Re: NBC: My pet subject



Okay, since you have responded to 30 of my posts, I'm going to try and answer all your questions in this one.

D.F. Manno wrote:

In article <a--dnbGqwICDwKjZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@xxxxxxx>,
Evolution <myname@xxxxxxx> wrote:


D.F. Manno wrote:


Now you're grasping at straws. Palmer was in the A stairway, across the building from Leavey in the B stairway.

Can you give me any evidence that the fires were a raging inferno?


Can you give me any evidence that I ever said they were?

You claim that the fires were hot enough to have damaged the steel to the point where it collapsed.



There are other firefighter transmissions out there, including some I've heard saying the fires were nearly out.

FDNY declared the WTC fires extinguished on December 20, 2001, _three months_ after the attacks. So the fires were NOT "nearly out."

And you think that a building falling down, explosives or not, wouldn't start new fires? Actually, that the fires were still burning 3 months later points more to explosives and the intense heat they would have caused.


This doesn't make any sense whatsoever.


Look up the fire-science term "flashover." You might learn something.

I don't see the relevance here. Are you saying that flashover was responsible for the witnessed explosions on the other floors?


You cited witnesses who said they saw flashes. What they might have seen were flashovers.

Perhaps... would it explain the sounds of explosions?


What's your source for firefighters reporting explosions?

Here's one, there are firefighter tapes played in the Loose Change video, with firefighters reporting to their dispatcher that they heard explosions. At this source, there is a CBS News audio file which reports a conversation with the Chief of Safety of the NY Firefighters... need more?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html




Maybe so, but it doesn't explain how the 47 core columns failed. Surely you aren't suggesting that a fire could have blown apart those columns? With intense heat, they might have weakened and bent, but to fall *down* vertically, they would have had to have sections blown out. This is what I want explained.


No, this is what you want explained so that it fits your preconceived notions. People have answered this, repeatedly, but you ignore it and just repeat the question, because it's not the answer you want.

No, no one has answered it. You've simply said that the core "came down".

>
> In the WTC towers, the core pillars were NOT holding up the building. The
> perimeter columns--i.e., the outer walls--were the load-bearing elements.
>

You are mistaken that the core pillars don't carry any weight. The outer pillars are weight bearing to an extent and replace the columns normally in the middle of the office space. From here:
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

"The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures."

So the main gravitational support of the building IS the core; the outer pillars help support the floors and brace from the wind.

Please walk me through the collapse. Let's take the first 4 floors below the impact. There are segments of the core pillars, 47 of them, running through these 4 floors (I'm guessing about how many floors each section runs through, but looking at the construction picture, it's my best guess). The first floor beams and the core pillars weaken from the fire. Do you think the most likely place for the steel to fail is where the pillar sections are attached to the ones above them, or where the beams are attached to the pillars? This gives us 2 scenarios.

Scenario 1 - The beams break loose from where they are attached to both the inner pillars and the outer, causing the floor and beams to fall. If so, what pressure is being put on the core pillars and from which direction? The 47 vertical pillars in the core, which are attached to the segment above, the segment below and to each other and the beams. What pressure could cause them to "collapse" and what exactly does collapse mean? If the beams and floor detached from the pillars, wouldn't the pillars stay as they were?

Scenario 2 - The beams don't break loose from the inner pillars. So the floor falls and the beams with it, and they pull on the inner pillars. But since the floor beams are attached from all directions and being pulled from all directions, what would happen to the pillars? Would they bend? If so, in what direction? Would they fold? Would they break? Remember, the first floor has fallen so there are now 2 floors about 2/3 the way down the pillar sections. Would they break apart from the pillar sections above and bend over? In what direction? All different directions? Would they wait until all 4 floors have fallen and then simply lay down in any direction having somehow been pulled apart from the sections above?

Maybe there is another scenario, but you get the drift. Please walk me through it so I can understand, instead of just saying the core
"failed".

But all of this is irrelevant anyway. If you look at the video of the north tower collapsing, with the antenna on top being supported by the core pillars, you can see that the antenna starts going down FIRST, followed by the top of the building. This means that the core pillars went down FIRST, and pulled the floors down with them. There is no way to explain the core pillars going straight down, without something shearing them off at some point or perhaps one section falling sideways, so that the vertical pillars above had somewhere to go down.


>
> And you know this how, exactly? A lot of the firefighters who could tell you
> whether or not they were concerned are dead.
>
The firefighter who reached the 78th floor where the plane hit said 2 engines could do the job. There are other transmissions talking about the elevators and how only one was working, and they were using it to get firefighters up and injured people down. If the core were in danger of collapsing, would they have poured 200 firefighters in there?

Firefighters will not go into a collapsing building, even to rescue people.

>>three, the plane hit the south tower at an angle making it impossible
>>for it to hit the core
>
>
> See above re: the core.

You said the core could have been breached by the plane hitting it. In the south tower, that certainly didn't happen.
>
>
>>and four, no plane hit building 7, yet it still collapsed.
>
>
> No, chunks of the North Tower did. We told you that. You're ignoring it.

The building which was between the North Tower and building 7 was far more damaged than building 7. It didn't fall down.

>>Explain the
>>melted steel in the wreckage or how 47 steel vertical pillars can
>>collapse without tipping over? Let's start there.
>
>
> OK, let's.
>
> First, what's your source for the melted steel in the basement? And please, none
> of the conspiracy Web sites. Something from the mainstream media, or from a
> university whose faculty is not required to profess a specific faith. Someplace
> respectable.

Will you accept Wikipedia?

* This claim is meant to point out that steel could only have smoldered as a result of pre-placed explosives. A handful of individuals working in and around the debris field utilized phrases containing the words “molten metal” or “molten steel” to describe the devastation. Physicist Steven E. Jones has pointed out that these molten metal observations cannot be known to be steel without a metallurgical analysis being done. The following are some of the more common statements seen:
o Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y described "literally molten steel" at the WTC.
o The observation of [49] molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers in a second hand account by James Williams who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."

* Sarah Atlas of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, one of the first on the scene said "Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins" (Penn Arts and Sciences, Summer 2002). Similarly, Dr. Allison Geyh, a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins, recalled in the late fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel." [50]

>
> As for the second, I direct you to the dictionary:
>
> col-lapse v.
> --intr.
> 1. To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in.
> 2. To break down suddenly in strength or health and thereby cease to function.
> 3. To fold compactly.
> --tr.
> 1. To cause to fold, break down, or fall down or inward.
>
> I have no idea what you're thinking--that the pillars are like bowling pins,
> maybe--but that's not the way they work. Especially not in the WTC towers, where
> the _walls_ bore much of the weight of the floors.

How could the core pillars fall down or inward when they ran through several floors? If 47 pillars 40 feet long suddenly lay down to the side, wouldn't they take the floors attached to them to the side with them? Yet the building fell straight down.


>>If you can show me that steel *melted* at Meridian Bank, or show me
>>proof that a fire can reach those temperatures, I'll accept your answer.
>
>
> I did, but since it didn't fit with your theories, you ignored it.
>
> Repeating, from the official report on the fire: "Fire-resistance rated
> construction features, particularly floor-ceiling assemblies and shaft
> enclosures (including stair shafts), failed when exposed to continuous fire of
> unusual intensity and duration. ... Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some
> as much as three feet -- under severe fire exposures ..."
>
> Note the sentence: "Beams and girders SAGGED AND TWISTED..."

Sagging and twisting is different from melting... if the core pillars sagged and twisted, the building wouldn't have fallen straight down. The pillar sections were longer than one floor, remember?


>>It's not a straw man. There was, indeed, melted steel found at all
>>three buildings. Do you deny that?
>
>
> Cite?

See above.

>
>
>>Do you deny that it takes a temperature of 2800 F to melt steel?
>
>
> Irrelevant. The fire didn't have to get hot enough to _melt_ the steel, just hot
> enough to weaken it to the point it could no longer support the load it was
> bearing.

I was asking how the melted steel got there, as no fire could *melt* steel. So again, what could have caused the melted steel?

And to cause the vertical steel pillars to completely collapse, the heat would have had to been near melting temperatures. Not for the beams or the connections, but for the pillars to fold or bend completely flat, it would.

>
>
>>Do you deny that a fire in a building cannot reach such a temperature?
>
>
> Irrelevant. See above answer.
>
>
>>Why don't you answer these questions?
>
>
> I just did.

No, you avoided them by claiming melted steel wasn't an issue.

>
>>At any rate, the fuel from the plane either burned up in an initial
>>explosion or spread throughout the floor, and burned up within 15
>>minutes.
>
>
> What is your basis for this claim?

From Wikipedia:


"# In a letter [60] to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories (UL), wrote "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the [61] briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250 °C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure." UL is the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. Kevin Ryan was subsequently [62] fired from his job.

"# In The New Pearl Harbor, former theology and philosophy Professor David Ray Griffin argues on the fact that since WTC 2 collapsed first, when it appeared most of the jet fuel was ignited on impact outside the tower, makes the collapse questionable. Additionally, he argues the impact of the second aircraft was not as precise as the first, suggesting less fuel would have burned in the central support area."
>

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm

"So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

"Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.

""The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes" "

And in the south tower, the angle of the plane caused most of the fuel to explode outside the tower in a huge fireball. This building fell first. Less plane damage and less fire.


>
>>It is a fact that there were temperatures involved here which *could*
>>melt steel, hence the obvious conclusion that explosives were used.
>
>
> Sure, it's obvious--IF you start with your conclusion and work backwards,
> ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

What evidence have you provided that the temperatures were high enough to cause steel pillars to bend in only 52 minutes in the south tower, where most of the jetfuel had exploded outside?


Here are some more experts:

# Van Romero, Vice President for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, a major authority on explosions' effects on buildings, has said, "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." Romero has since [63] retracted his belief, later stating, "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." ("Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says", Albuquerque Journal, September, 2001).

# Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, expressed his doubt about the common account in the following statement: "I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility."


.