FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Sulphided steel at the WTC

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:57 pm    Post subject: Sulphided steel at the WTC Reply with quote

Stefan wrote:

............................ the sulfidation and oxidation of steel samples from the debris of 1, 2 and 7?

The FEMA report citied this would take a great deal of sulfur (which could be accounted for by an incendiary like thermate) and not an energy weapon....


Is the source of the sulphur more likely to be:

a) "An incendiary like thermate" when thermate contains 2% sulphur and has not been shown to have been present?

or b) from the tens of thousands of tons of gypsum wallboard pulverised in the collapses, when gypsum is 100% calcium suphate?

Tricky question, eh?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stefan
Banned
Banned


Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219

PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh Bushwacker you genuius you - sitting on your chair at the station you figured out what the FEMA report couldn't!

FEMA were no doubt aware of sulfur present in the dry wall mix. But they are scientists and therefore could not credibly claim that beign exposed to an office fire would make dry wall act this way. They clearly said that it was a mystery.

Your notion that just by being exposed to an office fire dry wall was able to form a liquid eutectic mixture which corroded the steel.

Let's meet up and try it - lets get some dry wall, put it on top of a hunk of structural steel and chuck it in a bonfire and see if we get the same result.

But on 9/11 a building collapse which would normally take expert planning (WTC7) to make fall neatly fell from random damage - and complex chemical reactions happened when fire touched dry wall.

I'd love to take a day to wander around in a critic's mind - I imagine lots of candy floss fairies and marsh mallow rivers and cartoon birds singing...

_________________


Peace and Truth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stefan wrote:
Oh Bushwacker you genuius you - sitting on your chair at the station you figured out what the FEMA report couldn't!

FEMA were no doubt aware of sulfur present in the dry wall mix. But they are scientists and therefore could not credibly claim that beign exposed to an office fire would make dry wall act this way. They clearly said that it was a mystery.

Your notion that just by being exposed to an office fire dry wall was able to form a liquid eutectic mixture which corroded the steel.

Let's meet up and try it - lets get some dry wall, put it on top of a hunk of structural steel and chuck it in a bonfire and see if we get the same result.

But on 9/11 a building collapse which would normally take expert planning (WTC7) to make fall neatly fell from random damage - and complex chemical reactions happened when fire touched dry wall.

I'd love to take a day to wander around in a critic's mind - I imagine lots of candy floss fairies and marsh mallow rivers and cartoon birds singing...

This reverance for the work of FEMA investigators is a noticeable new development in your thought processes, Stefan, when you had previously shown a preference for some very dubious unevidenced and very complicated theories. But then you revert to type and seem to think it more likely that the tiny quantity of sulphur in thermate, that may have been present at the site, somehow survived being consumed when the thermate ignited, and decided to go off and react with some other pieces of steel instead? That sounds like a very desperate search for anything that can possibly be twisted into support for a preconceived theory, but then that is how you clever chaps work, isn't it?

Calcium sulphate can itself break down at high enough temperatures, producing suphur dioxide but, as has been pointed out, the debris pile was a cocktail of all sorts of chemicals, resulting from the burning materials. For instance, if molten aluminium was present, and there does seem some evidence for molten metal, then it may have reacted with the powdered gypsum in the highly energetic reaction that also produces sulphur dioxide. Then there are other possible sources known to be present, plastics in office contents, diesel fuel, even tyres on the cars in the car park; no need at all for entirely fanciful suggestions that there may have been thermate which may have released some of its tiny percentage of sulphur. William of Occam would not countenance the idea, sorry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stefan
Banned
Banned


Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker,
First off all I appologise for the sarcastic tone of my last mail - it was the end of a trying day at work and I had little patience.

I have respect for the working scientists on both NIST and FEMA - I have no respect for the heads of each report (consisting of much the same people - who also headed Silverstein's Insurance Claim Report along with the OCK Bombing report) - these the people the government turn to in order to sign off any dubious happening at all - they decide what goes into the report, what the working scientists do, and deal with the conclusions.

So a scientist might do a perfectly good piece of work showing that the floor assemblies sagged 2 to 4 inches, then the heads of the report will throw it out and decide they sagged 42 inches instead, for example.

FEMA scientists worked hard and dedicated an entire appendix to this odd steel, now in discussion, and concluded they did not know where that amount of sulphur would come from. They also stated that the steel was probably at 1000 degrees. Do you think a scientist admits drawing a blank without looking into possibilities? Do you think the team working on it did not consider and look for any plausible source of enough sulfur?

They drew a blank and suggested the next investigation looked into it - NIST ignored it. But never fear - here come the ametuer non-scientist critics to stab around in the dark and "solve" the mystery the scientists couldn't simply by saying "well an ingredient of drywall is sulfur - Case Closed!" do you have any idea how absurd the land of critic-dom is?

What gets me is how many complex scenarios - usually the result of hard work in a lab or months of detailed planning - supposedly happened by complete random on 9/11. We have dry wall + fire = a liquid eutectic mixture which can corrode and melt along the grains of steel. No lab conditions, just chuck a bit of drywall on a fire next to some steel and it eats through it.

Bushwhacker - shouldn't someone get the word out? Thousands of steel buildings use dry wall around the world - if any office fire will turn the steel into swiss cheese shouldn't it be banned immediately and every building shut down until they are cleared?

Of course not - because like many other claims - these sorts of things only happen on 9/11.

WTC7 is another perfect example - even you must admit that if you were to take a building the same as building 7 and recreate that collapse - it WOULD take experts and a lot of careful planning? You agree to this surley? Just lopping off a few bits of the building and starting a couple of fires would not re-produce it? But on 9/11 that was all that was needed.

NIST could not create a model to demonstrate complete collapse - yet on 9/11 it was so likely that it happened to two different buildings with two different patterns of damage and fire.

I even read on some critic site a claim that in correct conditions, water poured onto hot steel can cause a reaction which will make it melt. A little research showed this is an incredibly delicate reaction which takes exactly the right parameters - but on 9/11 critics say - if anything is remotely possible - it happened.

It is this kind of junk logic which turned me towards 9/11 truth in the first place.

_________________


Peace and Truth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You cannot have much respect for the working scientists of FEMA and NIST if you believe that they allow reports to be published in their name that misrepresent their work!

You in fact are misrepresenting their work by your repeated pretence that they tested trusses in their assumed condition after the impacts, when in fact they tested them in their intact "as built" state.

The FEMA report on the steel concluded:

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

There is nothing there to indicate that they had considered and eliminated possible sources of suphur, had they done such a substantial piece of work they would surely have reported on it.

You then move on to misrepresent me, a far more serious matter!
I did not say that gypsum was the source, case closed, I pointed out that gypsum present on large quantities and in a finely divided and all pervasive form after the collapse, was a far more likely source than thermate, not known to be present and anyway containing only a very small percentage of sulphur. I also pointed out other possible sources, and the known reaction of molten aluminium with calcium sulphate. Like it or not, the reaction did happen at the WTC, not under laboratory conditions, and at random, whatever the source of the sulphur.

There is no need to close existing buildings, their occupants would not anyway survive a severe and long-burning fire, the danger would be that the phenomenon would hasten their collapse, causing other damage. For what it is worth, I think personally that it occurred in the debris pile, when some steel stayed at high temperatures for weeks. FEMA is right, it should be investigated, whether NIST is planning to do so I have no idea.

There is little point discussing the collapse of WTC7 until NIST reaches its long-awaited conclusions. However, it is not correct to say that it suffered just a couple of fires. The FDNY considered it fully involved with fire and likely to collapse, the fact that it then did so does not surprise me.

NIST did not attempt to create a model to demonstrate complete collapse of the towers, which would be a pointless exercise. A simple calculation shows that once the fire floors gave way, total collapse was inevitable.

If junk logic turned you on to 9/11 truth, what on earth do you make of 9/11 truth sites, even the best of which are full of it? Not to mention the unmitigated rubbish put out by the no-planers. I got turned on to 9/11 criticism not only by the illogic of the truth movement, but by the lies and misrepresentation that are so prevalent in it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stefan
Banned
Banned


Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And where is this simple calculation - in the NIST report?
_________________


Peace and Truth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stefan wrote:
And where is this simple calculation - in the NIST report?


In NIST's Supplementary FAQs No 1

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.


Controlled demolition works in the same way, demolition charges are normally put at the base of the building, not all the way up. Then when the base of the building is blown the building drops and gravity destroys it. It does not just drop and stay intact. And of course it falls at close to the speed of freefall in air.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stefan wrote:
And where is this simple calculation - in the NIST report?
Have you ever read the NIST report?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stefan
Banned
Banned


Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not cover to cover - but I have read much of it. And I know they did no calculations to demonstrate the collapse would progress - they simply said it was "inevitable" and left it at that. Since such a thing has never happened before - I think that is very suspicious.
_________________


Peace and Truth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stefan wrote:
And I know they did no calculations to demonstrate the collapse would progress
But it seems that they did do some calculations.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stefan wrote:
Not cover to cover - but I have read much of it. And I know they did no calculations to demonstrate the collapse would progress - they simply said it was "inevitable" and left it at that. Since such a thing has never happened before - I think that is very suspicious.


(note - nothing I'm about to say carries any scientific weight whatsoever)

To think that the lower section of the Towers might halt collapse, once it had started, is totally preposterous.

Even the original paper of Gordon Ross had trouble supporting the idea of collapse arrest, and Ross's study was based on a "pure" impact of the upper section with the lower. That is, he ignored the fact that the impacting areas of the upper and lower sections were hot mangled wreckage and portrayed them as clean square plates making perfect vertical impact. Under this (patently absurd) premise he managed to calculate that the top section would 'bounce' on the lower section. But even then the calculations in favour of arrest were marginal. I believe Ross has withdrawn that original paper, but I may be wrong.

In the reality of a chaotic collapse with bent and missing columns - and a top section that was rotating in both cases so that upper column ends could not possibly make clean contact with lower column ends - no reputable engineer, physicist or even bl##dy biologist in the world would expect the collapse to be arrested.

And, once again, you seem swayed by the fact that "such a thing has never happened before". What do you mean? No WTC tower has ever been hit by a virtually fully-fuelled airliner - travelling at max speed - been consumed by fire and eventually collapsed? Well whoopee-doo Mr Genius ... you're right. Totally unique. Why would you be expecting a precedent?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
And, once again, you seem swayed by the fact that "such a thing has never happened before". What do you mean?


thats a valid point imo. and i think that is why there are mixed conclusions. everybody has different idea's about what should of happened, because it has never happened before and is unique.

theres no other known examples that can be compared, there are only 'simular looking' examples ie: CD or examples where only one factor is the same ie: fire without the plane crash.

so everyone including nist etc can only work from basic principles, phyics and calculations and somehow apply them to prove what happened or what is seen from the outside.

the potenial for being wrong is always there, as explaining and accounting for everything that is seen and known is a huge task that may never be achieved. as nobody knows what was happening on the inside during the collapse, and being able to explain it with no other examples is very hard.

its proberbly why nist just said something along the lines of "and global collapse ensued" after explaining upto the point of collapse. and the same reason why others with other theorys can only explain some of what is seen but cannot explain quite how that would be achieved or account for everything either without incorperating many different types of explosive and reactions.

i just don't think either arguement can be satisfied to the point of proving it to either mindset. there will always be doubts about what should of happened.

WTC7 is a much more common collapse, i think thats where the answers are. WTC's are just far to complicated for the vast majority to understand fully.

thats where i stand now anyway. ive debated lots about the wtc's in the past , and concluded its just to complicated for me to understand fully and be satisfied with no doubts. hence whatever the conclusions on wtc7 is what i'll accept. if it was CD then it was possible at the towers, if it was not CD then it did'nt happen at the towers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stefan wrote:
Not cover to cover - but I have read much of it. And I know they did no calculations to demonstrate the collapse would progress - they simply said it was "inevitable" and left it at that. Since such a thing has never happened before - I think that is very suspicious.

I have posted calculations above.

You are right that such a thing has never happened before, but then such circumstances have never happened before. If you find it difficult to accept, may I suggest you consider it this way:
Take the 12 stories of WTC1 above the impact floors and consider them as a building in its own right, a 13 storey building sitting on the ground with great destruction on the ground floor, and a fire raging there for over an hour. Would it be surprising if a building like that collapsed? And if it did collapse, it would look very like a CD, floors being crushed from the ground floor upwards, as the building slid downwards.

Transfer the building in imagination now up into its actual position, on the top of all the other 86 floors of WTC1, and in the same situation of imminent collapse. If the bottom floor of the top section is crushed, then so will be the top floor of the lower section, which has more weight on it. And after that, the second from bottom floor of the top section, and the second floor down on the lower section, crushed in the same way, and all the time the weight of debris falling increasing as more floors are added.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dallas
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 102
Location: NYC/Pennsylvania

PostPosted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Falling through 86 intact floors != freefall. How do you account for freefall time without CD?
_________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776!

-Alex Jones
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dallas wrote:
Falling through 86 intact floors != freefall. How do you account for freefall time without CD?

Eh?

Nothing fell through 86 intact floors, dear boy, they were all swept away, and the time the towers took to fall was more than the freefall time, which is why you can see the collapse wave being overtaken by debris falling outside the building. As discussed above, the energy of the falling floors was massively more than the resistance exerted by the lower section.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dallas
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 102
Location: NYC/Pennsylvania

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:
Dallas wrote:
Falling through 86 intact floors != freefall. How do you account for freefall time without CD?

Eh?

Nothing fell through 86 intact floors, dear boy, they were all swept away, and the time the towers took to fall was more than the freefall time, which is why you can see the collapse wave being overtaken by debris falling outside the building. As discussed above, the energy of the falling floors was massively more than the resistance exerted by the lower section.


Technically you are correct, I should have said "near freefall time". However, I still find it preposterous that the 80-some-odd undamaged floors in WTC1 below the impact zone would offer so little resistance as to allow for a near symmetrical vertical collapse at no more than 2 seconds over freefall time.

_________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776!

-Alex Jones
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dallas wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
Dallas wrote:
Falling through 86 intact floors != freefall. How do you account for freefall time without CD?

Eh?

Nothing fell through 86 intact floors, dear boy, they were all swept away, and the time the towers took to fall was more than the freefall time, which is why you can see the collapse wave being overtaken by debris falling outside the building. As discussed above, the energy of the falling floors was massively more than the resistance exerted by the lower section.


Technically you are correct, I should have said "near freefall time". However, I still find it preposterous that the 80-some-odd undamaged floors in WTC1 below the impact zone would offer so little resistance as to allow for a near symmetrical vertical collapse at no more than 2 seconds over freefall time.

Well, look at NIST's calculation set out above, even in the most favourable case, at the start of collapse of WTC1, the force applied to the floor connections was at least twice the maximum load they could carry, so they would instantly snap. With all other floor collisions, the overload would be even greater.

For a full calculation of the theoretical collapse time, see Dr Keith Seffen's paper.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe, but what you totally ignore is that there is NO video evidence that there was ANY floor-by-floor collapse. One can argue until eternity about whether such a type of collapse was theoretically possible. But all such discussion is beside the point because, when one watches the videos in slow motion of the South and North Towers undergoing destruction, one does not see falling floors. Instead, one sees successive explosions, floor-by-floor, like a controlled demolition. Plumes of smoke/debris are seen erupting from a few windows twenty floors below the level of destruction at that instant - clearly from mistimed firing of demolition charges, because, if air compressed by falling floors had caused them, more plumes nearer the destruction level where the pressure would be higher would have occurred. Instead of successive compactification of floors, the tower simply gets rapidly turned mostly to dust, with some massive debris hurled horizontally at speeds too high to be explained by available kinetic energy of impacting material. Even if the floors had fallen, the 240 core columns would have remained intact. Instead, there was nothing left of them, either! Impossible, unless they, too, were blown up just prior to commencement of the general destruction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Micpsi wrote:

...
Even if the floors had fallen, the 240 core columns would have remained intact. Instead, there was nothing left of them, either! Impossible, unless they, too, were blown up just prior to commencement of the general destruction.


wtf is this then ?



This is just a clip from a much larger image of GZ, showing it to be a sea of steel column remains (and I don't mean "dust")
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sam wrote:
Micpsi wrote:

...
Even if the floors had fallen, the 240 core columns would have remained intact. Instead, there was nothing left of them, either! Impossible, unless they, too, were blown up just prior to commencement of the general destruction.


wtf is this then ?



This is just a clip from a much larger image of GZ, showing it to be a sea of steel column remains (and I don't mean "dust")


You misunderstood me. I did not mean that there was nothing left of the 240 core columns in an absolute sense. I meant that there were no columns left intact after the collapse, as one would expect had merely the floors collapsed. Your photo proves my point. Such destruction is incompatible with mere collapse of floors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Micpsi wrote:
sam wrote:
Micpsi wrote:

...
Even if the floors had fallen, the 240 core columns would have remained intact. Instead, there was nothing left of them, either! Impossible, unless they, too, were blown up just prior to commencement of the general destruction.


wtf is this then ?



This is just a clip from a much larger image of GZ, showing it to be a sea of steel column remains (and I don't mean "dust")


You misunderstood me. I did not mean that there was nothing left of the 240 core columns in an absolute sense. I meant that there were no columns left intact after the collapse, as one would expect had merely the floors collapsed. Your photo proves my point. Such destruction is incompatible with mere collapse of floors.


Who said that "merely" the floors collapsed? Only you, as far as I can see.

The core columns were damaged by impact and heat. The floors were connected to the core columns. The core below the collapse initiation zone had many thousands of tons of steel, concrete and contents falling on it.

In fact much of both cores remained standing after the global collapse, eventually to fall through collateral damage and lack of bracing. I'm sure you know this.

Are you suggesting the core should have survived the global collapse? If so, why?

p.s. there were not 240 core columns. There were 47.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group