Do people still believe 911 wasnt a inside job?

autophobe,

First, I'd like to point out that when asked what it would take for you to say it was obviously a controlled demolition, you answered that you're not qualified to make such a judgment as to what criteria must be met. Then our converstation on that point is over.

Do tell about the core structures of the WTCs. You mentioned that they were a "tube in a tube" structure with a central core. Describe that central core for me if you will.

________________________________

This was in the Politics Forum. It really belongs here:

I wanted to comment on the WTC building collapse comments. Having worked in the construction industry my entire life, some of it dealing with explosives, I do have a little experience in this area.

Sky scrapers are built of steel and concrete. All the steel is encased in concrete, how much is determined by the building in question, and the loads it is designed to withstand.

Now, here is what I know from past experience and other retained knowledge:

A hit to one side of a building, if strong enough, will cause the building to collapse on the side it was hit on, unless the force is enough to push it over. Sort of like falling a tree, you make a wound big enough on one side and it will fall that way, even without a back cut, unless it has a lean the other direction, then it will fall that way, either way, it will fall towards, or away from, the wound, and not to either side of it, the same goes for a building. Either way, the building will fall to one side or the other, depending on the side the wound occurs on. The videos I have seen on the WTC buildings show them falling straight down. During controlled demolition, the supports of a building are knocked out with explosives, in a manner to cause them to fall straight down so as to minimize damage to surrounding structures. "IF" the videos I have seen are true, then those building were under a controlled demolition when they fell, I did not see a video of the number 7 building so can't say how it fell. You can see the little puffs of smoke of debris just before they fall. Also, if memory serves, they both fell pretty closely to each other, which is suspect as one probably would have stood longer since the damage would not have been the same to both building.

Steel melts at about 2500 degrees F. The maximum amount of heat generated from jet fuel burning in open air is 1000 degrees F, considerably less than what it would have taken to weaken or destroy the supports in a building, plus, the heat would have to be concentrated in one area.

So, long rambling shortened, according to what I have seen, and what I know from experience, the two tall WTC buildings came down under controlled demolition. I once knocked down an old concrete silo on a farm, it stood about 60 feet tall. Using a wrecking ball attached to a large excavator, I knocked holes in the bottom of it like falling a tree, once the hole became large enough, the silo fell just like a tree. I stayed to the side of the "cut", knowing that it probably would not fall that way. I think the WTC buildings would have fallen the same way, if they had been hit hard enough to cause a large wound. They were hit up high, so, if they did not fall over from the force of the blow, why did they collapse below the wound area?

 

Steel loses its structural strength around 600 degrees F. The jet fuel in question wasn't burning in open air. It was burning inside a building, which significantly raises the temperatures involved. (I teach fire behaviour in the local Fire Department).

(I fully realize that your post is not intended to seek the truth. It is about spin-doctoring and creating your own reality. However, some innocents out there might not realize that your posts are filled with lies unless someone points it out.)

 

the core structure of the WTC towers was, i thought, not a contentious issue between truthers and non-truthers. but here goes anyway; in order to give the building an open floor plan (quite an innovation at the time it was built) instead of a lattice structure, the WTC had a "tube in a tube" structure (a phrase actually coined by its designers) which comprises a central shaft housing the core columns, and the outer columns became part of the perimeter wall of the building. tube within a tube. the core and perimeter columns were attached by trusses. one goes: the other goes with it (or pretty fucking soon after) central column fails, building falls. the dual core system prevented the collapse for a while, but fire weakened the core structure. and caused floors to sag, bringing the perimeter columns in.

they were not made of fire resistant steel and had passive (spray-on) fire resistance on 'em, which got blown off in the impact (again according to NIST) moreover, theres a fair bit of evidence now that even before the impact, it was patchy at best . the core walls were not encased in concrete, as in a lot of other buildings.

i don't spend too much time reading these kinds of threads, but i'm still pretty familiar with the general refutations appropriate (aren't we all.) so in response to yon gentleman, here's the same stuff we've all heard before. again.

no-one claims that the impact of the planes brought the towers down, they claim that the fire did, nor does the hole that the plane made appear a big enough breach that the building would necessarily fall on that side as a result. besides which, a 60 foot concrete silo might not behave exactly the same as steel skyscraper. or a tree.

the temperature at which jet fuel burns would only be relevant if jet fuel were the only thing on fire. jet fuel was the primary catalyst (more than likely there were other catalysts as well, electrical fires etc) but it isn't correct to describe the fires in question as "fuel fires" any more than if i used a match and a deodorant can to burn down my house and described it as a "deodorant fire" NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F." but all this is irrelevant anyway since:

steel doesn't need to be at melting point (as in, the point at which it becomes a liquid) before it become unable to support a large building (otherwise, we would probably use a weaker material than steel to build them anyway, as in; "any solid") fire resistant steel becomes structurally unsound at around 500-650 (it loses 50% of its strength).


i just did waay too much googling for an unwinnable argument that doesn't particularly interest me, i should go do some work

 

Really?

Says who?

That is just more guess work with not one fact to back it up.

How was that possible when the fire extinguishers were working or did you forget to fact that into your equation?



Firemen confirmed by saying that there were only 2 small fires to be concerned with and ordered 2 hoses brought up.

Of course they hit the trigger before that order was filled.

Post your data and remember, facts talk bullshit walks.

 

Bulshit. Nice try.

 

Thanks, Zzap. You saved me the trouble of pointing out that very fact, and you saved autophobe the trouble of researching things fully. The firefighters you are referring to were even treating people in the rubble some seventy floors up. I would think that people on that floor would have been incinerated. But apparently not in the minds of official-liners.

 

Keith,

Perhaps you would like to describe for me the details of the core structures of those buildings. Did you know that the core structures were designed to support several times the weight it serves to support? Did you know that there were survivors in the area that you say was subjected to temperatures that would weaken steel? Do you imagine that will change anything in your mind about this issue of just how hot it was in that building? You are religious in your beliefs about this; no matter what, you have faith that the temperatures were hot enough to weaken steel, but not kill people, whom by the way had to wait for help. That just sorta flies in the face of reality, don't it?

(I fully realize that your post is not intended to seek the truth. It is about spin-doctoring and creating your own reality. However, some innocents out there might not realize that your posts are filled with lies unless someone points it out.)

 

Good we have an expert!

Now since you are an expert, and so am I, tell me how long it takes to heat 5" thick steel x say 20 inches wide to 600 degrees, which it just starts to weaken a teeneeee bit, forgetting the 5x redundancy of the building, with a "continuously fed" (since fuel burnes off really quick), diffuse flame burning directly "beside" a column on one side, keeping in mind these are box columns.

Well and just to add a little spice, how about you continue and tell us how long it takes to heat the other side to 600 degrees (that has no flame beside it) lets say with a 12 inch spacing and with 6" x 6" hand holes top and bottom so take into account the approximate losses due to convection too.... say 70 degrees ambient temperature.


<-- no pun intended....well maybe a little LOL

 

well you know how those "massive" "raging" "infernos" that melt steel are;



we can all see this woman is being fried alive from that massive raging inferno inside the building!

Oh and did you notice that little out of place box on the outside of that column? I have been wondering what that is too?

oh and while we are having so much fun, I wonder how that column that she is leaning on, why 1/2 of it is missing on the INSIDE?

then the one with that wierd box on it is wedge shaped?

maybe its just me, but when something smashes into a building is that what we would expect to happen to the columns?

these official people just have such a nitemare now days dont they?

 

She could be a witch; we don't know. I've heard things about witches.

 

Does she weight the same as a duck?

 

Grainy pictures. Well, now I'm sold.

 

yeh too bad they arent grainy enough to hide all that fraud huh! LOL

I guess the public koolaid censors forgot to fill that in. Major screw up!

 

No. If she weighed the same as a duck, she would have hovered just above the incinerating heat until it was safe to land again, which would make the official line more plausable, but no, she weighs probably a hundred and thirty pounds.

 

I am still waiting for you to explain what an open-air burn temperature of 1000 degrees has to do with anything.

 

Kieth did you miss this or are we all waiting?

 

Well I suppose if I am going to wait for some kind of reason, logic, or facts from you, it's going to be a long wait. After all, as you said in an earlier post, the truth is treason to you.

 

ok so let me make sure this is straight.

You are the fire expert who teaches and you think that the time it takes to heat a column to the point of weakening is not relevant?

Now how did you come to that conclusion?

 

Let me get this straight. You want me to defend an argument I didn't make, when you refuse to defend an argument you did make? I don't think so, buddy.

Why would I put any effort into it when you've already decided that all answers are wrong?

 

well you look pretty foolish when you stand on your soap box saying you are an expert and teach fire and are incapable of responding to such a simple question.

Of course then again if you actually understood how it works you wouldnt be talking the way you do. You would be talking the way I do.

So its not a matter of your defending an argument its a matter of you defending your standing and you have sufficiently proven you dont know. Your standing, or in this case lack of follows.

truthers 1
troughers 0