WTC Collapses

[scott3x]

I already figured out what you claimed to be talking about and how you chose to distort what I was saying.

put me on your ignore list, . . . please.

I request he doesn't as I think he brings up very good points and I wouldn't want to lose that. I also think that you bring up some good points at times as well.

psikey, there's a difference between intentionally and unintentionally distorting what a person is saying, just as there is a difference between someone who says something that isn't true but doesn't know it and someone who is lying.

In other words, I believe that leopold unintentionally misinterpreted what you said.

leopold, I can understand that psikey may at times frustrate you. I have certainly been frustrated by people here as well, amoung them shaman, who constantly seems to think that I'm being dishonest and (in my view) providing equally lame reasons why he believes this to be so. I still respond to him, however, because he also does include a fair amount of points that I feel need to be addressed.

Anyway, if you really can't stand what psikey says, you can certainly ignore him, or at the very least not respond to him for a while. There are others you can respond to as well.

[scott3x]

I believe I've heard this argument before, perhaps from NIST itself. And yet, NIST has said previously that the sprinkler systems were probably damaged:

probably?
when those planes hit, the resulting electrical shorts no doubt blew fuses and transformers and tripped circuit breakers.
this would result in an immediate loss of water pressure.
even if the sprinkler system was left undamaged it's highly unlikely they had any real effect.

Sounds fine to me. It doesn't help Stryder's argument, however.

[scott3x]

Been listening to this song for a while; I don't know, this whole debate reminds me of something that's just very complicated and prone to some blown fuses at times, but that, for this very reason, is quite cool as well. The fact that I wanted to be an astronaught when I was a kid may have something to do with it too ;-)


Major Tom (Coming Home)

[psikeyhackr]

put me on your ignore list, . . . please.

Ignore lists only work after logging in. I only log in when I intend to post so I will have already seen what I choose to respond to.

You can ignore me if you like. I make the decisions about what I ignore. I sometimes enjoy aggravating people. The internet is better than television.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1y8ESrmE0A

psik

[psikeyhackr]

psikey, there's a difference between intentionally and unintentionally distorting what a person is saying, just as there is a difference between someone who says something that isn't true but doesn't know it and someone who is lying.

In other words, I believe that leopold unintentionally misinterpreted what you said.

The funny thing is that it took me a while to figure out what he was talking about. I even searched this site to see if I ever used the word bathroom. I was racking my brain trying to figure out what the Pentagon had to do with a bathroom. ROFL

Then the vaporization and condensation of the aluminum came to me after I had saved the post. I had to go back and edit it. These debates go on largely because people look at reality differently. Most of this talk about the government comes across as a waste of time to me. Comparing the government to physics is like comparing a cockroach to a grizzly bear and I regard that analogy as an understatement.

Like there is a Lawyers for 9/11 Truth now. That is funny. Did the New York legislature have to pass the law of conservation of momentum? So this stuff just looks like a lot of unnecessary gyrations to stumble over the obvious. If the physics says it is IMPOSSIBLE for an airliner to do the job in that little time then some other agents had to have been responsible. This whole thing comes across as the psychological nonsense of the majority of people not wanting to come to the REALLY UGLY but obviously inevitable conclusion.

psik

[scott3x]

Ignore lists only work after logging in. I only log in when I intend to post so I will have already seen what I choose to respond to.

You can ignore me if you like. I make the decisions about what I ignore. I sometimes enjoy aggravating people.

When someone stings me, sometimes I want to sting back a bit. I also generally don't like not seeing what someone is saying when they're talking about something I'm interested in. This doesn't mean that I have to respond to them, ofcourse, but sometimes I do for the reason mentioned above. However, as many have noticed, even when I insult, I tend to do so subtly. I really do believe that revenge is a dish best served cold

The internet is better than television.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1y8ESrmE0A

psik

I don't believe in 'dumb people' per se, but god I was laughing when I saw that clip

[scott3x]

psikey, there's a difference between intentionally and unintentionally distorting what a person is saying, just as there is a difference between someone who says something that isn't true but doesn't know it and someone who is lying.

In other words, I believe that leopold unintentionally misinterpreted what you said.

The funny thing is that it took me a while to figure out what he was talking about. I even searched this site to see if I ever used the word bathroom. I was racking my brain trying to figure out what the Pentagon had to do with a bathroom. ROFL

Then the vaporization and condensation of the aluminum came to me after I had saved the post. I had to go back and edit it. These debates go on largely because people look at reality differently. Most of this talk about the government comes across as a waste of time to me. Comparing the government to physics is like comparing a cockroach to a grizzly bear and I regard that analogy as an understatement.

Like there is a Lawyers for 9/11 Truth now. That is funny. Did the New York legislature have to pass the law of conservation of momentum? So this stuff just looks like a lot of unnecessary gyrations to stumble over the obvious. If the physics says it is IMPOSSIBLE for an airliner to do the job in that little time then some other agents had to have been responsible. This whole thing comes across as the psychological nonsense of the majority of people not wanting to come to the REALLY UGLY but obviously inevitable conclusion.

A truther psychologist has essentially made that argument as well, atleast the part about people not wanting to come to see a certain dark reality. I certainly believe that that is a large factor in why the truth is taking so long to come to the light for many. However, I think another enormous factor is that most people would never spend the amount of time that a lot of the people in this forum have spent to uncover the truth.

This is why I have hope for some of our more dedicated opponents- atleast they're clocking in the hours. I know you have a fair amount of knowledge concerning engineering and physics psikey and I'm certainly willing to believe that with your grasp of it, it's obvious that the twin towers couldn't have been brought down by the jet initiated fires. However, most people simply don't have much of a grasp on either and, unlike someone like me, whose mother dealt with a lot of thorny issues concerning depleted uranium that were brought up by the first guld war and who read a book called "Rule by Secrecy", concerning the types of secret societies that could have pulled something like 9/11 off around the time that 9/11 happened and subsequently read another book by the same author speaking specifically about 9/11.

So they can simply believe the official 9/11 story and be done with it. I believe, however, that it is getting more and more difficult for the official story to continue the way it is. The reason is that knowledge spreads; one person gets enough information to realize that 9/11 was an inside job and he/she shares it with someone they're close to; and then that person shares it with someone else, etc. The process, however, can certainly take some time.

There are, ofcourse, many people who simply aren't all that interested in learning the truth- they have concerns that they deem to be more important for themselves. As I said, my mother used to be a major advocate concerning issues of depleted uranium; but then the organization she worked for turned on her (this is a very long story) and dealing with that organization became way more important. I've told her I speak a fair amount concerning the issue of 9/11 and she says she's just not interested in getting into it. I believe there are a lot of people like this and I believe that because there are all these other concerns, the day that there will finally be a public acknowledgement of what really happened is further pushed further into the future.

But well, that's life.

[shaman_]

This is from the other thread but I only want to post in one.

ventilation does not increase the atmosphere temperature of a fire.

Fires require oxygen and ventilation is a factor. What WTC had that the other skyscraper fires didn’t was a nice big hole caused by planes entering the building.

why do you think ovens have doors?

So you can get the pizza out?

next time I oven-cook something, should i leave the door open to increase the ventilation? is that what you are saying?

No I’m saying next time you have a fire in your kitchen put a towel over it to smother it.

One of Griffin’s arguments was that the fire was supposedly oxygen starved. Do you disagree?

temperatures inside buildings with closed areas will increase with internal fire, but when windows break, heat (temperature) escapes and the atmosphere temperature will drop to an equilibrium temperature. more oxygen will be provided which may further ignite smouldering fires. A fully involved office building fire (one that is engulfed in flame like the windsor tower) will generally not go above an equilibrium of 800-1000 C atmosphere temperature.

I have given you examples where those temperatures were reached with a fire that was only in one corner of a building. Even if you go from the smaller figures in the raw data (which i'm not sure is actually the same test) and not the ones in the report there are still temperatures well over 600C.

burning jet fuel will produce a temperature of 287 C. there is nothing especially hot about jet fuel as a fuel source in normal air and pressure conditions.

According to popular mechanics it burns 426C to 815C.

his is sophistry. the examples that you have presented of steel structures "collapsing" due to fire, are all extremely weak structures especially vulnerable to fire. you have presented no structure qualitively similar to a skyscraper.

The mechanism that led to collapse is the same. It demonstrates that a normal fire can weaken steel.

Truthers are trying to assert that the fires couldn’t get hot enough to weaken the steel. They can. It has been demonstrated that it was at least possible. If this can happen then what happened on 9/11 is not so surprising at all. Just because the buildings involved are a different shape does not change the behavior of the fire on the unprotected steel. It is not a valid objection.

your examples are mainly barn-like warehouse structures which are particularly vulnerable to fire since they have large quantities of fuel,

The intestate 580 overpass was not weak, nor was it flammable. The steel supports collapsed on the Madrid tower. It wasn’t a barn.

little of the structure would act conductively to wick away the heat,

As shown in the Cardington tests, adjacent steel pieces do not conduct the heat particularly well.

with a larger proportion of steel unsupported in the hotest area - the roof just above the fire.

That roof did not have thirty more stories above it.

It says a lot when your top example is a toilet paper warehouse whose roof collapsed - massive fuel source, barn-like, structurally weak.

No it is not my top example. I have only mentioned it a few times. It’s just that I repeat myself over and over while pointing out the examples that the truthers so feebly dodge that I feel a tendency to use different ones after a while.

show me the raw data with those numbers.
Any third party website that makes claims that are not supported by the raw data is bogus.

The document I gave you is not a third party website.

In order to get a context you need the raw data, so any third party assertion of numbers will also be absent context.

There were some pretty graphs too.

I have given you links to the raw data in the spreadsheets,

Actually I posted that as well.

where are those numbers in the raw data?

There is a discrepancy there and I don't know which is correct at this stage.

What were the temperatures of the core at the time of collapse according to the NIST fire simulation data?

According to the simulation data, were the fires getting hotter or cooler as collapse neared?

its all there is red and blue:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05161.pdf

I’m not downloading that from work, however it is still entirely possible for the collapse to begin after the fires were at their peak. The temperatures do not drop off straight away and the temperatures have still been high. Perhaps another ten minutes at those temperatures was all that was needed for enough of the steel to be affected by the atmospheric temperature. Cooling does not mean that it was cold or that the temperatures were ineffective to the structure. I don’t know what happened, only that I think this is possible.

If steel had been affected by thermal exansion as well as being bent, when cooling it could potentially be contracting and pulling the structure in such a way that weakened it further.

[psikeyhackr]

A truther psychologist has essentially made that argument as well, atleast the part about people not wanting to come to see a certain dark reality. I certainly believe that that is a large factor in why the truth is taking so long to come to the light for many. However, I think another enormous factor is that most people would never spend the amount of time that a lot of the people in this forum have spent to uncover the truth.

Another factor that bugs me and I'm not sure what to make of it is the involvement of foreign countries like Japan. There are skyscrapers in Japan. Why was the Japanese parliament talking about Al Queda instead of demanding detailed info about the WTC. Why doesn't Iran make a stink about the physics of the WTC?

After SEVEN YEARS there is another psychological factor. How do EXPERTS admit that it is necessary to know the distribution of steel and concrete to analyze this without having figured that out and mentioning it years ago? Like they are going to suddenly figure this out the physics skyscrapers? LOL

But I think the world has a bigger problem with something as innocuous as the planned obsolescence of automobiles. There have been 200,000,000+ cars in the US since 1995. When do economists say anything about the depreciation of that junk. That is $300,000,000,000 per year just for the United States. That is FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS since 1995. What is it for the entire world? So if planned obsolescence means there have been unnecessary TRILLIONS lost and economists and politicians have said nothing about it then that is a bit of a mess. But the global warming problem doesn't let us just pretend it ain't there. How much unnecessary pollution has been created just from making cars that don't last.

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529

read a book called "Rule by Secrecy", concerning the types of secret societies that could have pulled something like 9/11

I read that and had no problem with it until the last couple of chapters. Ancient alien gods just didn't cut it with me.

psik

[Headspin]

response to this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1208

Fires require oxygen and ventilation is a factor. What WTC had that the other skyscraper fires didn’t was a nice big hole caused by planes entering the building.

You are proving my point. heat was unable to build up above the equilibrium fire temperature produced by office contents and jet fuel. I think you misunderstand fire. In an enclosed space, heat temperature from a fire will build up until it escapes. The hotest point of a building fire inside an enclosed room is usually just before the windows break. This is the principle of an oven, if you open the oven door you will be met with a blast of heat, opening the door will reduce the temperature inside the oven, therefore an oven with an open door is not as hot as an oven with a closed door, therefore a burning building with a plane sized hole in it is not as hot as a fire inside an enclosed building.

No I’m saying next time you have a fire in your kitchen put a towel over it to smother it.

An enclosed building is not a vaccuum. This has been the problem with your style of posting here, you take every detail applying equal weight to non equal arguments. This enables you to disagree on every single point and always in your mind to present a discussion in an equally weighted 50:50 framework. This binary thinking enables you to choose what reality is, it will damage your ability to think if you train yourself to think that way. The mainstream news media propaganda programs people's thinking like this all the time, "israel has said they have intelligence that iran is developing a nuclear weapons, iran denies it is developing a bomb", then offer false dichotomy choices. "Have your say- should we invade North Korea or Iran? results after this short CNN break".(Nevermind the proof that iran is not developing a bomb).

One of Griffin’s arguments was that the fire was supposedly oxygen starved. Do you disagree?

You have fallen for Mackey's sophistry propaganda yet again. Let me explain how you got your bad information.

If you had read Griffin's book (instead of letting Mackey impress a false reality on you), you would have discovered that David Ray Griffin wrote this "Thomas Eager <Professor of Materials Engineering and Materials Systems, MIT> estimated, given the fact that the fire was putting out black smoke, that the fire was burning at a temperature of 648 C and 704 C (1200 F - 1300 F)" you would then have been able to get to the original source and found that Eager's published and peer reviewed words were "It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke". You'll also find that Eager said "The black smoke indicates a fuel-rich fire". It is clear that Eager's and Griffin's point is that the jet fuel was burning ineffeciently and thus well below jet fuel's maximum efficient burning temperature. Magic master magician Mackey conjurs it up as "Dr. Griffin next uses the presence of black smoke as an argument that the fire was oxygen starved". You are the victim of bad information and Mackey is a disgrace to science.

According to popular mechanics it burns 426C to 815C.

Actually Popular Mechanics in their book state "Jet fuel burns at 1100 C to 1200 C" but this shouldn't surprise you given they are proven liars as evidenced by Pop Mech's Davin Coburn claiming he had seen photos of a third of wtc7's south face half way into the building scooped out on the Charles Goyette radio show. Of course we now know this is a completely made up falsehood with the release of NISTs wtc7 report, but it shouldn't surprise anyone because we know this magazine that is usually at home reviewing lawn mowers is owned by the Hearst corporation which is the usual place to find yellow journalism war propganda.
http://www.mepetroleum.com/jet_fuel.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

The mechanism that led to collapse is the same. It demonstrates that a normal fire can weaken steel.

steel weakening due to fire follows a smooth curve. weakening leading to catastrophic collapse is a binary state, one moment the structure is stable, the next moment there is collapse, these are different concepts and you are confusing them.

Truthers are trying to assert that the fires couldn’t get hot enough to weaken the steel.

this is a lie. nowhere have i seen anyone state this. Mackey magic again?

They can. It has been demonstrated that it was at least possible. If this can happen then what happened on 9/11 is not so surprising at all. Just because the buildings involved are a different shape does not change the behavior of the fire on the unprotected steel. It is not a valid objection.

This is bad logic. Demonstrating that something is possible by using an example that in no way resembles the real situation is pure sophistry. By the same logic i could deceptively argue that a plane could not enter the twin towers by using the example of a glider colliding into a solid steel wall.

The intestate 580 overpass was not weak, nor was it flammable.

it was a bridge! it was not a welded interconnected steel structure built to skyscraper standards.

The steel supports collapsed on the Madrid tower. It wasn’t a barn.

the perimeter columns did not support the building, the core supported the building. what collapsed from the madrid tower collapsed gradually over hours, it did not collapse catastrophically.

compare the madrid perimeter columns:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pro...gFires/fig.gif

with the wtc core columns:
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...cts.large1.jpg

http://9eleven.info/moltenstreamthermate.jpg

In the above photo with molten steel puring out of the window, compare the ratio of steel to window space on the perimeter with the madrid perimeter photo at the top. There is probably 6 times more steel on the wtc perimeter than on the madrid perimeter. The Madrid fire was even hotter AND the building was fully involved with flame - dig up a video of the Madrid fire and see for yourself. these factord matter hugely. You can only find the weakest of comparisons, and fire weakening steel is not a scalable argument.

No it is not my top example. I have only mentioned it a few times. It’s just that I repeat myself over and over while pointing out the examples that the truthers so feebly dodge that I feel a tendency to use different ones after a while.

the truth is that the anti-truther wesbites have collected every example of steel fire failure in the history of the world, they have about 10 examples all of which are not qualitively comparable to the twin towers or wtc7. all you do is go to that listette of shit examples.

I’m not downloading that from work, however it is still entirely possible for the collapse to begin after the fires were at their peak. The temperatures do not drop off straight away and the temperatures have still been high. Perhaps another ten minutes at those temperatures was all that was needed for enough of the steel to be affected by the atmospheric temperature. Cooling does not mean that it was cold or that the temperatures were ineffective to the structure. I don’t know what happened, only that I think this is possible.

the NIST fire simulation data show the core atmosphere temperature to be 200 C - 300 C at time of collapse. the steel in the core would be lower than this still.

If steel had been affected by thermal exansion as well as being bent, when cooling it could potentially be contracting and pulling the structure in such a way that weakened it further.

consider this - NIST make the claim that the trusses sagged from the heat, and the sagging pulled in the perimeter columns. if the trusses sagged due to thermal expansion, then the perimeter columns resisted that expansion. the trusses were strong enough to resist the thermal expansion but not the sagging?

[scott3x]

This post is in response to Tony Szamboti's post 2506 in the 9/11 Conspiracy thread.

Shaman, you seem to have forgotten to answer this question which was in the same post as all the other questions you replied to above

Please provide a mechanism to have the structure collapse without a deceleration of the upper block, because there isn't one. This fact will become very public very soon.

It is now public. Did you watch David Chandler's new video on the collapse of the North tower? If not it is here http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4 and only about 3 minutes long.

I think you mean 'mechanism for a gravitational collapse'. Because there is certainly a mechanism for a -collapse- without a deceleration of the upper block- demolition.

[psikeyhackr]

I think you mean 'mechanism for a gravitational collapse'. Because there is certainly a mechanism for a -collapse- without a deceleration of the upper block- demolition.

There has to be a mechanism that fits within

The airplanes did it paradigm.

Because without that they have to consider the government conspiracy paradigm. Which inevitably brings up the silent engineering schools conspiracy that has lasted for SEVEN YEARS.

What do you mean you can't analyze this whole thing without the distribution of steel and concrete information?

psik

[scott3x]

I think you mean 'mechanism for a gravitational collapse'. Because there is certainly a mechanism for a -collapse- without a deceleration of the upper block- demolition.

There has to be a mechanism that fits within

The airplanes did it paradigm.

Because without that they have to consider the government conspiracy paradigm.

Definitely.

Which inevitably brings up the silent engineering schools conspiracy that has lasted for SEVEN YEARS.

Perhaps an analysis of the types of people who run such institutions would shed further light on the matter; like the people who suspended physics professor Steven Jones, for example...

What do you mean you can't analyze this whole thing without the distribution of steel and concrete information?

Well it seems to me that there's plenty of evidence that the twin towers couldn't have fallen at the speed they did without the help of "something else". I just checked out the video that Headspin and Tony have been talking about and it confirms this.

[scott3x]

The Pentagon Attack

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 795 in this thread.

There is lots of evidence for the flyover theory as http://www.thepentacon.com/ makes clear.

They are probably the most idiotic members of the truth movement. You may not like the insult scott but there is no other way to describe it. If I was a truther I would still distance myself from them. They interview people who say that they saw the plane hit the pentagon, they take their own interpretations of the flight path and then conclude that a plane didn’t hit the pentagon. The witness testimony and physical evidence makes the case overwhelming but they ignore all that and cling to their own interpretations of a few people.

I strongly disagree with a lot of things you say here- however, this clearly has little to do with the WTC collapses. I could have put it into the enormous 9/11 conspiracy thread, but I think that that's big enough as it is. So I created a new thread for it here. Hopefully it doesn't fizzle out, but just didn't want to lump it into the huge 9/11 conspiracy thread.

[scott3x]

Why fires couldn't have taken down the WTC buildings

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman's post 795 in this thread.

Szamboti and others have made it clear that the planes did little damage and the fires did less. There is also only evidence of a tiny bit of fireproofing removal pre collapse, where the steel beams themselves were sheared where the plane crashed into the building.

NISTs testing on fireproofing removal showed results which were consistent with their expectations.

NIST's testing to see if the plane could have removed a fair amount of fireproofing was abysmal as Kevin Ryan has made clear in the past and which Tony Szamboti also made clear in post 797 in this thread. Just realized that you responded to Tony in post 822; so many posts, it can wear one down to keep track of them all

Also, why is it that NIST never revealed if the testing they did of unfireproofed metal collapsed or not?

Only at the entrance, where some steel beams were sheared. He never claimed that -all- of the fireproofing hadn't been removed, only most of it.

You don’t even need most of it removed, just enough around the floors affected by fire.

Again, from what I remember of what Kevin Ryan said, It's highly unlikely that even that was accomplished.

Kevin Ryan's "Standard For Deception" presentation, for one:
**************
5. Some floors began to sag?

Step five in NIST's collapse theory is that floors began to sag. The idea that fires could have caused floors to sag is not unreasonable, since it has been observed in fire tests and in cases of severe fires in steel-framed buildings, such as the One Meridian Plaza fire.

What is not reasonable is the degree of sagging NIST used in its computer models compared with the amounts its physical tests showed. Whereas the 35-foot floor model sagged only a few inches in the middle after two hours in a high-temperature furnace, NIST's computer model showed a sagging of 54 inches.

6. How did floors pull columns inward causing them to buckle?

Ryan dubs NIST's use of a computer model to support its theory of floor-sag-induced inward bowing of perimeter columns the "triple double bare steel computer result." He is referring to the fact that NIST's computer model doubled the height of the unsupported wall sections, doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation.
**************

Attacking the NIST model does not support your claim that “even without fireproofing, even the initial floor wouldn't have done more then sag a bit”

An attack on the NIST model might not support my claim. Kevin Ryan's, however, does. In the ending, it's his claim, not mine, and he's provided the evidence to back it up.

If steel framed buildings are able to collapse due to fire, then why couldn’t a fire initiated with thousands of gallons of jet fuel and a nice hole for ventilation do the same thing? Just saying a ‘skyscraper is a different type of building’ is not an answer.

Actually, it is. I've answered -why- a skyscraper is a different type of building at length in other posts, but if you like I can do so again.

[Buffalo Roam]

Do you realise how much molten steel would be needed to get a pour like that?

http://9eleven.info/moltenstreamthermate.jpg

And can you prove that is molten steel, can the photographer prove it.

The other thing is the stream is feathering, and molten metal pours don't do that, they spark, but their are so dense that they don't feather, they don't feather like water does.

[scott3x]

The differences between steel framed skyscrapers and other types of buildings

This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 795 in this thread.

The steel on the Madrid tower did more than sag a little.

The Windsor tower in Madrid had some important differences, as 9/11 Research makes clear.

Nothing in that article you keep linking to addresses my comment.

Yes, it does. But personally, I like Headspin's graphic comparison of the WTC perimeter columns and the steel reinforced perimeter columns of the windsor tower in post 1210.

You must be able to think for yourself. We have done that article to death and I still can’t get an answer out of you as to what you think it proves.

Sigh. I think it proves what it sets out to prove; namely that the windsor tower's perimeter was way weaker then the WTC buildings' perimeters, the fires were comparatively much more severe and longer in duration and the partial collapse of the perimeter columns was gradual, not sudden. If you weren't such a die hard official story supporter I think you would have realized that by now.

The McCormick steel structure was a warehouse, not a highrise. Again, 9/11 Research points out the many differences.

How many floors above or below the fire is irrelevant when I am demonstrating to you that fire can cause steel to weaken and collapse. The roof of the McCormick Place collapsed in 30mins from a simple fire! No 767, no jet fuel. Simply saying, ‘oh but it wasn’t a high rise’ is not a response.

The McCormick roof only had to support a bit of snow, not up to 110 stories of weight. It was immensely weaker and 9/11 Research makes that clear.

The official story certainly has a lot of examples. 9/11 Research apparently doesn't cover those last 2, but I think we should deal with the first 2 first...

We have devoted about 20 posts to them and all you ever come up with [is] insufficient responses and link to the same two pages.

You must be able to discuss things that 911research doesn't mention.

I'm able to, but frankly, I'm not -interested- in researching obscure building fires that are probably just as irrelevant as the McCormick and Windsor tower fires. This thread already spans more then 1000 posts, the previous major thread spans more then 2000.. I just think we have better things to do then go over what are probably irrelevant issues.

[scott3x]

Do you realise how much molten steel would be needed to get a pour like that?

http://9eleven.info/moltenstreamthermate.jpg

Not really- what's your estimate?

And can you prove that is molten steel, can the photographer prove it.

Wouldn't it have been nice if someone had taken samples of what appears to have been the molten pools of the molten metal that a firetruck apparently went through. But the official 'investigation' seemed much more interesting in carting away all the important evidence then actually analyzing it.

The other thing is the stream is feathering, and molten metal pours don't do that, they spark, but they are so dense that they don't feather, they don't feather like water does.

Perhaps given enough temperature it would- there is evidence that parts of some of the steel beams evaporated, never mind melted, after all.

[Headspin]

Tony Szamboti and Graeme MacQueen's paper published today:

"The Missing Jolt" : http://journalof911studies.com/volum...ssingJolt4.pdf

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19095

well done Tony!

[scott3x]

Tony Szamboti and Graeme MacQueen's paper published today:

"The Missing Jolt" : http://journalof911studies.com/volum...ssingJolt4.pdf

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19095

well done Tony!

Grats Tony :-)! Will read later, a little tired right now :-p