9/11

[kuzadd]

actually riverwind, your arguments consist of looking at random 'anomolies' .

You infact use the random anomolies of the 3 towers collapsing as proof that buildings fall naturally into their own footprint.

Riverwind:

Buildings will naturally collapse into their footprint unless there is some large force pushes them

That is your theory, which you then back up with the anomolies of the trade towers collapsing.

reitieration which you ignored:

As Bcat said to you if this is correct, you should be able to back that up with more , if that is the norm, as you are claiming, yet I notice you didn't.

Is it because there have been numerous fires in big steel structured buildings, inc the WTC #1 previously, that burned for longer and they didn't collapse???

That would be why, wouldn't it riverwind?

So you have fun with your random anomolies!

oh and btw:

The generally accepted explaination for what happened on 9/11 is cohesive and coherent (i.e. terrorists hijacked 4 planes and slammed them into buildings).

sorry, it isn't.

You simply BELIEVE it is because an authority figure told you so.

In fact that is your entire arguement, bow to authority.

The official story is infact riddled with so many anomolies, itself, it cannot be considered coherent.

But then you accept anomolies as the norms?!

whatever floats your boat!

[buffycat]

Personally I'll wait to see Riverwind use her table analogy again!!

That was truly a good laugh!

[Riverwind]

Is it because there have been numerous fires in big steel structured buildings, inc the WTC #1 previously, that burned for longer and they didn't collapse???

I just explained that but you ignored it probably because you realize it renders all of your arguments meaningless.

Engineers have understood for years that normal hydrocarbon fires can cause severe structural damage and even collapses in steel frame buildings because the strength of steel drops rapidly when exposed to heat. For this reason all buildings require that insulation be applied to steel structural components to protect them in the case of a fire. This is why most buildings will not collapse when a fire occurs. However, if something damages the fire protection systems (i.e. a 767 crashing into the building) then the building is at risk. That is what happened to the WTC towers. The plane impact knocked the insulation off the structural steel elements in many places which exposed them to the heat of the fires.

IOW - you could provide 1000 examples of fires in buildings with no structural damage and that would not support your argument. You could even provide examples of buildings that have experience structural damage and fires but did not collapse and that would not support your argument because a collapse does not always occur.

Fortunately, people who actually understand how buildings are built have looked at the WTC collapses and buildings will be designed with more robust fire protection systems in the future. For example, the steel supports for the new freedom tower will be encased in concrete.

You simply BELIEVE it is because an authority figure told you so.

In fact that is your entire arguement, bow to authority.

My argument is based on looking at the evidence and deciding what the most plausible explanation is. You don't really have an argument and you have no plausible explaination. You accuse the US government of murdering 3000 of its own citizens but you have no evidence that this acutually occurred. In fact, you don't even have a plausible explaination for why the govenment would bother with such an elaborate and deadly hoax when there were other means at their disposal.

You are truly deluded if you think your random inconsistencies mean something.

[kuzadd]

You are truly deluded if you think your random inconsistencies mean something.

Yes, I agree, you are truly deluded, as you promote random inconsistencies as the norm, and you still have not grasped that.

"Engineers" have understood what for years?

'normal hydrocarbon fires can cause severe structural damage'

another bow to authority! To support your theory

what is the approx. temp of a normal hydrocarbon fire?

what is the temp, unprotected structural steel will burn at?

HOW LONG would a normal hydrocarbon fire have to burn to cause SEVERE structural damage to structural steel?? 45 minutes to an hour???

Tell me about the applied fireproofing in wtc?

what was it?

how was it applied?

How is that type of fireproofing removed?

Were upgrades done to the fireproofing in wtc 1 & 2 to deal with the asbestos problem?

Tell me about that, please?

I am very interested in what you know.

Oh and BTW, it;s only fair to tell you, I have a spouse who has been in construction for over 20 years.

I have a copy of wtc 1 blueprints and loads of research, documented, I have done on my own, and with my spouse, over the past 5 yrs.

So please do tell me riverwind about the construction of the towers, hydrocarbon fires, and structural steel, and the fireproofing.

You should have got that already, and it was that much easier to spot your complete lack of knowledge.

Would you now like to bow to my authority?!

[Riverwind]

HOW LONG would a normal hydrocarbon fire have to burn to cause SEVERE structural damage to structural steel?? 45 minutes to an hour???

That would depend on any number of variables. However, I see that you have admitted your error and acknowledged that heat + time = structural damage to steel buildings.

Oh and BTW, it;s only fair to tell you, I have a spouse who has been in construction for over 20 years. I have a copy of wtc 1 blueprints and loads of research, documented, I have done on my own, and with my spouse, over the past 5 yrs.

It is unlikely that you or your spouse have access to the computer models and the data necessary to draw any definitive conclusions about what should or should not have happened to the WTC towers. Even if you did have computer simulations to back up your claim you could never be 100% certain in your conclusions because the simulations would require a lot of assumptions and educated guesses. Yet you claim that you are 100% certain that the towers could not have collapsed from the structural damage and fires. That makes any claim of 'expertise' to be extremely suspect.

So please do tell me riverwind about the construction of the towers, hydrocarbon fires, and structural steel, and the fireproofing.

I already did. Hydrocarbon fires weaken steel - that is a fact. Steel buildings always install fire proofing on steel components that could be exposed to fire because of this. If this fire proofing is damaged then structural damage can occur. This is another fact. If structural damage can occur then a collapse is possible. If a collapse is possible then the widely accepted explaination is plausible.

That is why the onus is on you to provide proof of any alternate explaination. It is not enough to say point to minor inconsistencies that show the NIST explaination is not complete.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Riverwind

[kuzadd]

That would depend on any number of variables. However, I see that you have admitted your error and acknowledged that heat + time = structural damage to steel buildings.

No riverwind, I am waiting for you to demonstrate your knowledge or obvious lack theoreof.

heat plus time can equal damage.

I NEVER DENIED THAT.

How much heat?

How much time?

what is the approx. temp of a normal hydrocarbon fire?

what is the temp, unprotected structural steel will burn at?

HOW LONG would a normal hydrocarbon fire have to burn to cause SEVERE structural damage to structural steel?? 45 minutes to an hour???

Tell me about the applied fireproofing in wtc?

what was it?

how was it applied?

How is that type of fireproofing removed?

Were upgrades done to the fireproofing in wtc 1 & 2 to deal with the asbestos problem?

Buildings will naturally collapse into their footprint unless there is some large force pushes them sideways like an earthquake.

I am waiting for this theory of your to be explained and also other questions to be answered.

wrt: any research I and my spouse have done along with access to info and blueprints.

What it demonstrates and enables me to demonstrate, and makes quite clear, to me, is you have none of that type of knowledge.

Hence your convoluted statetments wrt alleged lack of redundancy in the construction, lateral load, wind force on the buildings, your table arguements and more.

Edited August 24, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

Personally I'll wait to see Riverwind use her table analogy again!!

That was truly a good laugh!

That truly was!

[AngusThermopyle]

For this reason all buildings require that insulation be applied to steel structural components to protect them in the case of a fire.

My my! You do make a lot of false statements and present them as facts don't you? all steel buildings do not require fire proof insulation on the structural components. Show me the code where they state this a requirement please. It's certainly not in the copy I have sitting on my desk here.

Our company specializes in steel buildings, it's what we do. Thats one reason we've been offered the job on the rings for the Olympics. we've also built a reputation as the guys who will take on the unusual and difficult jobs. We have so far never been required to install insulation on any columns, purlins or girts in any of the buildings we've put up. Neither have we to strip it from any we've assisted in bringing down.

As for the question posed by another poster the answer is yes. Location is crucial, not only location but the composition of the earth where the building will be erected. For instance solid bedrock will affect both how the piles are built and also the size and depth of the piles. In softer earth or shale one would use a greater diameter belled pile as opposed to a straight shaft pile.

The grade beam can also affect the strength of a building. A shallow smaller grade beam will not give near as much structural integrity as a deeper wider grade beam.

Riverwind, I never realized your knowledge of construction and engineering was so extensive. It possitively humbles me when I realize you are equipped with all these irrefutable facts that I've never heard of before. I'm going to have to contact all my fellow cronies and set them straight on the mistakes they've been making all these years. It'll suck to have to go back and install fireproofing on all those steel buildings though. Gonna have to get the codes changed as well.

[psikeyhackr]

Our company specializes in steel buildings, it's what we do. Thats one reason we've been offered the job on the rings for the Olympics. we've also built a reputation as the guys who will take on the unusual and difficult jobs. We have so far never been required to install insulation on any columns, purlins or girts in any of the buildings we've put up. Neither have we to strip it from any we've assisted in bringing down.

So do you have any comment on analyzing what happened to WTC 1 & 2 without mentioning the tons of steel and concrete on each level of the building?

psik

[M.Dancer]

This thread bears an uncanny resemblance to the undead. It longs to die. Please have mercy and let it.

[AngusThermopyle]

As I stated earlier, I just don't have enough solid info to offer a definitive analysis of the event. What I can say though is that the collapse looked very much like a controlled demolition. If you watch the footage they didn't so much collapse as impload. What astounds me is that structures of this size could naturally collapse and cause so little collateral damage.

Of course it could all be just as the official explanation claims. It just seems more than a little odd to me that these buildings were so easy to bring down. Especially the fact that they both came down in such a similar fashion, that seems pretty coincidental to me.

Also strange is the fact that these are the only major steel structured buildings to ever be brought down by fire. The Empire State Building survived an almost identical incident and was not in any danger of collapsing. Keep in mind that the Empire State Building is far older than any of the WTC buildings. It all seems to be very odd given the information available.

[bush_cheney2004]

Also strange is the fact that these are the only major steel structured buildings to ever be brought down by fire. The Empire State Building survived an almost identical incident and was not in any danger of collapsing. Keep in mind that the Empire State Building is far older than any of the WTC buildings. It all seems to be very odd given the information available.

Not so strange....a slower B-25 Mitchell bomber weighs much less than a fully fueled Boeing 767-200, and the Empire State Building was a traditional box-girder design, unlike the open span designed WTCs. The Empire State Building still suffered considerable damage.

[Riverwind]

My my! You do make a lot of false statements and present them as facts don't you? all steel buildings do not require fire proof insulation on the structural components. Show me the code where they state this a requirement please. It's certainly not in the copy I have sitting on my desk here.

I looked it up before - it is on the UL or the ASME site. The NIST report also makes numerous references to the insulation used in the WTC towers. There is another reference that I read that explained how the fire safety codes are being upgraded as a result of the knowledge gained by the WTC collapses.

Frankly, you are being deliberately obtuse obtuse. You should know perfectly well that fire insulation necessary to protect critical steel components from fire and that if this protection is damaged then a building is ask risk. If you felt that my statement needed some qualifications then you could have added them. Instead, you try to pretend that my statement is completely false even though you know it to be basically true.

BTW - The people who specialize in developing these fire safety codes do not dispute the findings of the NIST report. Are you accusing these people of deliberately making false recommendations because the evil Bushies have threatened to kill them?

The last point is the reason why I have so little patience for 9/11 deniers. If there was any technical substance to the claims that the US government deliberately murdered 3000 of its own citizens then there would a long list of respected structural engineers and architects from around the world lining up to expose the crime. The total silence from the respected academic community tells me there is no substance to the claims.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Riverwind

[AngusThermopyle]

Frankly, you are being deliberately obtuse obtuse. You should know perfectly well that fire insulation necessary to protect critical steel components from fire and that if this protection is damaged then a building is ask risk.

Can I ask you two questions?

How much steel have you worked with?

How many buildings have you put up?

I do believe that I've asked you this before and you haven't answered yet.

We work with pretty big steel. We move it, we lift it, we cut it, we join it. Nothing on the scale of the WTC, but big steel none the less. When you work with steel on a daily basis you come to understand it and what it can do. Do you realize the amount of heat required to cut or melt a structural component?

In some of our buildings we have flanged HSS (I-Beams) that measure 40'x 60" x 30" and weigh around 9 tons. Thats a big piece of steel but it's not the biggest the Columns are obviously far bigger. We do not treat any of them with flame retardent material. I will repeat. We do not treat any of them with flame retardent material. Is that un-obfuscated enough for you?

We put up multi million dollar buildings, I'm pretty sure that someone around the place would have noticed by now if we had to treat our structural components with fire retardent material. Don't ya think?

[kimmy]

Steel has high thermal conductivity and shows a significant loss in strength at temperatures exceeding 1000°F. It is, therefore, usually protected from fire by an insulating layer of another material.

...

The fire endurance of steel in a structural assembly depends primarily on the thermal protection provided by other materials interposed between the steel and the fire exposure. Some light materials such as plaster and wallboard are effective as thermal protection. Stronger materials such as concrete or masonry may also contribute to the load-carrying capacity of the assembly, thus extending in some cases the fire endurance. The new Supplement No. 2 shows minimum thickness of a number of materials that may be used as protective cover of steelwork for varying degrees of fire endurance. The protection may be in the form of encasement of individual members or of a membrane applied to the face of a group of members as in light frame construction.

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/cbd/cbd071_e.html

Canadian Building Digest article discussing 1965 revisions to National Building Code of Canada.

-k

[AngusThermopyle]

The last point is the reason why I have so little patience for 9/11 deniers. If there was any technical substance to the claims that the US government deliberately murdered 3000 of its own citizens then there would a long list of respected structural engineers and architects from around the world lining up to expose the crime. The total silence from the respected academic community tells me there is no substance to the claims.

Actually there is a long list from what i gather. There's only one problem. The professional people who have spoken publicly about this have basically committed career and social suicide. The ones from other countries have been ridiculed and overwhelmed by a barrage of "expert" witnesses from the U.S.

Now look what you've done.

I told you I didn't want to give an uninformed opinion because I didn't and never would have all the facts. All I did was point out that your assumptions about the way all buildings collapse was false. Actually, not just false but contrary to the physical laws of the Universe we accept to be true and live by. Your next glaringly false statement was that all steel buildings have to have fire retardent applied to the main structural components.In order to see thats false you don't even have to go to the codes. Just go take a look at any large industrial building. I bet all you'll see is steel, painted of course, but no fire retardent coating, unless you count paint as a fire retardent coating.

Of course if you go to some apartment complex or public building you wont see the structural members. Thats why I say you should go see a commercial building, the biggest you can find. A steel framed building is a steel framed building. They're all built the same way. The laws of Physics don't vary from building to building.

[kimmy]

Oh and BTW, it;s only fair to tell you, I have a spouse who has been in construction for over 20 years.

Framing? Drywalling? Mud and tape guy? Inquiring minds want to know.

-k

[AngusThermopyle]

Framing? Drywalling? Mud and tape guy? Inquiring minds want to know.

I can tell your husband works in construction.

All our framing is steel. There is a distinction between commercial and residential buildings. Most residential buildings use wood as a structural component, commercial buildings in the most part use steel. I say "in the most part" because there are certain exemptions. We do advertise ourselves as offering "turn key" buildings though. That means we will take the building from ground up, thats why we need guys who can work steel and also do the finishing work.

Kimmy, if your old man is good at what he does do you think he might like a new job?

[kimmy]

You're Mr Kuzadd?

My special guy isn't in construction, actually. I am, somewhat, during my day job.

-k

[AngusThermopyle]

Sorry, I mixed you up with Kuzzad.

However from what you've both said I can surmise that you both have more than a passing familiarity with the industry.

I'm not Mr. anything right now but if you know some good looking women just send them right over. Pronto.

[Riverwind]

Actually there is a long list from what i gather.

There are a lot of truthies who claim to have some science or engineering training but when you look at their credentials you will find this training has nothing to do with structual or civil engineering. I pushed our resident denier (PolyNewbie) to provide examples of people with actual experience in structural engineering and the best he could provide was a single quote from a German professor of structural engineering that said he thought that there was a 'high probability' that WTC7 was demolished. This professor did not explain his reasons nor did he say anything about WTC1&2.

The argument that no one speaks up because it is 'career suicide' is non-argument because it cannot be falsified. The world wide acdemic community is very large and there are plenty of qualified people who are protected by tenure and/or not dependent on the US government for funding. If there was a credible scientific case to be made then someone, somewhere would have made it and other academics would not be able to dispute the science. It does not make sense that the entire worldwide academic community would remain silent on the murder of 3000 people by the US government if there was a scientific case to be made.

Your next glaringly false statement was that all steel buildings have to have fire retardent applied to the main structural components.In order to see thats false you don't even have to go to the codes. Just go take a look at any large industrial building. I bet all you'll see is steel, painted of course, but no fire retardent coating, unless you count paint as a fire retardent coating.

I said 'Steel buildings always install fire proofing on steel components that could be exposed to fire because of this.' IOW - I realize that some buildings will not apply the coating to steel if that steel is protected in other ways (i.e. drywall or sprinkler systems). You could have acknowledged that my claim that fire steel components must be protected from fire is true but that protection is not always provided with spray on insulation. You choose to claim instead that my statement was completely false. Edited August 25, 2007 by Riverwind

[kuzadd]

Framing? Drywalling? Mud and tape guy? Inquiring minds want to know.

-k

why do you choose those construction trades when there are so many more Kimmy?

or are you simply not aware of that?

Or did you pick those as the trades of ridicule??

(your usual tool)

Don't forget, I am privy to construction talk.

So am quite aware of 'shop talk' wrt specific trades.

Edited August 25, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

Sorry, I mixed you up with Kuzzad.

However from what you've both said I can surmise that you both have more than a passing familiarity with the industry.

I'm not Mr. anything right now but if you know some good looking women just send them right over. Pronto.

AngusTh:

My hubby is fully employed, as he is one of the best workers in the area we live in.

He is a Journeyman sheet metal worker

He has been in this trade for 20+ yrs now.

Job Description:

Sheet metal workers lay out, fabricate, assemble, weld, install and service: ducting, spouting fittings, cabinets, gutters, copings, flashings, supporting devices, and integral equipment associated with the blowpipe, air pollution, heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, roofing, restaurant, kitchen and hospital equipment fields. They are familiar with the properties of metal and operate specialized metalworking machines. To make products of the desired dimensions and properties, they must read and interpret blueprints or specifications. Note: Architectural and Manufacturing sheet metal workers attend Levels 1 and 2 of the Sheet Metal Worker program. Completion of entry-level training programs (ELTT) may confer credit towards some of the required technical training.

Though he does not work entirely in lighter gauge metals.

Their company will engage in work that leans more towards Iron work, or even Pipefitting if necessary.

He will not only fabricate, he will as necessary alter engineer designs, or even design necessary components for installation. He works directly with engineers in numerous industrial settings.

So yes, I have more then a passing familiarity with the construction trades, but on an industrial level, as opposed to residential.

oh as for good looking single women! Sorry can't help you with that

Edited August 25, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

wrt Riverwind:

Riverwind has sat on this thread for a long, long time, telling other posters they are idiots, and don't know what they are talking about.

The sad truth is Riverwind, doesn't know what she/he is talking about at all.

The errors, the untruths, the complete falsities Riverwind has spouted on here, should have been damning enough to , have this poster cease from these claims, I am afraid the ego is bigger then the pool of knowledge.

While I make no claim to be an expert, at all, when it comes to knowledge in the matters of construction, metal, blueprints, etc., the knowledge and further access to information I have is way, over and above riverwinds, false assertations!

[GostHacked]

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/cbd/cbd071_e.html

Canadian Building Digest article discussing 1965 revisions to National Building Code of Canada.

-k

Kimmy, how does this, affect any building codes in the UNITED STATES?? So we can completely ignore this post. You all remember the huge ass fire in the WTC in 1973, 4 floors engulfed in flames. Then they made the recomendation to install fire proofing material and OMG A SPRINKLER SYSTEM !!!....

The arguments here are starting to fall apart. One claims that no fire alone can collapse a building. Possible. One claims that they fall on their own foot print .. also possible.

Steel does not need to melt to start collapse, it just needs to be weakened by the fire. Claiming the fire was not hot enough to melt the beams is a dead end line of thinking. It weakens it, but HOW much it was weakened is now the real crux of anyone of your arguments. So any poster here, must now take that into account in their arguments.

When some of you wanted a theory, I gave it... but then asshatery went on back to the collapse itself. I gave a pretext for why they were 'demolished' .... but no one really wanted to comment on that further...

Here is what I said ....

Like what ? You don't think what I say about the banks is true ?

It's not that at all really. To me after about a year and a bit of looking into all of this and the bigger picture in which 9/11 was just a small part of. You can talk about the thermodynamicalphysics of the buildings all you want, but if you are not looking at the bigger picture and subdue the ADD tendancies for a moment it may help you with understanding the grand scheme of things.

MY PROBLEM with Polynewbie and his like is they rehash the bombs thing over and over but not give any real context to the possible of 'why' there were bombs in the building. Look Polynewbie, I agree with you, but if youi want to get people to understand the WHY of it all, you need to move onto the bigger picture of it all.

I will say the bankers along with elements of the government that all have large ties to main stream media (bear with me here) have something to do with it. WTC was a 'gold mine' if you will, of financial institutions (banks, investor groups, ect), government offices, well I will let this site speak for itself on the tenants of WTC.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_World_Trade_Center_tenants follow the links for the other buildings. Now I know wikipedia is now considered as sketchy as for it's accuracy but this simplifies the search, and well, I guess there is no secret of who was tennants. Even the Secret Service had some offices there.

Strategicaly that place would be a #1 hotspot for a possible terror attack. But not from the point of view most are used to. If it was true terrorism, would you not think that maybe a bridge, or mall or something against a civilian place? Something in the water system? Airborne contaminate. Messing with the food supply something along that nature. A work office seems possible for a terror attack.

So let's begin shall we?

Years ago back in the 80's there was some scandals involving some really big companies. Something was done in the government to break up large monopolistic companies and tried to create a more competative market for everyone buy giving more people a small chunk of the pie. Some of those bankers would have lost out big time. (The military industrial complex fits into this as well, for some defence contractors would need investors in order to create new military hardware and applications, investors mean large banking/financial institutions)..... So now with bankers having a smaller chunk of the pie they would also have less say in said company they are a shareholder of. Many hands in the pot tends to not be good for business in that sense. ......... So fine, it was done, large companies were chopped up. Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr. Sept 11 2001, happens. ....... I suspect some shady deals were done here and there, and it end up creating a smaller band of people with something more in mind, they conspired together to influence the government by supporting Democrats as well as Republicans (Bankers know that they need to diversify their portfolio if they want to have the best turn around)

You can also put a good bet on those bankers having a good say in what goes on in the think tanks they decide to invest in. Think Tanks only exist to act as lobbyists for the coporations that the bankers control anyways.

I would hope that the tenants of the World Trade Center complex would have offsite and even possible off continent servers to store critical information. Anyone in IT understands that. If not many records would have been lost. Any wrong doings would have basicly been erased. Private, public and government records could have simply vanished. Not only that knowledge stored in some brains are permanently gone as well. Knowledge that could have shown the bankers involvement.

I need to mention the attack on the Pentagon here now too. Bankers would have a lot of pull in the Pentagon, since the position of Secretary of Defence is a civilian not military position. I would guess there are many civilains holding imporant positions in the Pentagon. Military Industrial Complex. Money has been pouring into the Pentagon for upgrades and improvements.

Fast forward to today.

Have you seen corporations today? They are getting monopolistic again. Not only that, the bankers have gotten away with basiclay hijacking the economy of the United States on that fatefull day. They have the most to gain from this than anyone. With that control of money you can control government on any scale. That includes policies regarding how corporations function, the environment, and even foriegn policy. They also can control what information gets to you, the person sitting in that chair reading this right now. They can control the news outlets to say what they want to say. Take a look at the news that is delivered to you these days. Notice that the names of reporters are going away to be replaced by 'some news source entity' always by some annonymous source.

Government spending is out of control now as well. Guess who's cash is being spent or let's say reinvested into the private corporations in junction with an ever growing accelerating military industrial complex. Who is making the money off the war?

In a way this shows to me that the Iraq War is proof that 9/11 was an inside job.

But then again, some guy in a freaking cave and a walking stick managed to bribe some dudes, gave them BOX CUTTERS and managed to hijack planes and struck at the financial heart core of the United States..... all because they simply hate us?

This is my view on the 'why' of 9/11. And go ahead and shoot holes in it. It is just a theory, so do not take it as a fact of what happened. That is something many of you do, and I won't tolerate it for my post.

Anyways, how about my theory?

I am no longer interested in HOW it happened, but more on now why it happened.