were raging in WTC7 at 9:30 am on 9/11?

Individual firefighters made similar statements about One New York Plaza, 1970, First Interstate Bank, 1988, and One Meridian Plaza, 1991.

They didn't collapse.

To put it simply, the firefighters meant well, but their statements were not backed up by any experience that would make them credible.

Prior to 9/11, not a single firefighter, anywhere, had witnessed a modern steel building collapse, yet they forecast that outcome for WTC7.

The initial message warning about an expected WTC7 collapse came from the FDNY brass and not vice versa.

Untrue.

NIST claims the single failure of column 79 in WTC7 was sufficient to initiate the complete collapse of WTC7.

This is well within the ability of thermite and it's derivatives.

MM

 

Which don't go boom.

 

Well since we can rule out explosives and thermite, I'm just gonna have to assume that the temperatures surrounding the columns were sufficient to cause the collapse. Call it occams razor.

The collapse initiated from where the floor trusses were sagging and the perimeter columns were bowing. Mystery over.

Yet there was still large damage caused by the plane in the areas worst affected by fires.

They were burning from early in the morning up until the building collapsed. Firefighters state that the fires got worse as the day went on.

One shoe does not fit all. Different structures, different circumstances.

Hayden:...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

I could use quotes like this from multiple firefighters all day long. They were so confident that it would collapse that they put an evacuation zone around the building, and what do ya know? It collapsed a couple of hours later.

A critical column failure can effect columns around it as the load is redistributed, and a domino effect can ensue.

I'm still waiting for it to be proven thermite can cut thick steel columns horizontally and remotely.

I know you're probably gonna show me the device that does this on Youtube to a peice of steel (allegedly steel) that is an inch thick... but lets see it possible with a large steel column like the kind in WTC7.

Lets also bear in mind we can rule out explosives since no explosives were heard.

 

This point is a little nebulous. What are we meant to infer from it?

So you're telling me that the heat from the fire was enough to expand the steel, but not melt or bow it. This seems to be conjecture. Also, precisely and specifically what do you mean by "bending downward"? Describe this process.

For one, I have no idea what this means. I don't think Kenny is implying in any way that the beams started to hang, but that they bent under weight from above.

Frankly, all that is required is a specific hot zone in a specific damaged area of a truss. Whether the average was higher on one side of the building or another is not completely helpful. Moreover, what was that heat? And what was it on the near side, where the truss bent and failed? Sufficient to cause loss of structural integrity?

I firmly expect Ganymede to pop back in within the hour to denouce this appalling display of rationality and perspective.

 

I made some calculations, and the force of the jet's impact plus the temperature of the burning jet fuel minus the temperature decreasing properties of the flame retardant, and I found that the steel support columns in the center would have broken under the stress. No thermite required. No sabotage required. Maybe Bush isn't evil after all.

 

Aha! But maybe he knew all that, and that's why he crashed the plane into the Towers.

Take that, Mr. Science and Reason Lover.

 

Yes, but you apparently don't.

In 2004, NIST had Underwriters Labs run floor model tests. After 2 hours in a test furnace maintaining a constant 2000F temperature, the floor assembly sagged 3 inches.
In this testing, NIST doubled the known WTC load and used far less fire proofing than was known to exist.

We do know that, at the time the towers were designed, the NYC code called for three hours of fire resistance for the floor assemblies, and four hours of fire resistance for the columns.

MM

 

So?

Unquestionably, the initial ball of flame also ignited areas of office furnishings.

But, less than ten minutes into each of the twin tower's timelines, all the aviation fuel was spent,
and half of the initial office furnishing's fires would be nearing their half-life.

But what the NIST report writers never properly explain, is the justification for accepting as adequate, NIST's SFRM removal tests.

Testing which was critical to their belief in a major failure to a critical number of fully SFRM coated main floor and column assemblies.

The massive core columns protected floor trusses and columns from the impacts of the heaviest and strongest parts of each aircraft.

The initial aircraft impact would have pushed forward a large volume of air that would have pushed down partitions and thrust office furnishings forward.

It would clear large floor areas removing fuel for fire.

These blown office furnishings would also be part of the debris immediately exiting out the back windows of each tower and all the fluttering paper.

According to the references used by NIST, fires should have no heating effect on the SFRM protected steel for a minimum of 2 hours.

The NIST would have to be well aware how critical it was to their simulation- supported theory, that the steel became over-heated in the known timeline.

Because the very adhesive SFRM had to be almost all removed to make the simulation work, that appeared to be all the justification the NIST required to accept unsatisfactory testing.

But a 56 minute timeline and you say "So?"

MM

 

What's your point? The sagging and bowing in the WTC was more than 3 inches, therefore these tests did not replicate what was going on in the WTC.

Also, are you trying to say that something suspicious was causing the extra sagging/bowing in the WTC? I fail to see how thermite or whatever else from your imagination could account for it.

That is, if a 500mph airliner doesn't smash into the building and remove the fire proofing.

And yet it was hot enough and long enough to weaken the steel as is clear by photographs.

Yes, much debris was seen exiting the other side of the tower with great force. Force great enough - you could say - to remove fire protection from the steel.

Again, the steel was witnessed to be weakening due to the temperatures. Has the penny dropped yet? The steel had insufficient fire protection.

Their model worked because fire protection was removed by a 200 ton bullet.

Because that's what happened. There is nothing suspicious about how the towers fell. The fact that there is no controversy about this amongst experts should tell you that.

 

I haven't heard any historians disagreeing with the official story, but that's certainly not the case with demolition and engineering experts. From Steven Jones "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?":

Evidence isn't measured by how many people turn up at a rally. I support alternate 9/11 theories, and yet I certainly didn't go to New York to say so. I personally find that the best place to communicate such things is to people willing to listen. You may disagree with what I have to say, but atleast you're listening to it.

Laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Mind telling me what your day job is?

 

They didn't accuse him of dishonesty; they accused him of offensiveness.

I personally believe that he's here to express what he believes. Which is really the same reason I'm here.

I must admit I really do wish that Kenny would be more civil at times... but at the same time I recognize that he's helped my ability to counter 9/11 official story arguments. It may be that Kenny is incapable of being civil enough to stay in truther forums, but if you stay in truther forums, you don't get the rich amount of official story arguments that need to be worked on. Anyway, if you're in an interesting debate on abovetopsecret.com, by all means send me a PM with the link ;-).