Fire Engineering magazine blasted FEMA's investigation of the WTC collapse

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: MadRat
rahvin,

Before the first collapse, why does the building next to the North Tower - building WT6 - suddenly go up in a giant plume BEFORE the tower falls? That has always bothered me, And then go look at the post-catastrophe images of WT6 - there is a gigantic hole down the middle of the whole building as if it exploded - and its largely just the outside frame left standing. Strange that a nick by the collapsing tower above makes the center of the building blow outward and up. We'll just ignore WT7, too, for arguments sake.

I don't know what you are talking about, I never saw a building go up in flames before the collapse but I wouldn't be supprised if one had, as flaming debris left both towers after the impact of the planes (and after falling 50 stories it would have hit other buildings with sufficient force to penetrate the structure). The collapse of WT5 was of much more importance (a much more substantial fire and severe heat deformation of the structural steel) as 6 took a substantial debris hit from tower one with debris pentrating to the basement and knocking the entire centre of the building out. There is an entire chapter devoted to 3,5 and 6 and a seperate chapter devoted to 7.

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
I would take the word of a firefighter whos sole job is working with fire over a snot nosed civil like you. Not saying I agree with this whole conspiracy thing, but stop spewing all this I know thermo and I'm the god of science and I'm better than everyone in this thread. You're a civil, you're barely an engineer yourself.

Newsflash: I didn't write the WTC report, a very experienced team of designers and forensics engineers did. But you did give me a pretty good laugh. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
If the firefighters want to look at the steel, why not let them? Maybe they finding something new, maybe they don't.

And what are they going to learn from it? What this is about is a bunch of firefighters that aren't getting the lime light for the investigation. They have their panties in a bunch because they didn't get to participate and they can't sell their FDNY shirts and hats along with their big press conferences saying they "analyized the steel" using their firefighter powers. Boo hoo, I feel so sorry for them. If they want to analyze the steel they can buy the scrap just like anyone else.

Originally posted by: Aelius
In other words you cannot answer a simple question.

You haven't asked a simple question that isn't answered in the report (or isn't the most obvious answer), and you would know that if you had bothered to read it. I do understand, the document, outside the executive summary, is highly techinical and those big words like kips, joules, truss and the framing diagrams confuse and confound you so you do the best thing you can do which is make comments about professional engineers getting their degrees from cerel boxes. I'm sure everyone who reads it thinks you are just the most incredibly intelligent person they have ever seen, no wait they don't.

Thanks for giving me a good laugh guys, I was smiling for a couple hours after reading your attempted insults.

You don't need an engineering degree to smell bullsh!t. That's why I asked a simple question. You couldn't, wouldn't provide it. Instead you continue to attempt to discredit and play it off.

Why don't you just answer the simple question asked. If the increadibly hot burning fuel melted the joints and other supports like bolts etc and turned them into effectively melted butter then how could people be standing in the middle of the crash within a few minutes? Did that melting metal and heat just move downward and had no similar heat effect on the people standing around in the wreckage or the supports/joints/bolts and other materials above the impact site?

I call bullsh!t.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Of course we will never know for sure either way. All we have is a bunch of fancy language and everything to disagree with it is attacked or destroyed. Those who question it are attacked, and the evidence is destroyed.

Same thing happened with some evidence (dry-cleaned clothing / washed car etc) in the JFK assassination and probably more famously the RFK assassination (ceiling tiles and doors riddled with bullets were quickly replaced and destroyed).

It's called a Black Ops. If there weren't any government involvement then it would have been totally blown open in both cases.

Again I call bullsh!t in both official stories in those cases as well. You can ignore everything else and just look at what was done with the evidence in all 3 cases and that alone is enough to prove that there's a conspiracy.

To those pricks that are about to call for the tin foil hats:

Legal definition of conspiracy:

"Conspiracy, in common usage, is the act of working in secret to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations.

As a legal term, conspiracy has historically been defined, in America, as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions. For example, planning to rob a bank in order to raise money for charity is still an illegal conspiracy. The conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret in order to meet the definition of the crime.

In United States v. Shabani (1994) the US Supreme Court ruled: "...U.S. Congress intended to adopt the common law definition of conspiracy, which does not make the doing of any act other than the act of conspiring a condition of liability..." This ruling indicates that conspiracy, without any further action, can be criminal. Note that a "conspiracy", as a legal term in the US, does not always require more than one person. There are, in many nations, explicit crimes of conspiracy to commit murder et cetera.

In California, a punishable conspiracy is an agreement between at least two people to commit a crime, while in addition at least one of them does some act to commit the crime. Each person is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of the crime itself. [1] (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/182-185.html) One example of this is The Han Twins Murder Conspiracy case, where one twin sister attempted to hire 2 youths to have her twin sister killed.

Operation Northwoods was long believed to be residing in the imagination of conspiracy theorists, however, the document was declassified in recent years by the Freedom of Information Act. The document was based on faking attacks on U.S. interests and citizens and to blame Cuba in order to justify a war with Cuba. "

Source with links to words/phrases: click me

 

[RabidMongoose]

Wow, Aelius out with his conspiracy theories again? Did you learn about this one on the History Channel, too?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Wow, Aelius out with his conspiracy theories again? Did you learn about this one on the History Channel, too?

Rabidskunk... *sniff sniff*... you stink.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Are your next door neighbors aliens, too?

 

[MadRat]

I wouldn't be so quick to call a conspiracy by the government. Quite frankly the whole thing may be coincidence, but we as citizens of this country are owed an exceptional investigation. I would like to know why a WTC 6 building completely removed from either tower blew up before either tower fell, and coincidently right before the WTC 1 building fell. Maybe debri bounced off the initial collision and fell back towards WTC 6, but I didn't see evidence of this from any crash film. It looked like the fallout was on the opposite side of the impact, not back out from the impact.

For all we know Al Queda did an inside job.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Aelius
You don't need an engineering degree to smell bullsh!t. That's why I asked a simple question. You couldn't, wouldn't provide it. Instead you continue to attempt to discredit and play it off.

Why don't you just answer the simple question asked. If the increadibly hot burning fuel melted the joints and other supports like bolts etc and turned them into effectively melted butter then how could people be standing in the middle of the crash within a few minutes? Did that melting metal and heat just move downward and had no similar heat effect on the people standing around in the wreckage or the supports/joints/bolts and other materials above the impact site?

I call bullsh!t.

You apparently need an engineering degree to have common sense. The fire in WTC 1&2 softened the steel connections. By this what it means is it modifified the modulas of elasticity of the steel. The exterior columns on the building were the primary structural supports and the impacts of each plane completely destroyed 30-36 of these columns in each building. This is about 1/3 of the entire support destroyed by the impact. The aerosol spray of the fuel ignited the typical office items (desks partitions, etc), this created a smouldering heat source that elevated temperatures to around 1800C at the worst points. The impact of the plans not only destroyed the exteriorer support columns the plane impact wiped out a large protion of the spray on firprotection on the steel. This heat softened the weak point in the structure, the connections between beams and columns. Given the already structurally weaked building (from the loss of main support columns), the heat induced expansion of the steel and the differential movement of the connections caused failure.

Why could people walk on the debris afterwards? Well for one thing any idiot SHOULD know that with only 3-6 floors iginited in each building and the THOUSANDS of TONS of material both above and below those floors that fell at the same time the vast majority of the heatened floors were buried under TONS of material (not to mention with the specific heat of steel and the fall they likely had a chance to cool hundereds of degrees). And anybody with downsydrome would know that if there is a hot spot in the pile you don't walk on it because it will burn you.. In addition the initial rescucers focused on the hundereds of firefighters that were buried by debris on the street as they were probably most likely to have survived as the debris was only 15-20' deep and the trucks would have likely provided air prockets. HAD THERE NOT BEEN SMOLDERING LAYERS IN THE DEBRIS THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A DEBRIS/SMOKE CLOUD FOR TWO WEEKS. Do you know why I didn't respond to it earlier? Because it's fvcking common sense and you don't have any. Oh and if those words like specific heat, differential, and "modules of elasticity" don't make sense, use a dicitionairy.

But feel free to post some more comment and questions devoid of all critical through.

 

[PsharkJF]

What's the specific heat of steel?

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: PsharkJF
What's the specific heat of steel?

http://www.iscienceproject.com/experts/5614_ce2_aldridge_steel.html

maybe?

 

[icabird33]

Quote:

?I saw the planes hit the towers.
Surprised the damn things didnt fall over on impact.
These wild conspiracy theories are comical?.

What is comical to me is your comment includes the words ?FALL OVER? when in reality the towers "FELL STRAIGHT DOWN??

Thus fueling the conspiracy even further with your OWN words AND without you even knowing.

I can?t blame you. This is what happens when one watches a biased mainstream media.

I feel sorry for people like you.

Please open your eyes, for the sake of your children.

Good Luck!!!

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: MadRat
rahvin,

Before the first collapse, why does the building next to the North Tower - building WT6 - suddenly go up in a giant plume BEFORE the tower falls? That has always bothered me, And then go look at the post-catastrophe images of WT6 - there is a gigantic hole down the middle of the whole building as if it exploded - and its largely just the outside frame left standing. Strange that a nick by the collapsing tower above makes the center of the building blow outward and up. We'll just ignore WT7, too, for arguments sake.

I don't know what you are talking about, I never saw a building go up in flames before the collapse but I wouldn't be supprised if one had, as flaming debris left both towers after the impact of the planes (and after falling 50 stories it would have hit other buildings with sufficient force to penetrate the structure). The collapse of WT5 was of much more importance (a much more substantial fire and severe heat deformation of the structural steel) as 6 took a substantial debris hit from tower one with debris pentrating to the basement and knocking the entire centre of the building out. There is an entire chapter devoted to 3,5 and 6 and a seperate chapter devoted to 7.

I see very little detailed explanation of WTC6, only short blerps.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Aelius
You don't need an engineering degree to smell bullsh!t. That's why I asked a simple question. You couldn't, wouldn't provide it. Instead you continue to attempt to discredit and play it off.

Why don't you just answer the simple question asked. If the increadibly hot burning fuel melted the joints and other supports like bolts etc and turned them into effectively melted butter then how could people be standing in the middle of the crash within a few minutes? Did that melting metal and heat just move downward and had no similar heat effect on the people standing around in the wreckage or the supports/joints/bolts and other materials above the impact site?

I call bullsh!t.

You apparently need an engineering degree to have common sense. The fire in WTC 1&2 softened the steel connections. By this what it means is it modifified the modulas of elasticity of the steel. The exterior columns on the building were the primary structural supports and the impacts of each plane completely destroyed 30-36 of these columns in each building. This is about 1/3 of the entire support destroyed by the impact. The aerosol spray of the fuel ignited the typical office items (desks partitions, etc), this created a smouldering heat source that elevated temperatures to around 1800C at the worst points. The impact of the plans not only destroyed the exteriorer support columns the plane impact wiped out a large protion of the spray on firprotection on the steel. This heat softened the weak point in the structure, the connections between beams and columns. Given the already structurally weaked building (from the loss of main support columns), the heat induced expansion of the steel and the differential movement of the connections caused failure.

Very detailed explaination that doesn't fit. Why? Because of what you said below.

Why could people walk on the debris afterwards? Well for one thing any idiot SHOULD know that with only 3-6 floors iginited in each building and the THOUSANDS of TONS of material both above and below those floors that fell at the same time the vast majority of the heatened floors were buried under TONS of material (not to mention with the specific heat of steel and the fall they likely had a chance to cool hundereds of degrees). And anybody with downsydrome would know that if there is a hot spot in the pile you don't walk on it because it will burn you.. In addition the initial rescucers focused on the hundereds of firefighters that were buried by debris on the street as they were probably most likely to have survived as the debris was only 15-20' deep and the trucks would have likely provided air prockets. HAD THERE NOT BEEN SMOLDERING LAYERS IN THE DEBRIS THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A DEBRIS/SMOKE CLOUD FOR TWO WEEKS. Do you know why I didn't respond to it earlier? Because it's fvcking common sense and you don't have any. Oh and if those words like specific heat, differential, and "modules of elasticity" don't make sense, use a dicitionairy.

But feel free to post some more comment and questions devoid of all critical through.

What I asked was an extention to a question someone else posed based on video evidence they said exists. That is where the planes hit. Not after the towers fell. They pointed out people were standing around in the plane wreckage.

If this isn't true no one jumped on it and pointed it out. So I asked the same question cause I'm curious.

Oh and before you call someone names maybe you should take English 101 so you don't look like a stupid dumbass by completely missing the entire point of their question and spouting off about sh!t that doesn't fit the facts based on what was mentioned before. If you want to be smart prove their point wrong. As I said I simply wanted to know the same thing cause someone else asked it first and no one jumped on it.

See my text above in bold.

 

[hemiram]

Why don't you just answer the simple question asked. If the increadibly hot burning fuel melted the joints and other supports like bolts etc and turned them into effectively melted butter then how could people be standing in the middle of the crash within a few minutes? Did that melting metal and heat just move downward and had no similar heat effect on the people standing around in the wreckage or the supports/joints/bolts and other materials above the impact site?

I call bullsh!t.[/quote]

I call "Horse Hockey". Nobody claims the steel MELTED. It doesn't have to melt. All it has to do is get heated to a certain point, and it gets SOFT. Not "like butter", but soft enough to collapse under the staggering weight of the floors above. All you need to do to show yourself how weak it becomes is to buy a hunk of angle iron at the hardware store, and get a propane torch and heat it up for a while. It bends real easy. When enough of the supports gave way from the heat , the remaining ones weren't able to keep the building from collapsing, and down it came. This isn't rocket science.

Everything makes sense as to why ALL the buildings came down. You just have to read the report and think a little, not swallow any crap posted on kooksites.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: hemiram


Why don't you just answer the simple question asked. If the increadibly hot burning fuel melted the joints and other supports like bolts etc and turned them into effectively melted butter then how could people be standing in the middle of the crash within a few minutes? Did that melting metal and heat just move downward and had no similar heat effect on the people standing around in the wreckage or the supports/joints/bolts and other materials above the impact site?

I call bullsh!t.

I call "Horse Hockey". Nobody claims the steel MELTED. It doesn't have to melt. All it has to do is get heated to a certain point, and it gets SOFT. Not "like butter", but soft enough to collapse under the staggering weight of the floors above. All you need to do to show yourself how weak it becomes is to buy a hunk of angle iron at the hardware store, and get a propane torch and heat it up for a while. It bends real easy. When enough of the supports gave way from the heat , the remaining ones weren't able to keep the building from collapsing, and down it came. This isn't rocket science.

Everything makes sense as to why ALL the buildings came down. You just have to read the report and think a little, not swallow any crap posted on kooksites.[/quote]

kooksites = this site, this thread

That's why I asked. And don't concentrate on me saying it melted like butter. That's just my way of putting things.

Let me put it another way. If there was enough heat to weaken the supports to fail how come people were standing in the plane wreckage.

And no I haven't seen the video, I'm asking a question from some of you whom have seen the video. I have yet to find all the close up ones. Ones from five miles away is hardly evidence either way.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Aelius
What I asked was an extention to a question someone else posed based on video evidence they said exists. That is where the planes hit. Not after the towers fell. They pointed out people were standing around in the plane wreckage.

If this isn't true no one jumped on it and pointed it out. So I asked the same question cause I'm curious.

Oh and before you call someone names maybe you should take English 101 so you don't look like a stupid dumbass by completely missing the entire point of their question and spouting off about sh!t that doesn't fit the facts based on what was mentioned before. If you want to be smart prove their point wrong. As I said I simply wanted to know the same thing cause someone else asked it first and no one jumped on it.

So lets sum up your arguement, you are re-asking a question about "people standing in the plane wreckage" that you didn't see. You are taking a position that you can't possibly defend because you yourself haven't even seen said video, yet you assume it exists. Then you proceed to talk about english 101 which is a writting course and has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than an attempt to insult. May I be the first to welcome you to teh intarweb. :roll:

To answer you question, if people were standing in the plane wreckage on the ground before the towers fell (as some of each plane hit the ground) then it was likely that said plane debris was not contained in the fire in the towers and didn't reach the temperatures the towers did. But that might involve logic and is probably the reason you have such issues with it.

Originally posted by: Aelius
And no I haven't seen the video, I'm asking a question from some of you whom have seen the video. I have yet to find all the close up ones. Ones from five miles away is hardly evidence either way.

Small tip for you, why don't you know what you are talking about before you go taking a position and attempting to defend it.