Ok lets see if we can conduct a debate on some of the points in contention that have been scattered all over the place in a previous thread, that got severely off topic from its title, here-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...nnections-details-exposed-96.html#post6890612
I believe we should start at the reason that NIST stated in their reports as to what caused the WTC towers to collapse, and that is, intense heat from fires that were produced by jetfuel/kerosene from the planes.NIST agrees that the buildings withstood the plane impacts, and THESE buildings, as DESIGNED by the creators, redistributed the loads from the damaged components.
To be clear... this is in regards to the planes impacting the buildings. I agree that not all building designers will take this consideration into account, but those of the WTC DID.
NIST did say if not for the fires, they would not have collapsed..had dislodged fireproofing material, not exposed certain steel weight baring components to intense heat from the fires. So I'll begin with the initial reaction....
In the initial reaction after the attacks, many experts were trotted onto the news channels, and the general consensus at that time was, that the steel components actually must have melted. This was substantiated by the extreme heat within the rubble piles at GZ that persisted for 3 months, and the many witnesses that saw molten steel/metal within them.
Among these witnesses was -Joel Meyerowitz, a photographer who walked around GZ and said the ground was hot enough to melt workers boots.
Another was Sarah Atlas, who was a member of New Jersey Search and Rescue, who said there was molten steel/metal that she encountered during her searches.
Penn SAS Summer 2002 -- K-9/11
Dr Keith Eaton, CE of structural engineers in London who said, there was
molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event, as well as four-inch thick steel plates sheered and bent in the disaster.
The Structural Engineer 3, September 2002
Leslie Robertson, who was one of the men who assisted in the construction of the WTC themselves. he said-."as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running.
SEAU NEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001
Alison Geyh Ph.D. a professor at Johns Hopkins, was on the scene and said-
In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.
Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, late fall, 2001.
Even the contractors that were hired to do the clean up have mentioned this.
http://ae911truth.org/documents/lironews.pdf
University of California professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, structural engineer,
I saw melting of girders at the World Trade Center.
Peter Tulley, president of Tully Construction told the American Free Press that workmen had seen the molten pools.
American Free Press, August 28, 2002
Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. said Yes, hot spots of molten steel were seen in the basements.
thermal images taken by NASA and Earth Data satellites. The thermal images also show that the hot spots remained in the same locations. They didn't travel across the GZ site, as would be expected from fire as it consumes and burns the combustibles available in any one location.
Using infrared spectrometer (AVIRIS). The two hottest spots were under WTC 2 and WTC 7. The USGS recorded surface temperatures as high as 1376 deg.F.
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment
If these were the surface temps, it must be assumed that they were even hotter where they were emanating from.
FEMA documents in their Appendix C of its May 2002 WTC Building Performance Assessment Team study, for sample 1, evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting. A sulfur-rich liquid containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur penetrated into the steel.
http://www.fema.gov/library/file;js...f&fileid=6d56be70-50bc-11e0-be57-001cc4568fb6
The point here is that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air at 1,500 deg. F. can't reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts which is 2700 deg. F..
This is a very important finding regarding the buildings, because many accredited experts thought that parts of the WTC structure attained temps that would melt the steel.
Again these were preliminary assumptions.
We know NOW that the NIST never discovered in their analysis that the temps got anywhere near this high, within the towers.
So let's deal with this contradiction. The steel components that supported the weight of these towers, were said to have gotten hot enough to fail the steel, and we seemingly had evidence of this according to the many experts on site,including one of the WTC engineers himself
and by Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the city of New York. He told the panel about seeing molten metal during a walk through, and mentioned this to the 9-11 commission.
Statement of Ken Holden
So what did NIST do or say about this? It dismissed them. This is the first sign of fraud as they dismissed what is directly contradicted by the eyewitness statements of the emergency responders, engineers, officials, and health experts already mentioned above, not to mention the lead contractors who did the cleanup.
Don't we need high temps to overcome the steel? Didn't the temps within GZ confirm this?
It should have made it easier for them. But they ran into a problem, that was also mentioned above that being, that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air can't reach 1500 deg. F., and being buried by debris could not have attained the extreme temps to actually melt steel/metal....for 100 days despite constant attempts to put them out with water, and 1000s of gallons of Pyrocool.
So how hot did the temps within the towers reach? For that we will have to take a look at what is in the NIST reports to find the answers, and also look into their testing..and it was conducted..
BTW...This is not an attempt on my part, to convince anyone who has different views then me, it is an attempt however, to clarify as to WHY my views are different then some of you..regarding the officially sanctioned NIST explanation/s..
Also due to responsibilities and other urgent personal matters, we can't possibly be expected to reply right away to posts at times so lets chill the fuck out...I don't get paid to be on here...
I await responses regarding the above before proceeding any further....
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...nnections-details-exposed-96.html#post6890612
I believe we should start at the reason that NIST stated in their reports as to what caused the WTC towers to collapse, and that is, intense heat from fires that were produced by jetfuel/kerosene from the planes.NIST agrees that the buildings withstood the plane impacts, and THESE buildings, as DESIGNED by the creators, redistributed the loads from the damaged components.
To be clear... this is in regards to the planes impacting the buildings. I agree that not all building designers will take this consideration into account, but those of the WTC DID.
NIST did say if not for the fires, they would not have collapsed..had dislodged fireproofing material, not exposed certain steel weight baring components to intense heat from the fires. So I'll begin with the initial reaction....
In the initial reaction after the attacks, many experts were trotted onto the news channels, and the general consensus at that time was, that the steel components actually must have melted. This was substantiated by the extreme heat within the rubble piles at GZ that persisted for 3 months, and the many witnesses that saw molten steel/metal within them.
Among these witnesses was -Joel Meyerowitz, a photographer who walked around GZ and said the ground was hot enough to melt workers boots.
Another was Sarah Atlas, who was a member of New Jersey Search and Rescue, who said there was molten steel/metal that she encountered during her searches.
Penn SAS Summer 2002 -- K-9/11
Dr Keith Eaton, CE of structural engineers in London who said, there was
molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event, as well as four-inch thick steel plates sheered and bent in the disaster.
The Structural Engineer 3, September 2002
Leslie Robertson, who was one of the men who assisted in the construction of the WTC themselves. he said-."as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running.
SEAU NEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001
Alison Geyh Ph.D. a professor at Johns Hopkins, was on the scene and said-
In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.
Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, late fall, 2001.
Even the contractors that were hired to do the clean up have mentioned this.
http://ae911truth.org/documents/lironews.pdf
University of California professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, structural engineer,
I saw melting of girders at the World Trade Center.
Peter Tulley, president of Tully Construction told the American Free Press that workmen had seen the molten pools.
American Free Press, August 28, 2002
Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. said Yes, hot spots of molten steel were seen in the basements.
thermal images taken by NASA and Earth Data satellites. The thermal images also show that the hot spots remained in the same locations. They didn't travel across the GZ site, as would be expected from fire as it consumes and burns the combustibles available in any one location.
Using infrared spectrometer (AVIRIS). The two hottest spots were under WTC 2 and WTC 7. The USGS recorded surface temperatures as high as 1376 deg.F.
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment
If these were the surface temps, it must be assumed that they were even hotter where they were emanating from.
FEMA documents in their Appendix C of its May 2002 WTC Building Performance Assessment Team study, for sample 1, evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting. A sulfur-rich liquid containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur penetrated into the steel.
http://www.fema.gov/library/file;js...f&fileid=6d56be70-50bc-11e0-be57-001cc4568fb6
The point here is that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air at 1,500 deg. F. can't reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts which is 2700 deg. F..
This is a very important finding regarding the buildings, because many accredited experts thought that parts of the WTC structure attained temps that would melt the steel.
Again these were preliminary assumptions.
We know NOW that the NIST never discovered in their analysis that the temps got anywhere near this high, within the towers.
So let's deal with this contradiction. The steel components that supported the weight of these towers, were said to have gotten hot enough to fail the steel, and we seemingly had evidence of this according to the many experts on site,including one of the WTC engineers himself
and by Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the city of New York. He told the panel about seeing molten metal during a walk through, and mentioned this to the 9-11 commission.
Statement of Ken Holden
So what did NIST do or say about this? It dismissed them. This is the first sign of fraud as they dismissed what is directly contradicted by the eyewitness statements of the emergency responders, engineers, officials, and health experts already mentioned above, not to mention the lead contractors who did the cleanup.
Don't we need high temps to overcome the steel? Didn't the temps within GZ confirm this?
It should have made it easier for them. But they ran into a problem, that was also mentioned above that being, that office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air can't reach 1500 deg. F., and being buried by debris could not have attained the extreme temps to actually melt steel/metal....for 100 days despite constant attempts to put them out with water, and 1000s of gallons of Pyrocool.
So how hot did the temps within the towers reach? For that we will have to take a look at what is in the NIST reports to find the answers, and also look into their testing..and it was conducted..
BTW...This is not an attempt on my part, to convince anyone who has different views then me, it is an attempt however, to clarify as to WHY my views are different then some of you..regarding the officially sanctioned NIST explanation/s..
Also due to responsibilities and other urgent personal matters, we can't possibly be expected to reply right away to posts at times so lets chill the fuck out...I don't get paid to be on here...
I await responses regarding the above before proceeding any further....