WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (HOLY SNIKIES!)

[Backglass]

The buildings had incredible mass compared to the airplanes. There is no way they would fall like a tree being felled by a lumberjack.

Think about this. Every once in a while you here about a drunk driver plowing into a house. Why doesnt the house just topple over like a house-of-cards? Mass.

That makes no sense what so ever...

OK, I will type slower.

Which part don't you understand?

[hecter]

The buildings had incredible mass compared to the airplanes. There is no way they would fall like a tree being felled by a lumberjack.

Think about this. Every once in a while you here about a drunk driver plowing into a house. Why doesnt the house just topple over like a house-of-cards? Mass.

That makes no sense what so ever...

OK, I will type slower.

Which part don't you understand?

You're basically saying that something will be fine as long as you only hit it with something smaller... That makes no sense what so ever. A bullet is very small but can be very damaging. Don't believe me? Try shooting yourself to see what happens.

[Backglass]

You're basically saying that something will be fine as long as you only hit it with something smaller... That makes no sense what so ever.

Huh? I am saying nothing of the sort...you are stretching what I said. Of course the building was damaged! (And so was the house in my anology).

But there wasn't enough lateral force from the airplane to topple the building which is what Juan doesn't understand.

bullet is very small but can be very damaging. Don't believe me? Try shooting yourself to see what happens.

Damage and how the building fell are two different subjects.

[hecter]

But there wasn't enough lateral force from the airplane to topple the building which is what Juan doesn't understand.

Where did he say that? We were talking about fires...

[Backglass]

But there wasn't enough lateral force from the airplane to topple the building which is what Juan doesn't understand.

Where did he say that? We were talking about fires...

Being able to follow a thread is the first step.

Please refer back to my original post that you took issue with. I was responding to Juan and quoted him as such.

[hecter]

But there wasn't enough lateral force from the airplane to topple the building which is what Juan doesn't understand.

Where did he say that? We were talking about fires...

Being able to follow a thread is the first step.

Please refer back to my original post that you took issue with. I was responding to Juan and quoted him as such.

I figured that he was saying that it would have fallen differently because each side was effected differently... And just because something is big and heavy doesn't mean it can't topple. It happens all the time.

[Juan_Bottom]

Think about this. Every once in a while you here about a drunk driver plowing into a house. Why doesnt the house just topple over like a house-of-cards?
According to you then, the towers should not have fallen. Unless you take MASS + GRAVITY, but then the towers should not have fallen straight down, because of the weight of the mass and it's center of gravity. Like your tree example, sorta.

But there wasn't enough lateral force from the airplane to topple the building which is what Juan doesn't understand.

Its the idea that neither tower toppled at all that I don't entirely get.

Mass.

I figured that he was saying that it would have fallen differently because each side was effected differently... And just because something is big and heavy doesn't mean it can't topple. It happens all the time.

Yes. One side of the building would have been more damaged than the other side. I would expect this side to give out first.... and for the top of the building fall that way... just like a tree actually. The force of weight would not be distributed evenly.
I don't get too hung up on the path of least resistance like others do, because there was a lot of weight. What I get caught up on is the cause. At any rate, the topple scenario is just a question that I can't understand on my own. To me, the areas below the crash could come straight down, maybe. But the area above should have fallen a perticular way. And if it did, then I would expect all of the building to topple a perticular way.

Wrong. It isn't melting, it's just incredibly hot and flexible. When you apply pressure to flexible things, it bends. In a building, that's very bad. Jet fuel would be an easy way to start the fires, but it definitely was not the only thing burning in that building.

The building had just gone through a new more advanced fire proofing. It also had an "heat sink." And there simply wasn't enough stuff inside the towers to burn.
According to the firefighters who were inside the building, at the floor that was burning the most hot, they only needed two handlines to knock the fires out.
I cannot imagine for a second that the engineers of the towers would use steel that would melt with the first fire in the WTC. And according to them, and the city of New York, they didn't. Even if the floors were a raging inferno, which they weren't, the heat still could not reach a temp to melt that steel. Not even anywhere near enough to flex it. I do not believe that fire weakened those beams enough. Other towers around the world have caught on fire, without collapsing.>

a. The 47 massive steel core columns of each of the towers were adequately designed to withstand collapse.4. Structural steel begins to melt at 1510 degrees Celsius (2750 degrees Fahrenheit) and only if that temperature is maintained over a long period of time. Burning jet fuel can only reach temperatures of 1120 degrees Celsius and decreases in temperature if the fuel feeding it is being depleted (as was the case in the Twin Towers). Therefore, the temperature from the burning jet fuel (commonly cited as the reason for weakening the structure) could not possibly have melted the steel-reinforced columns.
The point becomes moot very quickly anyway because, as FEMA acknowledged, the level of dissipation of the jet fuel precluded its ability to burn long enough to even threaten structured steel

The actual temperatures of the WTC fires were only 650 degrees Celsius (1200 degrees Fahrenheit) which is dramatically insufficient to melt steel. Thermite (the incendiary explosive of which there was evidence at Ground Zero), however, typically reaches 2500 degrees Celsius (4500 degrees Fahrenheit).

Thermite traces have been found on the structural steel, though that's not what I'm talking about here.

But it could do damage. It's fire, it's what fire does.

It could but couldn''t in this scenario. The fire couldn't have come close to damaging the structural steel. The fire would have to be around 1510 Celsius... but the jet fuel(which is sited as the reason for the collapse) could at very best reach 1120 Celsius. From a scientific comparison there isn't much of a comparison. And then you consider that the ACTUAL WTC FIRE burned at 650 Celsius... you really don't have a valid comparison.
Now had I not heard the tape of the firemen at the hot spot, and seen the footage of the jets hitting the tower, I might be convinced that fire could have weakened those beams.
But the bottom line is that most of the fuel exploded outside of the towers, and the inside of the towers wasn't burning much. And there is no way in hell an engineer is going to build a skyscraper with steel that has the same melting point that office furniture can reach while burning.

Again, nobody said anything about melting steel. And just because a fire is contained doesn't mean it's not burning extremely hot.

An office fire can burn as hot as it wants. Certainly structural grade steel will not be effected. There was a tower in Spain that burned for two days. After the ffire was put out the only thing left was the steel frame.
Which is why the fuel gets blamed. But the fuel burned up in an instant, and most combusted outside of the towers. PLUS Tower 7 was never hit with a plane, so there was no jet fuel even involved. But that tower collapsed the same as the other two. And again, the actual fire was only 650 Celsius, which isn't half what it takes to even begin to weaken the structural steel.

Believe what you want, it doesn't make much difference to me, just don't get your facts and your theory mixed up. In theory the buildings were designed to withstand all these fancy things and it was designed to suffocate the fires and blah blah blah. But when you see smoke billowing from the fires, it's quite clear that there are fires burning, despite what the building was designed to do. And when you see the building being pulled inwards, it's clear that something is seriously wrong, despite what it was designed to do.

This is exactly what we are both talking about. Something wen't seriously wrong here.

[Juan_Bottom]

This is more like what I would expect. Whether the plane enters this side, or the other side, the top of the tower still should have fallen the same way, in my non-proffesional opinion. This is whaat makes sense to me. But I'm not getting hung up on it or anything. It's just that
a) there's less stuff in the way to slow or deflect it's fall, and
b) that's where the force would be exerted.

[MeDeFe]

I don't think we can blame the government for gravity.

why the f*ck not?
Jesus H Christ! If we can't blame the politicians for this sort of shit, what other sort of shit will actually stick?

There is no gravity, this "THEORY of gravity" is just a self-perpetuating myth, intelligent falling does a much better job of explaining why the towers fell in such an orderly fashion. Teach the controversy!

[hecter]

Juan, I'm done trying to explain this to you. Nobody has said a thing about melting steel, because the steel didn't melt, nor was it going to. But you can't seem to grasp this.

[Juan_Bottom]

Juan, I'm done trying to explain this to you. Nobody has said a thing about melting steel, because the steel didn't melt, nor was it going to. But you can't seem to grasp this.

The fire is blamed for weakening the steel. How does steel weaken without melting? How else do you re-arrange it's chemicle/elemental structure?

[Nickbaldwin]

Juan, I'm done trying to explain this to you. Nobody has said a thing about melting steel, because the steel didn't melt, nor was it going to. But you can't seem to grasp this.

The fire is blamed for weakening the steel. How does steel weaken without melting? How else do you re-arrange it's chemicle/elemental structure?

The added energy from the heat excites the atoms in the steel, causing them to vibrate/move more freely. It is still solid, but significantly weakened.

[Juan_Bottom]

Isn't that melting? Or smelting? Like what you do to make swords? The heat inside the towers still couldn't get that hot. You don't make a skyscraper with the knowledge that the first fire will melt it's support structure.

The actual temperatures of the WTC fires were only 650 degrees Celsius
Structural steel begins to melt at 1510 degrees Celsius (2750 degrees Fahrenheit) and only if that temperature is maintained over a long period of time.

[Nickbaldwin]

Isn't that melting? Or smelting? Like what you do to make swords? The heat inside the towers still couldn't get that hot. You don't make a skyscraper with the knowledge that the first fire will melt it's support structure.

The actual temperatures of the WTC fires were only 650 degrees Celsius
Structural steel begins to melt at 1510 degrees Celsius (2750 degrees Fahrenheit) and only if that temperature is maintained over a long period of time.

Melting is a solid turning to a liquid.

What I am talking about is heat making a solid weaker.

[Juan_Bottom]

Ok, I believe that we are on the same page I just thought melting was basically the same thing as smelting which was the same thing as weakening. So the question is what is the weakening point, not what is the melting point?

The WTC has a safety ratio somewhere in the ballpark of 200:1. Even if it lost half its strength, it still has a 100:1 safety ratio BEFORE the steel is actually loaded to its max capacity.

I can't find the actual weakening point, though I am looking for it. But the fire's heat was still LESS THAN half of what it takes to melt the steel. The idea that an office fire can bring down a tower is a huge safetly concern isn't it?

The company who built the WTC even said that if the building collapsed from a hydrocarbon fire, I quote, "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."

I just found this and I agree.
If anyone has the weakening point and can share it, I would appreciate that. But I stand by my opinion that the fire just wasn't hot enough. As I have said, this isn't the first tower to catch fire.

[Backglass]

Yes. One side of the building would have been more damaged than the other side. I would expect this side to give out first.... and for the top of the building fall that way... just like a tree actually. The force of weight would not be distributed evenly.

The difference is that the towers were not solid/dense objects like a tree. In fact the towers were mostly air by volume, which a tree is not.

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm not comparing it to a tree in the picture. You cut out one side of the building and that side should go first, and cause a blowout underneath on the otherside, through a transferance of force. Air or not, the weight and force of the building should not be transferred evenly. But again, I don't get hung up on that because I'm not an engineer. Even though pancaking is brand new, lol.

[heavycola]

Juan, I'm done trying to explain this to you. Nobody has said a thing about melting steel, because the steel didn't melt, nor was it going to. But you can't seem to grasp this.

The fire is blamed for weakening the steel. How does steel weaken without melting? How else do you re-arrange it's chemicle/elemental structure?

If you've ever put a solid tupperware dish in the microwave, and felt it get softer when you take it out, then you can understand how heat can change the properties of solids without changing their state (i.e. turning them to liquid).

More to the point though, Juan, how about turning your research skills to explaining the logistics, expertise, time, equipment, manpower and number of people sworn to secrecy it would have taken to destroy the towers by controlled demolition.

Once you realise the staggering, impossible enormity of that scenario (the tallest building ever demolished with explosives *officially* was in 1998, it was 25 storeys tall, and required 2,780 lbs of explosives - now multiply that by 9), then ask yourself that if you believe the government/NWO/whoever capable of that, then surely they were capable of making the towers fall sideways, like you suggest.
The advantages would have been obvious: more dead people, more carnage, and one less loose end for troofers to pick over...

[Juan_Bottom]

If you've ever put a solid tupperware dish in the microwave, and felt it get softer when you take it out, then you can understand how heat can change the properties of solids without changing their state (i.e. turning them to liquid).

Yeah I understand that. What I did not know/understand was that the weakening point and melting point do not have to be related. I was under the impression that steel did not begin to weaken untill it was near it's weakening point.

More to the point though, Juan, how about turning your research skills to explaining the logistics, expertise, time, equipment, manpower and number of people sworn to secrecy it would have taken to destroy the towers by controlled demolition.

Who could ever know the number of people it would take? Or how long? Or even why? There's no sense in trying to understand that. I'm just asking questions about the answers I was provided. I do not understand how an office/jet fuel fire could have brought the three towers down. Even NIST's own models didn't collapse.
Plus, this same steel was not only approved by the government, it's used in towers everywhere... so if it did happen that way, is this not a safety issue?

then ask yourself that if you believe the government/NWO/whoever capable of that, then surely they were capable of making the towers fall sideways, like you suggest.
The advantages would have been obvious: more dead people, more carnage, and one less loose end for troofers to pick over...

Again, I don't want to speculate. I do understand that there are some inconsistancies with controlled demolitions, and that there are similarities too.
Similarities:
Thermite found on suppor beams!
Freefall speed!
Holes and irregular burn patterns found in support beams
Melted steel from not only the beams at the top of the towers, but also at the bottom of the towers
Earthquakes measured just before the collapse
Reported explosions and bombs(from firemen inside)
Concrete turned to dust
Inconsistancies:
Towers fell from the top down, rather than the bottom up!!!
Access?
Anyway, I'm just challenging the fire idea. I still don't see a fire causing the collapse, under any conditions.

[heavycola]

If you've ever put a solid tupperware dish in the microwave, and felt it get softer when you take it out, then you can understand how heat can change the properties of solids without changing their state (i.e. turning them to liquid).

Yeah I understand that. What I did not know/understand was that the weakening point and melting point do not have to be related. I was under the impression that steel did not begin to weaken untill it was near it's weakening point.

More to the point though, Juan, how about turning your research skills to explaining the logistics, expertise, time, equipment, manpower and number of people sworn to secrecy it would have taken to destroy the towers by controlled demolition.

Who could ever know the number of people it would take? Or how long? Or even why? There's no sense in trying to understand that.

Yes there is! How many explanations are there for the collpase of two enormous buildings into which fully-fuelled jetliners crashed?
Either the jetliners had something to do with it, or something else was repsonsible - and I bet you can't name one other scenario that doesn't involve controlled demolition. You keep mentioning thermite traces (i'd like to see the evidence BTW, seriously, if you have a link)
You can't take something this big and say, 'nah, it wasn't anything to do with the planes' and then back away from an alternative!

then ask yourself that if you believe the government/NWO/whoever capable of that, then surely they were capable of making the towers fall sideways, like you suggest.
The advantages would have been obvious: more dead people, more carnage, and one less loose end for troofers to pick over...

Again, I don't want to speculate. I do understand that there are some inconsistancies with controlled demolitions, and that there are similarities too.
Similarities:
Thermite found on suppor beams!
Freefall speed!
Holes and irregular burn patterns found in support beams
Melted steel from not only the beams at the top of the towers, but also at the bottom of the towers
Earthquakes measured just before the collapse
Reported explosions and bombs(from firemen inside)
Concrete turned to dust
Inconsistancies:
Towers fell from the top down, rather than the bottom up!!!
Access?
Anyway, I'm just challenging the fire idea. I still don't see a fire causing the collapse, under any conditions.

SO WHAT DID CAUSE IT? you don't want to speculate, i know. But I'm afraid that by rejecting the enormous jetfuel bombs travelling at 100s of miles an hour that crashed into each tower as the causes of the collapses, then you have to have an alternative! And you have to be able to explain it!

[Juan_Bottom]

Either the jetliners had something to do with it, or something else was repsonsible - and I bet you can't name one other scenario that doesn't involve controlled demolition.

Heck if I know, but I know that fire had nothing to do with it, and I think that I've done a good job of backing that statement up.

(i'd like to see the evidence BTW, seriously, if you have a link)

There are three different people that I have heard of, that have seperatly found Thermite traces. The first was a college professor from the UofW, he had steel smuggled out of ground zero by cleanup crews. The second guy was from the south, but I don't remember anything else about him. The third: Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics Professor Steven Jones, Ph.D.

Not to mention there are many, many witnesses from both inside, and outside the towers who claim to have seen, heard, and felt seperate explosions. They've even been recorded. both on film and seismograph.

But that's not saying that it was bombs. Really, but I think that explination still makes more sense then a weakened structure.

You can't take something this big and say, 'nah, it wasn't anything to do with the planes' and then back away from an alternative!

Sure I can! I did it!
Fire did not do anything. Maybe the original steel used was NOT what is on public record, maybe that's the conspiracy... Maybe they used tin intstead and pocketed the money... IDK, but still don't see a fire having brought down structural steel.

SO WHAT DID CAUSE IT? you don't want to speculate, i know. But I'm afraid that by rejecting the enormous jetfuel bombs travelling at 100s of miles an hour that crashed into each tower as the causes of the collapses, then you have to have an alternative! And you have to be able to explain it!

Certainly the planes may enter into the truthful equation, but the fires/structural damage alone does not. I dunno, lol.

BTW all of this stuff is coming from here:
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=11

[luns101]

I don't think we can blame the government for gravity.

*winks*
*gives neo masonic handshake*

I forgot to tell you that you had a 79% compatibility rating with Neo, if that changes anything for you

[Backglass]

Also.....if you are going to demo a building from the inside, why go to all the trouble of hi-jacking planes, hoping you can hit the buildings, etc?

[hecter]

Heck if I know, but I know that fire had nothing to do with it, and I think that I've done a good job of backing that statement up.

Then please explain the bowing found on the side of the building.

[HapSmo19]

Also.....if you are going to demo a building from the inside, why go to all the trouble of hi-jacking planes, hoping you can hit the buildings, etc?

There would be too many questions aimed the security(marvin bush) of a building that allowed 'terrorists' to rig the entire thing with demolitions. Planes made great shock value for television.