WTC2 toppling top

[Duer 157099]

Can anyone convince me that the top 30 stories of WTC2 *did not* fall as one big chunk onto the buildings below?

And, if that did happen, then what was the "crushing weight" that caused the rest of the building to collapse?

[Duer 157099]

1. Do the lack of replies mean that nobody can convince me?

Or that is just a stupid question?

[dailykoff]

2. They can't do it without looking like idiots

but that's never stopped them before. :shrug:

[Duer 157099]

3. (well that's what I suspected)

but didn't want to say it outloud and alienate them :-) (as if)

[libertypirate]

4. Actually there are some stories of people who were in the building as

they collapsed that shed light on this topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/Survivors

Pasquale Buzzelli, 32, a structural engineer at the Port Authority, was in Stairway "B" on the 13th floor of the North Tower when it collapsed. After losing consciousness, he awoke on the surface, on top of a pile of rubble, and was carried away with minor injuries. (He had recalled it being the 22nd floor, but Genelle McMillan, who also survived, said he was with her, and she recalled it being the 13th floor. )


There were others who ended up near the top of the pile. This is an indication that nothing fell atop of them which doesn't broad well for a gravity driven collapse, and the top remaining together.

[petgoat]

5. It appears the top was leaning to the south.

There were buildings across Liberty street that were not destroyed.



I think it's reasonable to conclude that the top of WTC2 did not fall off as it should
have (seeking the least-resistance path to ground, and conserving angular momentum)
but instead turned to dust in midair.

[Duer 157099]

14. Watch this

http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem5/911.wtc.2.demolition.north.very.close.mpg

Watch this video if you can. Watch the number "1" in the upper left corner. Watch how, just before the cloud of dust obscures everything, you can see that the top part does continue falling to the east (?) and passes the number 1, and is last seen at about a 30 degree angle, before it falls straight down (or into the dust cloud at least).

It's also interesting to watch the right side of the building, and watch when the crack appears on the west (?) side of the tower.

All I'm saying is that not *all* of WTC2 fell down on top of the lower floors.

[Jazz2006]

16. petgoat - a question...

which building is that showing in front of WTC2 in the photo you posted?

[Make7]

19. It's the Millennium Hotel.

There is a good picture of it on this webpage.


You can see the location of the building near the right hand side of this map:



- Make7

[Jazz2006]

20. If it's the Millenium Hotel, that makes petgoat's premise all wrong.....

which is why I asked him what that building is....

Odd that he hasn't answered.

Or not odd at all, perhaps.

What say you, petgoat?

[Make7]

22. I had considered posting this information in response to his post:

Watch the first video on this page: http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem25

If that video won't play for you, there is a link to a flash movie on that page called 911.wtc.2.demo.head.on that will allow you to see the same content. (Hopefully.)

Notice that the camera is looking almost directly at the East side of WTC2.

I just didn't figure it would be worth the effort. In fact, I ignored this whole thread for quite a while for the same reason.

- Make7

[petgoat]

42. The picture shows the east face tilting to the left. Thus the

building is tilting to the south.



What's wrong with my premise?

[Make7]

48. "primary tilting towards East for WTC 2"

View from East
View from NorthEast
View from North

- Make7

[Jazz2006]

21. Petgoat - this is for you (or for dotcosm or others)

(I am new here and admit to having some trouble with the format here - it's not the most user friendly and it does present difficulties and obstacles to free flowing conversation)

Sooooo, here's the question:

What building is it in front of the WTC slanting photo that (petgoat) posted?

ON EDIT: I realize from reading this thread that some of you disagree with petgoat about the direction of the building....
so can we have a consensus here about which building is the one shown in front of WTC7 in the photo so that we can ascertain the direction, please?

[Grateful for Hope]

23. This format is pretty user-friendly

for most of us.

[Jazz2006]

27. I'm still trying to get used to it.

I'm sure I'll figure it out soon and it will then seem more user-friendly to me, too.

:)

[Grateful for Hope]

37. Many of us

got used to it being part of DU, and not just part of a particular forum.

[Jazz2006]

63. ???

I suspect that everyone who comes to a new site for the first time probably spends more time on the particular subject matters in which he or she is interested while checking out the site initially.

That said, although you may not have noticed my posts in other forums besides this one, it seems to me that the format is the same in all of them.

Is there some particular forum in which the format is different than in this one?

If so, I haven't found it yet.

And, as I said above, I'm sure I'll get used to the format, but it does take some time to get used to a less user-friendly format than one is used to. Is that controversial somehow?

Or were you trying to make some other point that is not readily apparent in your post?

It seems almost as though you were agreeing with me that this isn't the most user-friendly format, but your post just wasn't very clear.

[dailykoff]

24. It look like the U.S. Steel building

also known as One Liberty Plaza, which is 743 feet high, about half the height of WTC 2.

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=115454

The Millenium Hilton up the block has a similar shape but is only 588 feet high.

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/LM064.htm

How would that affect anything petgoat said?

[dailykoff]

25. p.s. if it IS the Millenium, the top is leaning south.

The photo would have to be taken from somewhere east of the hotel, looking west, which means the top is leaning south as petgoat said, right?

[Make7]

26. It's the Millennium Hotel.

First, a bigger version of the picture Petgoat posted:



Next, a picture from about the same perspective, but with a wider angle, taken earlier that day:



And last, a picture of the Millenium Hotel from www.nyc-architecture.com:



- Make7

[Duer 157099]

108. I will agree with you

about the format of DU being difficult. It took me a long time to get used to it, and even now there are aspects I don't like and that make me lose the continuity of the discussion (like in this thread! I didn't even notice that there were more posts since last I posted here). I will now have to read through the entire thread to follow who is saying what, and which photos are showing what, and who thinks this or that building leaned or fell in this or that direction (help!!) lol

OK, not that this will be helpful, but at this point, my opinion is that WTC2 leaned east (towards WTC4, whatever that is). Am I wrong?

Also, I don't know which photo you refer to that petgoat posted.... :-)

[Christophera]

40. Top Of WTC 2 Hit WTC 3 (image)

Here is the top of WTC 2 about to hit WTC 3 to the west.



The tops and bodies of the towers fell the wrong way. Here is an explanation.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

[SidDithers]

6. The top 30 stories did fall as one big chunk...

but not onto the buildings below. It fell into the remaining floors of WTC2. The top 30 floors were the "crushing weight" which brought down the rest of the building.

At least that's much more plausible than "they turned to dust in midair"

Sid

[Duer 157099]

7. Can you prove this? Or is it circular reasoning?

So it "must" have crushed the building below because the building below was crushed?

It looks to me as though the top 30 stories are falling over, and I'd like some actual proof that they didn't, that's all.

[Random_Australian]

8. If they fell off, it should be perhaps not difficult to find 30

stories of WTC on the surrounding areas. I'm not bieng sarcastic here; does anyone have a photo of 30 stories of WTC, where it is in a clear position that indicates it fell over rather than down?

Or am I missing something? Is it supposed to fall only slightly to one side?
Can this not be confirmed?

[Duer 157099]

11. Well I doubt the whole chunk would have survived the fall intact

But my point was that the main weight would have been removed from the center of the building and thus eliminated the bulk of crushing force.

Does anyone know what is immediately below and adjacent to that face of the WTC2? Was it the hotel that shows a huge gash in it's middle before WTC1 came down?

[Make7]

9. Watch the first video from each of the following pages....

... and come to your own conclusion.

  http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem5

  http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem10

- Make7

[Duer 157099]

10. Nice. That first video shows very well what I'm talking about

When I have more time, I'll post some stills from it that show what I'm talking about, but if you watch it, keep an eye on the left upper corner of the frame and watch for (through the dust/smoke cloud) the straight edge that continues toppling over.

Is that what you meant to show when you linked? I can't read Danish so I'm not sure what the site is saying.

[KJF]

12. I don't really know what to conclude from that...

... at least as far as the amount of the weight of the upper sections that didn't fall on to the lower sections.

Assuming the weight of one wall represented about 2% of a floor's weight (one sixteenth of the steel, which was one third of a floor's weight), then I don't think it should make much difference to the dynamic load placed on the lower floors, although this depends how much of the various flooring systems went with it.

Regarding the first one:
The row of trusses buckling across the north face appears to be in the mid 80s - 84 and 85? - which shouldn't really be be the collapse initiation floors, so why are they buckling?

For some reason, while the top of the east wall goes east, the bottom section of the east wall (around floor 79 or 80?) that breaks free goes west. I have no idea why this is so - regardless of why the building fell.

Fire shoots from the north face (floor 79, about 11 columns from the right-hand edge). If this means anything, I haven't figured it out yet.

I really doubt the "spire" means anything.

[petgoat]

13. Welcome to DU, KJF!

The dislocation of the bottom of the tilting top is startling, isn't it?

What do you make of this picture from Dr. Jones's paper?



http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Does that look like blobs of molten steel on the ends of the core columns?

[dailykoff]

15. KJF is our old friend Kevin Fenton

as he explains here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=77983&mesg_id=80759

:)

[KJF]

17. It's me, Kevin

Well, it's certainly consistent with thermite, but it's hardly proof of it.

Generally, I don't go a bundle on thermite (or dust, or seismic spikes). As far as I can tell, the reason that thermite is proposed is the heat of the debris in the photographs (images?) taken some time after the collapse. The argument is something like this: "It must be thermite, what else could it be?" which is not my favourite way of argument. IMHO, it's sufficient to point out it was explosive demolition, without actually specifying the type of explosives used.

To explain: my harddisk crashed, taking my password with it, the password recovery thing at DU didn't work and I was seized by an urgent desire to post on the White Mitsubishi thread, so I've got a new name now.

[canetoad]

18. Two pics

http://www.pbase.com/peteburke73/september_11&page=2
Second row, right is described as 'WTC 2 falling on the Marriot. (magazine photo, photographer unknown)'

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/biggart21.htm
The second has a poignant story as it was the last picture taken by Bill Biggart before being killed in the collapse of WTC 2. It supposedly shows the damage sustained by the Marriott from the top of tower 2. His camera gear was recovered with his body and images on the flash card survived.

[Jazz2006]

28. If those are accurate, then it appears that

there was massive damage to the west (the Marriott is WTC3, isn't it?), and that WTC2 did not fall "into its own footprint" as is so often stated.

(the first link wouldn't work for me)

[canetoad]

31. What was left of it did.

After the top toppled off. Without the floors at and above the damaged section, what was there to precipitate a floor by floor collapse?

Don't you think that negates the pancake conspiracy theory?

[Jazz2006]

32. I don't see anything that supports the suggestion that ....

the top 30 floors toppled off to the west independently and without impacting the remaining 80 floors or anything that supports the suggestion that the building "fell into its own footprint".

Thus, your question is predicated on a strawman.

If you have something that supports your presumption, and something that takes your question out of strawman territory, please provide it and I will be pleased to consider it and give it all of the attention that it deserves. I'm willing to be convinced but nobody seems to be able to provide a shred of credible evidence to support the "gubmint done it" theories that are so prevalent here.

(emphasis on the word "credible")

[Jazz2006]

57. As best I can tell from the various photos and videos,

it appears to me that the top 30 or so floors of WTC2 did not "topple off" completely independently of the other 80 floors. Rather, it appears to me that after the collapse began and progressed downward (pancaking as it went), eventually a certain chunk (although I cannot tell how many storeys, I think it is probably part of the 30 or so top storeys) landed on the Marriott (WTC3).

[mirandapriestly]

30. The Marriott picture looks like mostly the aluminum cladding..nt

[Jazz2006]

33. ???? A massive amount of the building is entirely GONE, crushed...

destroyed... what on earth are you talking about "aluminum cladding"?

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/biggart21.htm

[mirandapriestly]

34. Okay, if you think the top third fell on the Marriott

then answer Canetoad's question. HE asked you one.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[philb]

46. What hit WTC6?

[Jazz2006]

52. As near as I can tell,

debris of WTC1.

[Jazz2006]

58. I thought I'd responded to his query

with my #32 but reading his post and mine again, I suppose I could have answered it differently. So, I have with my #57.

[file83]

53. Is that person falling in that Marriot photo? Check it out:

Look in the circled portion in the lower right part of this photo. Is that a person falling? Looks like it.

[Jazz2006]

59. It could be.

It's hard to make out, obviously, and that dark cylindrical bit seems incongruous if that's a person beneath it. But eerie, if it is. (shudder)

[greyl]

66. Why is that important?

Is there any possible reason besides morbid curiosity that we should care?
In any case, I don't think that's a person.



Furthermore, whatever it is clearly isn't pulverized.

[file83]

75. I just noticed it - lighten up. You ridicule me for pointing it out...

...but then turn right around and ZOOM IN on it and give an opinion on it yourself.

:freak: And I'm the morbid one? Pfft.

If you are trying to be a jerk, you're on the right path.:thumbsup:

[greyl]

76. Why is that important? nt

[file83]

78. Who says it has to be important, wise guy?

[greyl]

80. You're the one that suggested we check it out.

Given that, I think it's probable that you say it has importance.
I only asked why it was important.
If you don't think it's important, don't reply to this message.

[file83]

82. It was a message to 'canetoad' - not YOU. If you didn't like it then

leave it alone. I mean, WTF is your damned problem man? Did I piss you off or something? You've been ALL OVER MY ASS tonight for the stupidest things.

In that other thread you ask me why I didn't post a transcript, I tell you to get it yourself, then you say you already had it.

Right here I post a question to 'canetoad', you chime in accusing me of being "morbid" but it's YOU that posts a super ZOOMED in version of the dead guy.

I mean, are you fucking bored, or what? I must have pissed you off and made you feel foolish somewhere because I've never seen anyone stalk me like you've been doing today.

So, I guess what I'm saying to you is leave me alone. I hate putting people on my ignore list but I'll do it unless you F-off like, right now. Your aggressive behavior in conjunction with completely pointless arguments is completely wasting BOTH of our time.

[greyl]

83. I think you're having an issue with reality.

I never asked you why you didn't post a transcript.
And as I said, I don't think that's "a dead guy", as you so sensitively phrased it.

Regarding your accusation of stalking, I've been checking "My DU" for replies and giving them all due respect.
Sorry.

[canetoad]

107. It certainly looks like it

More so from a distance than close up.

Makes me ask where this person came from. If the top of WTC toppled it's quite conceivable this poor soul was still somewhere in the upper floors. Does not seem likely he came from the building being hit by the debris.

If this is so, would it not indicate that more than just the facing fell on the Marriott?

[mirandapriestly]

29. This site has good footage of the "topple"

http://www.nmia.com/~bobpace/911ud2_3.htm

hmm, I can't get those videos to work, but the stills are OK. Here is a vid of tower 2
http://dumped-archives.ath.cx/911/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Debunking911]

38. Impossible to fall any other way...

The stress on the pivot point was massive. What amounts to a 30 story office building built like an erector set was pivoting on a row of columns held inplace by bolts. The building twisted out of shape like a wire basket and those bolts were stressed beyond what they could support.

You have to remember this building is NOT a concrete reinforced building like the ones shown by Rev./professor Jim Jones. (And he knows it) Not in the core or perimeter. The only reinforcment was in the the floors.

What caused the pivot? The sagging trusses. An event which proves the building fell without explosives.





http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/2001-0911_WTC/2002-1029_NYTimes-DataTrove/2002-1029_NYTimes-DataTrove.htm

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/sag.htm

[architect359]

39. These are good links! Thanks!

It is interesting to see that the floor deck above the main damaged area was already sagging due to what I suppose were missing (presumed destroyed) support trusses. With this bit of photo info, I even more amazed that the building stood for as long as it did on what little gravity columns that were left. Yikes!

[Debunking911]

41. It sagged over time...

Actually, the sag wasn't there just after impact. The trusses sagged due to the fire, then cooled and contracted pulling in the perimeter columns SLOWLY. This was over about a 30 minute time frame. There is evidence that a helicopter pilot said he saw the sag and thought it might collapse.

[KJF]

49. Little gravity columns?

About 85% of both towers' gravity load-bearing capacity remained after the impact, how is that "little"?

[Debunking911]

54. The impact wasn't the major cause of collapse

The impact didn't have as much to do with the collapse as the fire and subsequent columns being pulled in. Once that juggernaut tilted putting it's load on just one face of the building nothing was going to stop it. The rest was bolts and spandrels rips which would have been nothing for the massive building above.

World Trade Center structural joint
Description: This damaged structural bracket from the World Trade Center was recovered from the debris pile.

Context: This viscoelastic damper connected a floor truss to an exterior steel column of the World Trade Center. Building movement caused by wind was a major concern to the architects and engineers designing the 110-story towers. They cleverly mitigated apparent building movement by using these dampers to allow the exterior of the building to sway slightly under wind load, while the floor remained largely stationary.

The damper and other floor attachment brackets were also a point of failure leading to the towers' collapse. When the intense fire heated the 60 foot-long floor trusses, they eventually distorted and pulled free of their attachments to the exterior columns. As the upper floors of the towers fell, the weight then “pancaked” the lower floors, breaking floor truss attachments unaffected by heat. Each of these huge towers collapsed in about ten seconds.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=34
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=105

There was 240 5/8" BOLTS 120 TRUSS SEATS 120 GUSSET PLATES 120 ViscoElastic pieces


There were another set of 136 5/8" BOLTS, 68 TRUSS SEATS that connected the Trusses to the Core Columns


The building was the mother of all erector sets. It was taken literally apart at the seams.

[dailykoff]

62. But the columns held up the building

and there's absolutely no way a web truss could "pull in" a core or perimeter column which incidentally were connected by beams.

NONE.

But you can flog whatever inane hoo-ha you like.

[KJF]

64. Let's get this straight...

... you're admitting that 85% of the building's load-bearing capacity remained after the impacts, but claiming they were destroyed by office fires lasting 56 and 102 minutes?

[dailykoff]

84. 85% on the crash floors, 100% below.

Or so we're supposed to believe.

[petgoat]

43. How did saggy floors pull the core columns out of shape?

The 47 14" x 36" core columns were extensively cross-braced, and thus made up a truss 80 feet across.

Even assuming that the saggy floors could buckle the perimeter columns as your picture shows,
the unsagging floors above and below would prevent (or localize) the buckling.

How come that picture of the hanging floors attributed to Mark Stetler has not been released before?

Have you ever driven across the desert and seen how heat waves make the road appear to be all wavery?
How does NIST discount the possibility that their photos are distorted by hot air rising along the
radiator walls of the towers?

And what justifies your statement that the top could not have fallen off when that was clearly what
it was trying to do?

[dailykoff]

44. Very good questions.

The idea that the floors had anything to do with causing the collapses is about as ridiculous as it gets.

[petgoat]

45. "floors had anything to do with causing the collapses"

Well I found the zipper/pancake theory plausible and accepted that uncritically until
WTC7 started nagging at me. Then I did some internet work and when I saw the pictures of
the squibs I assumed that was somebody's photoshopped idea of a sick joke.

Thinking about it, I realized that the zipper theory made no sense because it required that
the perimeter truss "clips" be so flimsy that they unzipped, but it required that the core
clips be so gosh-darned strong that pancaking floors took the core columns down with them.

It's interesting to me that none of the engineers who presumably found the zipper/pancake
theory plausible for its three years of life have bothered to come forward to defend it.

[Debunking911]

56. Many things came together to cause collapse...

The proof it pancaked was the core standing well after the building fell. What happened to the foors if it didn't pancake?





And how did the columns lay themselves out like this if it didn't "Unzip" from the seams?

[Jazz2006]

60. Debunking911...

Is that your site at geocities of the same name?

If so, well done. Kudos to you.

[petgoat]

68. how did the columns lay themselves out like this

Thermate. Your second picture just might show the blobs of molten metal on the ends
of the falling core columns.

[Christophera]

47. Do You Have Images Of Core Columns Further Up In Demo Photos?

Posted by petgoat

The 47 14" x 36" core columns were extensively cross-braced, and thus made up a truss 80 feet across.

I can't let you spread that FEMA's lie without saying something.

Here are pictures that would show the steel core columns FEMA says were in the core, but no core columns are seen.

Below WTC 2's concrete core.



Here is the spire which is maade from interior box columns that ringed the outside of the core wall.



Below is rebar from the concrete core a second after the image above. The size of the interior box columns show that the vertical elements below are much to small for anything but rebar.





The towers had steel reinforced concrete cores.

http://concretecore.741.com/

[Debunking911]

55. The fact is the columns bowed...

In every photo and in every video you can see the columns pulling in over time. The NIST wouldn't be able to control all the photographic evidence since it was the most photographed event possibly in history.

The photos are taken from the NIST final report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf

And what justifies your statement that the top could not have fallen off when that was clearly what
it was trying to do?

1) because even though it tried to it didn't

2) For the reasons I gave. The building could NOT pivot on just a set of columns on ONE face. Not a single civil engineer in the world has said it could.

You may understand better when you read Bazant's paper which passed peer review on the subject. He is a well known civil engineer. Look at fig. 4

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

[rman]

50. That's the NIST scenario, which is the opposite of the FEMA scenario,

which has it that the joints between the floors and the perimeter wall were so weak that the joints failed which caused the floors to fall (as opposed to pulling the perimeter walls inward).

There is no one conclusive official explanation at to how the collapse of the towers took place. We've even got non-offical sources coming up with all kinds of alternative explanations of the supposed 'natural' collapse of the towers.

[petgoat]

51. Gee, it's too bad they destroyed the steel, huh? Then we could

know what happened. Every piece had a stamped ID number on it.

[Jazz2006]

61. I've read that here quite often ...

that the steel has been destroyed, but I have also seen here links to photos of steel samples and links to details of the tests conducted on said steel, as well as links to some museum type site that includes steel from the WTC site.

So, I'm a bit confused by repeated assertions that "they destroyed the steel".

Is it not the case that there are still many, many pieces of steel from the site which have been preserved?

[greyl]

65. They destroyed all the hard evidence that proves your hypothesis?

Is that what you're saying?
Do you believe they removed all evidence of explosives?

If your beliefs are correct, there would still be trace evidence in New York City.
Just a couple of weeks ago, more human remains were found.
Let me know where the Scholars for 911 Truth are gathering evidence for explosives in New York City, and I'll drive there tomorrow to help.

[petgoat]

67. They destroyed all the evidence that proves THEIR OWN

hypothesis.

NIST has not one core steel sample showing heating above 250 degrees C.

They destroyed the evidence that would have showed what happened. Why?

[greyl]

69. They're covering up evidence of their incompetence and oppurtunistic

profit making and power grabbing.

Where are the Scholars for 911 Truth gathering to collect evidence of explosives?
Do they just live on the internet, or are they putting their sweat where their keyboard is?

[petgoat]

70. "They're covering up evidence of their incompetence and oppurtunistic

profit making and power grabbing."

By destroying the steel? How?

I've been saying all along it's entirely possible that al Qaeda blew up the buildings,
and the official investigators are covering up to save Marvin Bush's security company
embarrassment.

[greyl]

71. Dr. Van Romero says, after he thinks about it,:

"Fires brought the buildings down, not explosives."

Destroying the steel isn't a cover-up. It would only be a cover-up if the actual steel held crucial evidence that implicated the bush admin. As I asked before, where are The Scholars for 911 Truth gathering their evidence of explosives?
As far as I can tell, they aren't.

You know how people that believe in astrology shy away from scientific tests of their claims?
Similar.

[petgoat]

72. "Destroying the steel isn't a cover-up."

Huh? Is this the Big Lie or what?

Next you'll be telling us that destroying JFK's brain and skull would not be a coverup.

It would only be a cover-up if the actual steel held crucial evidence

The steel that held crucial evidence has been destroyed.

where are The Scholars for 911 Truth gathering their evidence of explosives?

I guess they're gathering it in the fact of the molten metal in the basements, in the
testimony of eyewitnesses, and in the grave doubts that the fires burned hot enough to
weaken the steel.


You didn't answer the question. You changed the subject to Van Romero's shifting
opinions on whether fire brought the tower down, which is of little value because
Van Romero is an explosives and demolitions expert, not a fire expert.

[greyl]

73. If your hypothesis is correct, the evidence is still in New York City.

That's at least the third time you've heard that and haven't responded.

[petgoat]

74. Huh? nt

[greyl]

77. If your hypothesis is correct, the evidence is still in New York City. nt

[petgoat]

85. I suppose you're asserting that explosive residue should be

on the dust. If you would simply state your case, we wouldn't have to clutter the
thread with unproductive posts.

The suggestion seems to come from debunkers rather than explosives experts;
I have no idea whether this is practical or not. Thermate would leave no residue
AFAIK.

[file83]

79. I agree with you - that's a big "HUH?"

greyl doesn't seem to make much sense - I'm constantly having to correct his own misunderstandings and babysit this guy. It's getting tiring :boring:

[greyl]

81. For a babysitter, you sure don't provide

much.

[Debunking911]

92. You want to hear it from a fire expert?

"Yes, it was the terrorist pilots who slammed two jetliners into the Twin Towers. It was the ensuing fire, however, that brought the towers down. Make no mistake about it: This high-rise collapse was no "fluke." The temperatures experienced and heat release rates achieved at the World Trade Center could be seen in future high-rise fires."

Francis L. Brannigan, SFPE
Glenn P. Corbett, PE
Deputy Chief (Ret.) Vincent Dunn, FDNY

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=130026

[Debunking911]

91. True

The evidence connecting Bush is non existent. They don't even have a memo! Nothing, thousands of people would have had to be involved and yet not one person came out saying Bush did anything but sit on intel without doing anything. That's the real conspiracy. The coverup of his inept administration. The coverup of his misleading us into war. I fear this conspiracy theory will get conflated by the real and MUCH smaller PNAC conspiracy to invade Iraq. This is Tucker Carlson's dream.

[petgoat]

100. "thousands of people would have had to be involved"

Debunk, pray tell: How many thousands and what would they be doing?

I can't wait to hear this.

[Debunking911]

90. The steel was sold for MILLIONS

The scrap yards made millions on the sale. There is no older motive than greed for selling the steel.

But they didn't need every column anyway. They had enough evidence to draw a conclusion.

Even the fireman (Manning) linked to another fireman who said point blank it was the terrorist and the fires that brought down the towers.

[petgoat]

94. "They had enough evidence"

They have not ONE core steel column showing heating above 250 degrees C.

Your statements of belief are not evidence.

[Debunking911]

89. They have excuses for everything

I have asked some of them why haven't the structural engineers come out for Jones paper if it's so Obvious? There replay was something like they doubt any structural engineers read it. So in all this time they haven't sent this to any? Even on the internet??? Scholars for 911 excuses I think...

[petgoat]

95. Debunk have you ever had obligations to other people?

Like your family? Creditors? A boss? People who recommended you to your position?
People who are willing to be photographed with you? People who send and receive email
or phone calls from you?

If you had, I don't think you would ask such a question.

[Debunking911]

88. That's a myth, the NIST had nothing to do with it.

Metal Management Northeast, Newark, N.J., sold about 500 tons of steel from the twin towers to International Agile Manufacturing, Statesboro, Ga., to make commemorative medallions honoring those lost in the terrorist attacks. But the idea is not sitting well with victims' families, who contend that the steel still must be investigated to determine how the towers collapsed. Many families also have seen this as a way for the company to make a profit off of their loss.

http://www.wasteage.com/news/waste_tons_world_trade/index.html

Pataki also sold steel to build the USS New York.

The amount of people who would have to be in on this is staggering! Yet no one whistle-blows???

[petgoat]

96. I didn't say NIST destroyed the steel. I said "they" (the

conspiratorial "they") did it. Specifically, Rudy Giuliani, a politically ambitious former federal
prosecutor who knew the importance of not tampering with evidence, decided to expend some of his
political capital as "America's Mayor" to defy the family members and the rioting firemen who objected
to the desecration of remains--and "Fire Engineering" magazine which objected to the destruction of
important building safety evidence--and set the somewhat whimsical goal of having the WTC site cleaned
before he left office 12-21-01.

[Jazz2006]

97. I asked this above but I'll ask again...

I have read here several times that the steel has been destroyed, but I have also seen here links to photos of steel samples and links to details of the tests conducted on said steel, as well as links to some museum type site that includes steel from the WTC site.

So, I'm a bit confused by repeated assertions that "they destroyed the steel".

Is it not the case that there are still many, many pieces of steel from the site which have been preserved?

[petgoat]

99. Put it this way: If your wife died mysteriously, and "they"

cremated her remains before you could see them, and they handed you a bag of fingernail
clippings and a lock of her hair and a q-tip swab of her ear canal, wouldn't you say
"they destroyed her body?"

There was 90,000 tons of steel in each tower. Almost all of it was destroyed. Since what
remains as samples does not prove NIST's case or ASCE's, one is forced to conclude that
the relevant pieces were destroyed.

[Jazz2006]

101. Well, that's an emotive but not particularly responsive

response and not a particularly apt analogy.

I will assume, therefore, that your answer to the question asked is "yes".

[petgoat]

102. It is exactly an apt analogy. NIST has fewer than 300 pieces

of steel. Look it up yourself. They have no pieces of core steel
showing heating above 250 degrees C.

The "museum" piece I bet is this:



To my knowledge the hanger at JFK where this is stored has been made available
only to a few people. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth have petitioned to be
given access to this sample, and for other suppressed evidence.

You can sign the petition here:
http://www.st911.org/

[Jazz2006]

103. No, it wasn't an apt analogy at all to say

"If your wife died mysteriously and "they" cremated her remains before you could see them, and they handed you a bag of fingernail
clippings and a lock of her hair and a q-tip swab of her ear canal, wouldn't you say
"they destroyed her body?" "

It was merely a strawman you set up in order to pretend to take it apart.

It seems, therefore, that the answer to the question actually asked remains "yes".

[petgoat]

105. If you don't like the analogy, try pointing out its weaknesses

and proposing changes or a new analogy.

Suppose somebody took a sledgehammer to your car for twenty antic minutes.
You say "They destroyed my car!" Somebody says "No they didn't. This headlight
lens is undamaged. And look, the floormats are still good!"

The fact that _some_ few steel samples were taken does not change the fact that
they destroyed the steel when the samples that were taken do not tell us what happened
and the samples that were destroyed would have.

[Jazz2006]

113. Yet another inapt analogy and yet another strawman.

This time with the added bonus of a subsequent sentence that presupposes facts not in evidence and conclusions unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

Lovely.

I'm not going to give you a lesson on analogies, as that would be time consuming and pointless. Instead, to stay on topic, here are a few questions for you.

How many samples would you have liked them to keep?

Is there some basis upon which you believe that they did not take a representational sample with the hundreds of pieces that they tested?

What makes you think that the pieces not tested would show different results than the pieces tested?

[petgoat]

114. Right, so you're not going to give me a lesson on analogies

but you, the God of analogies, can't explain why mine are poor but only
label them so.

How many samples would you have liked them to keep?

As I would like a murdered corpse preserved until the autopsy is done, I would
have liked them to keep ALL OF THE STEEL until they could investigate the
mechanism of the collapse.

Is there some basis upon which you believe that they did not take a
representational sample with the hundreds of pieces that they tested?

Representational of all the steel is beside the point. What's wanted is
the steel that shows what happened. We want a look at JFK's skull and his
brain. We don't want him ground into hamburger and then 3% sampled.

What makes you think that the pieces not tested would show different
results than the pieces tested?

That's just the point. I have no reason to think that the untested pieces would
show heating above 250 degrees C. But since the untested pieces were destroyed,
NIST can always claim "Oh we don't have the pieces that were weakened by fire.
Oops. Well trust us, they were."

[Jazz2006]

104. And, about the museum,

no, that particular piece you posted a photo of is not what I was talking about.

As I said above, I have seen links here on DU to some kind of museum that is apparently now home to a bunch of September 11/01 bits and pieces, including pieces of the steel from the towers, among many other things.

I haven't figured out the search functionality here yet, so I am only going by memory but I know that they were linked here.

[Debunking911]

87. The federal government didn't destroy the steel

The federal government didn't destroy the steel. The scrap yards bid on it from a local government agency. The feds or NIST had nothing to do with it. Unless you want to include them on this incredibly massive conspiracy...

In fact the Mayor of NY publicly wanted to stop the sale.

But the NIST didn't need every piece to come to a scientific conclusion. They recreated the environment using contrlled experiments which ANY scientific body can duplicate.

[petgoat]

98. I didn't say they did.

NIST didn't need every piece to come to a scientific conclusion.

I didn't say they did. What they did need was the pieces involved in the building failure.
Since every piece was stamped with an ID number, it should have been easy to recover the
pieces of interest (unless one is going to indulge the "core-blast-furnace-vaporized-the-core-
columns" fantasy--which should have left some evidence in the form of partially-vaporized
samples.)

{NIST} recreated the environment using contrlled experiments which ANY scientific body can duplicate.

Any IDIOT can heat up steel to 700 degrees C with a 3.4 MW spray burner like NIST did.
Demonstrating any connection between such an experiment and what happened at the WTC seems
to be beyond the skills of idiots and NIST.

[Debunking911]

106. They did much more than you imply...

NIST also burned regular office furniture in a pile as would have been the case with the debris piled in corners. It reached over 1,100 C. They also blew the fire proofing off and found fire proofing removed in photos.

What possible good would the 50th floor steel done to the investigation? Once the building started to fall and over whelmed the 75th floor it stands to reason the effect would only get worse as the floor wieght accumulated.

Make no mistake, the concern at the time was FEMA's investigation into the blown on fire proofing and other safety measures and not making sure the building wasn't blown up. Not one person who wanted an NIST investigation wanted to see if the building was blown up. They did look into the possibility though.





http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm

http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/040119.asp

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf

[petgoat]

110. "Not one person... wanted to see if the building was blown up"

That's just the point. Lots of people wanted an investigation on whether the building
was blown up. NIST was not given the mandate to do so. The only investigation on that
issue has been by unofficial parties who are hampered by an inability to access the evidence
they need--for instance, the blueprints (which remain secret), the 6900 photos and 7000
videos NIST has not released. The NIST and FEMA/ASCE studies were also hampered by the lack
of site access and the destruction of the steel.

Given the many reports of explosions on the TV news of 9/11 and the many eyewitness accounts
of explosions, which stories were widely circulating in NYC even if the transcripts were
suppressed, it is only reasonable that an investigation into the possibility of explosive
demolition be made. But it has not--except by independent and unofficial bodies.

[Debunking911]

86. FEMA was preliminary and the NIST final is the conclusion

FEMA was preliminary and the NIST final is the conclusion report. That's a straw man. The FEMA report was a preliminary which came out quickly and before the evidence was inspected. And yes, just like Katrina, FEMA was inept. That's why congress had the NIST step in. That doesn't mean the NIST final report is wrong.

There were 4 reports over time. Those reports were more to let people know the direction the report was going. From possible collapse scenarios to probable collapse scenarios.

[petgoat]

93. From possible collapse scenarios to probable

From impossible collapse scenarios to plausible ones.

If you assume that the photos show buckling and not just the refractive distortions
of heat.

If you assume that collapse initiation = total progressive collapse.

If you assume (with no physical evidence to corroborate) the temperatures you need to
heat the steel sufficiently to weaken it.

If you tweak the parameters of your computer models sufficiently to get the results you want.

How come nobody defended the original zipper dogma? It was that bad? And yet nobody but
us tinfoil hatters said so?

[Debunking911]

109. How do you explain this...

If you assume that the photos show buckling and not just the refractive distortions
of heat.

If you assume that the photos show buckling and not just the refractive distortions
of heat.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m."

http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20040619.html

Even the helicopter pilot saw the inward bowing without a video.

You would have to believe that EVERY photo camera and EVERY video camera had the SAME refractive distortions in the SAME side of the building. This is just impossible.

If you assume that collapse initiation = total progressive collapse.

Your assuming a few hundred bolts and seams would stop a 30 story building from falling. There are NO professional civil engineers who question the total collapse. Not even from professor Jones's own university. None in the whole world! Not even from other countries that hate us..

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/civil.htm

If you assume (with no physical evidence to corroborate) the temperatures you need to
heat the steel sufficiently to weaken it.

You would only need to recreate the environment as the NIST and others in other countries did to see there was enough heat. Anyone (With money) can prove them wrong by recreating the test and finding a different result. They have recreated the tests yet haven't found differing results.

If you tweak the parameters of your computer models sufficiently to get the results you want.

But anyone can recreate the computer model and prove they were wrong. This also hasn't happened.

How come nobody defended the original zipper dogma? It was that bad? And yet nobody but
us tinfoil hatters said so?

This is a logical fallacy. As an example, just because we find out we aren't ancestors of lemurs doesn't mean we didn't evolve. Just because FEMA's initial hypothesis was pancaking caused the collapse doesn't mean the building didn't collapse by fire. All it means is that the NIST did their job by examining the evidence carefully. In fact this is evidence they DIDN'T lie. Why wouldn't they create a lie around the pancaking? Why invite the criticisms you bring by inventing a new method into the mix? It doesn't make sense...

But the fact is both happened. The bowing of the columns created the initial collapse and it progressed like a zipper down the building. One has nothing to do with the other. The NIST isn't saying the columns buckled all the way down.

[petgoat]

111. How to explain

Chopper pilots would have seen the same heat-induced distortions as all other witnesses.
I don't have to believe that all the cameras had the same distortions--which was after all,
not a function of the camera but of the behavior of light in hot air.

Your assuming a few hundred bolts and seams would stop a 30 story building from falling.

They held it up before the fires and nobody has proven they wouldn't hold it up after the fires.

There are NO professional civil engineers who question the total collapse.

See post 95. To shoot one's mouth off and challenge an official investigation (especially
when lacking the information) would be highly unprofessional. For those affiliated with an
institution, it would bring unwanted controversy and financial risk to the institution.
Those who work alone would be viewed as lunatic publicity seekers.

In fact most structural engineers were surprised when the towers collapsed.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html

Re: heat test.

Yes, NIST used a 3.4 MW burner to heat trusses to 700 degrees. Any idiot can do it,
using the heat of 500 wood stoves in a space of a living room. There's no evidence that
the real trusses got that hot, that the columns were buckled, or that partial floor collapses
would have resulted in total building collapse.

anyone can recreate the computer model

I don't think so.

Finally, you misread my statement in order to label it a logical fallacy. And you clearly
don't understand what "zipper theory" means. My point was not an attempt to say that "since
the story has changed, therefore they lie." My point was that the complacent lack of controversy
about both the zipper theory and its overthrow by the NIST theory indicates that few people
are willing to express an opinion on this extremely important subject.

[Debunking911]

112. Does this look like a heat distortion?

Does this look like a heat distortion?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=WTC&pl=true

Funny how the building gets rapidly sucked in (Columns pulled in) at the same place you say was "heat distortion"...

You CAN'T get the same distortion only on one face and in one area while the others are left pristine. Your grabbing for straws because you know this proves normal collapse.

This video also proves that there was NO explosion on the floors which were pulled in. Not even the smoke moves outward as if an explosive was set off. You only begin to see debris out the window when the pancaking begins.

You'd have to believe both buildings just HAPPEN to fall toward the distortion. As Randi Rhodes would say "Yeah, I believe that, I'm there!"...

They held it up before the fires and nobody has proven they wouldn't hold it up after the fires.

You're wrong. Many papers which passed peer review explained how and why the towers fell just by fire after an airliner impact. You statement doesn't take into account the airliner which hit the building at over 500 miles an hour. If you would have said "They held it up before after another airliner hit the building at 500 miles an hour"

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/links.htm

See post 95. To shoot ones mouth off and challenge an official investigation (especially
when lacking the information) would be highly unprofessional. For those affiliated with an
institution, it would bring unwanted controversy and financial risk to the institution.
Those who work alone would be viewed as lunatic publicity seekers.

I see your familiar with the standard scholars for 911 excuse propaganda. But it doesn't explain why no civil and structural engineers in the WORLD have come out exposing what you claim is so obvious to the naked eye. Not even countries which hate us.

It also doesn't explain why civil engineers have come out AGAINST Controlled Demolition...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/civil.htm

This goes beyond just keeping quite. They took an active roll in debunking this. The standard scholar for 911 excuse doesn't fit the facts.

Yes, NIST used a 3.4 MW burner to heat trusses to 700 degrees. Any idiot can do it, using the heat of 500 wood stoves in a space of a living room. There's no evidence that
the real trusses got that hot, that the columns were buckled, or that partial floor collapses
would have resulted in total building collapse.

You are wrong on many levels.

There IS evidence the trusses got that hot

Science doesn't work the way the conspiracy sites would like you to believe. You don't need the gene which mutated a beneficial trait for evolution to be fact. We only have to recreate an environment which is similar to the one it mutated in and watch what happens. The same thing with the towers.

1) They tested the room with normal office furniture which reached temperatures which cause sagging trusses

2) they recreated the temperature reached by the fire with the furnace.

That's nothing conspiratorial. It's called a scientific "Controlled Experiment". To disprove it all someone has to do is recreate an office of their own and set it on fire to see how hot it would get.

There is more than enough photographic evidence the columns bowed and buckled

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/sag.htm

That you want to say it's heat distortion without any evidence to support it doesn't mean it's heat distortion.

There is more than enough evidence the buckle would have caused the building to tilt and a progressive collapse would occur.

The papers I liked to have more than enough evidence to back that up. You don't have a single paper which passed peer review by a civil engineering journal anywhere in the world suggesting otherwise.

Finally, you misread my statement in order to label it a logical fallacy. And you clearly
don't understand what "zipper theory" means. My point was not an attempt to say that "since
the story has changed, therefore they lie." My point was that the complacent lack of controversy
about both the zipper theory and its overthrow by the NIST theory indicates that few people
are willing to express an opinion on this extremely important subject.

The logical fallacy then is that a lack of controversy equals fear. The logical fallacy is that something you feel may be controversial because a web site said so doesn't make it controversial. (I've seen the web sites giving this theory. You're not telling me anything new) There were a number of reports documenting the progress of the investigation starting with the preliminary report. Had you read the report you would know this. I have. There were 4 reports. The last gave the most probable scenario. You were NEVER supposed to take the first as gospel. That is the conspiracy theory straw man. The so called "Story" was supposed to change. That's how science works. They start out with a preliminary hypothesis then test it see if it can stand scrutiny. If it can't they develop a new hypothesis with the new evidence they uncover along the way. So again, how can that possibly be controversial? Something isn't controversial because you don't understand how it works...

[petgoat]

115. Yes.

Funny how the building gets rapidly sucked in (Columns pulled in) at the same
place you say was "heat distortion"...

How can you tell a building rapidly sucked in from refractive distortion because
of heat? You are assuming what you claim to prove!

You CAN'T get the same distortion only on one face and in one area while the
others are left pristine.

You certainly can. The distortion is where the hot air is venting. If windows are
broken in one area and not in another, you get differential distortion. If the
fires are nearer or hotter in one area than another, or if air currents run one
way and not another, you get differential distortion.

You statement doesn't take into account the airliner which hit the building at
over 500 miles an hour.

According to Dr. Eagar, the affect of the impact was "like a bullet hitting a tree".
After the plane strikes the period of oscillatoion of the buildings was the same as
before the plane strikes.

Many papers which passed peer review explained how and why the towers fell just by fire

Then try citing some instead of linking to an index page on a badly-researched website.

There IS evidence the trusses got that hot

Oh gee. Thanks for clearing that up. You needn't bother to provide it, I'll just take
your stellar word for it. :sarcasm


they recreated the temperature reached by the fire with the furnace.

There you go again, assumimg that because the "furnace" reached that temperature therefore
the WTC must have reached it--though there is absolutely no evidence that it did.


There is more than enough photographic evidence the columns bowed and buckled

Photo evidence is no good because of heat distortion of the light. Got any steel samples
that show the buckling? It should have been easy to find them--every piece of steel was
stamped with an ID number.