On that point, the study I posted showed that structural steel loses well over 90% of it's tensile strength by about 700 C.
Remembering 9/11
- Thread starter Insidious Von
- Start date
Why would they? It is like a evolutionary biologist debating a creationist. All it would do is let the conspiracy nuts think they are anywhere close to scientific.
No other study was done and NIST neglected to mention this inconvenient truth in their final report.
You can only achieve oxidation and sulfidation at extreme temperatures (+1800 degrees)
There was nothing inside the building that could burn at those temperatures over a sustained period of time to cause global collapse, yet it happened.
And the 75+ undamaged floors below provided more resistance to the structure above, yet the top portion went from 0 to free fall and took out the structure below.
There is no point responding, I've done my research.
Bazant's work uses erroneous assumptions and his papers have been thoroughly discredited (see link below)
Unfortunately, since he was the first person to submit a paper (2 days after the towers fell) with an overload ratio equation which confirms NIST's own story.
I've done the math for myself, Bazant's fatal flaw is assuming each floor of the structure weighed the same.
He didn't account for the fact that below the ~70th floor the smaller H columns turns into 53" x 22" x 3" box columns.
http://scienceof911.com.au/the-argument/bazant/
http://rethink911.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Szuladzinski.Johns_.Szamboti.pdf
In this case "the government" is thousands of people. You think they're all in on a conspiracy?
And here's a larger question -- claim after claim after claim by the 911 cranks have been utterly destroyed on this thread. And what do the conspiracy theory nuts do? They IGNORE the fact that their arguments were devastated, and just move on to find yet another YouTube video to post, and demand that it too be refuted. How many have to be refuted before you guys get it?
Do you think you can keep on hurling one stupid claim after another and demanding they all be refuted?
You've lost. You just aren't savvy enough to realize it yet.
This has been debunked in about a dozen posts now. Along with the molten iron claim. And all of this nonsense STILL requires an amazing mission impossible like conspiracy involving thousands of people.
Here's what doesn't even pass the laugh test: The idea that the plan of record for a government run conspiracy was to fly two planes into EXACTLY the right floors of the WTC, expertly targeting EXACTLY the floors where many TONS of explosives had been expertly hidden. That the plan was to demolish those exact floors, light everything on fire with jet fuel--somehow hope that didn't set off any of the bombs or ruin their wiring--and then detonate it all an hour or two later. It's fucking nonsense. Then that's followed by a coverup involving all of the thousands of people who participated in the 9/11 investigation. Ludicrous.
Considering how close minded you are, I'm surprised you can read past a grade 8 level.
But if you can, here is the paper destroying Bazant's equation
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis
by Gregory Szuladzinski, Anthony Szamboti and Richard Johns
Reprinted from International Journal of Protective Structures
Volume 4 · Number 2 · June 2013
Multi-Science Publishing ISSN 2041-4196
http://rethink911.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Szuladzinski.Johns_.Szamboti.pdf
You guys haven't refuted anything, you just keep saying conspiracy theory over and over again.
I've posted links to peer reviewed papers, you have posted shit.
Did you do any due dilligence into who these people are and whether this "journal" is credible before posting this?
My guess--no. You found a link on one of your idiotic 9/11 sites and just blindly pasted it, because you believe EVERYTHING you read on line.
have any of you had a camp fire?
with just wood as the fuel the fire is hot enough to melt beer bottles and pop cans and turn it to ashes.
so a combination of a plane weigh many many tons flying at high speeds crashes into a structure not designed to take that kind of impact plus the fire caused by fuel and all the synthetic items in the building should create enough heat to cause the remaining supports to bend and break.
keep in mind very few of those engineers have knowledge pf experience to accurately speak on this topic.
maybe there was a conspiracy but it is not based on evidence that we have today.
with just wood as the fuel the fire is hot enough to melt beer bottles and pop cans and turn it to ashes.
so a combination of a plane weigh many many tons flying at high speeds crashes into a structure not designed to take that kind of impact plus the fire caused by fuel and all the synthetic items in the building should create enough heat to cause the remaining supports to bend and break.
keep in mind very few of those engineers have knowledge pf experience to accurately speak on this topic.
maybe there was a conspiracy but it is not based on evidence that we have today.
Sure. Whatever you want to believe. Actual engineers and scientists would simply laugh in your face.
But since you put so much faith (and faith is the correct word) in the opinions of random engineers then you should be listening to me as much as the 0.01% you keep quoting.
Says the guy who has completely ignored dozens of posts that absolutely rip your conspiracy theory to shreds.
The thermite claims are completely impossible unless everyone working in the buildings were in on their own death. There is no way that enough thermite could have been installed to take down the building without massive wiring and obvious thermite packs all over the exterior structure. The only way it would be possible is if they had installed them during construction 30 years earlier and that is just stupid.
And that is even without accounting for them being able to crash a plane into the exact area that they had wired with thermite.
p.s. The fact that you have started stooping to personal insults shows you have no basis for any kind of discussion. I have tried to engage you with discussions of math and physics but you ignore the posts and instead just link to random youtube posts.
You do realize your jerking Hillary signature video was faked, right?
Of course I'm going to check. I have no expertise in chemical reactions, structural steel, etc., but the advantage of working for a large international engineering company is I have access to many experienced experts and I just spoke to one of our chemical engineers. He's only has a MSc and has only worked with alloys for 25 years and doesn't believe in aliens so I'm obviously taking his opinion with a grain of salt. I was going to verify with a PHD, but I was worried he would figure out I was fact-checking 9/11 conspiracy theory and he'd laugh me out of the office. I only have a Masters and I don't work in R&D and you know what PHDs can be like, they look down on us.
1) Sulphur can be found in various concentrations in any steel. Modern refining process are very efficient at removing almost all of it (a certain amount is desirable), but older mills (i.e. 43 years ago when the WTC was built) were less efficient. The WTC steel absolutely would have has Sulphur in it. Did your study consider that?
2) Sulfidation is a natural occurring process that can occur at lower temperatures and over time, especially at joints where dissimilar materials containing sulphur are in contact, includes different steels. <-- I believe the metal analyzed in your study were at joints where different steels were in contact for 40+ years?
3) Sulfidation can be accelerated under higher temperatures (at low as 500F, given sufficient time) and especially in "poisoned environments". For example in a prolonged high temperature fire where there is high-sulphur diesel oil present or lots of sulphur bearing materials (gypsum). <-- Geesh, that EXACTLY describes WTC7 doesn't it?
4) Where did you get your 1800 number from?? Oxidation and sulfidation is a known problem in superheaters, heat exchangers, coal gasification systems, gas turbines and carbon baking furnaces at temperatures as low as 500C and more typically 750C. Sulfidation is a big problem in mines and becomes a serious problem at 650C
5) During the actual collapse to the WTC structure, much, much higher pressures and temperatures were reached which would have accelerated oxidation and sulfidation . After the collapse the debris pile continued to generate heat and pressure for weeks. Both environments would have been sulphur poisoned from all the gypsum, aluminum and glass.
6) The sulphur concentrations found in the steel in your study were not that high. Questions for you:
- What would a normal sulphur level be in a 43 year old sample of structural steel. (we can even ignore all the points above) How much higher was the concentrations in your report (I already have an answer ready for you).
- What would be a reasonable level of sulphur be in a steel sample that was just burned through by Thermate? <-- in case you haven't clued in yet, this is where your theory gets BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER. I guess you will now argue they didn't test an actual piece of steel that was burned through by Thermate, but if that's the case, your team doesn't really have anything do they?
In other words "trust me, I don't lie"? LOL.
Of course I'm going to check. I have no expertise in chemical reactions, structural steel, etc., but the advantage of working for a large international engineering company is I have access to many experienced experts and I just spoke to one of our chemical engineers. He's only has a MSc and has only worked with alloys for 25 years and doesn't believe in aliens so I'm obviously taking his opinion with a grain of salt. I was going to verify with a PHD, but I was worried he would figure out I was fact-checking 9/11 conspiracy theory and he'd laugh me out of the office. I only have a Masters and I don't work in R&D and you know what PHDs can be like, they look down on us.
Geesh. Turns out you are wrong.
1) Sulphur can be found in various concentrations in any steel. Modern refining process are very efficient at removing almost all of it (a certain amount is desirable), but older mills (i.e. 43 years ago when the WTC was built) were less efficient. The WTC steel absolutely would have has Sulphur in it. Did your study consider that?
2) Sulfidation is a natural occurring process that can occur at lower temperatures and over time, especially at joints where dissimilar materials containing sulphur are in contact, includes different steels. <-- I believe the metal analyzed in your study were at joints where different steels were in contact for 40+ years?
3) Sulfidation can be accelerated under higher temperatures (at low as 500F, given sufficient time) and especially in "poisoned environments". For example in a prolonged high temperature fire where there is high-sulphur diesel oil present or lots of sulphur bearing materials (gypsum). <-- Geesh, that EXACTLY describes WTC7 doesn't it?
4) Where did you get your 1800 number from?? Oxidation and sulfidation is a known problem in superheaters, heat exchangers, coal gasification systems, gas turbines and carbon baking furnaces at temperatures as low as 500C and more typically 750C. Sulfidation is a big problem in mines and becomes a serious problem at 650C
5) During the actual collapse to the WTC structure, much, much higher pressures and temperatures were reached which would have accelerated oxidation and sulfidation . After the collapse the debris pile continued to generate heat and pressure for weeks. Both environments would have been sulphur poisoned from all the gypsum, aluminum and glass.
6) The sulphur concentrations found in the steel in your study were not that high. Questions for you:
- What would a normal sulphur level be in a 43 year old sample of structural steel. (we can even ignore all the points above) How much higher was the concentrations in your report (I already have an answer ready for you).
- What would be a reasonable level of sulphur be in a steel sample that was just burned through by Thermate? <-- in case you haven't clued in yet, this is where your theory gets BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER. I guess you will now argue they didn't test an actual piece of steel that was burned through by Thermate, but if that's the case, your team doesn't really have anything do they?
I haven't researched Bazant's theory, but gotta be honest, you haven't demonstrated much credibility. If you are in the industry, can you please let us know what you've been involved with building so I can avoid those structures.
There you have it the resident engineer says it's impossible so it must be true. Funny how engineers who don't share your opinion are quacks but all others who do are intellectually superior. Does your back hurt, from patting it so much.
WTC 7 was and is still the first steel framed high rise to ever come down due to an office fire and that's a fact that cannot be disputed nor will ever happen again.
So here is a common sense question for you, because quite frankly I just can't compete with you on the technical front. Do you believe 240 billion dollars is a nice enough incentive to pull this off? Just curious what you think.
WTC 7 was and is still the first steel framed high rise to ever come down due to an office fire and that's a fact that cannot be disputed nor will ever happen again.
So here is a common sense question for you, because quite frankly I just can't compete with you on the technical front. Do you believe 240 billion dollars is a nice enough incentive to pull this off? Just curious what you think.
That's just you now pouting and now you are calling be names. On terb we call it "FASTing".
I'll be honest with you. I looked into one author of eznutz's latest paper and Dr Gregory Szuladzinski appears to be quite reputable and respected. Haven't looked at the other authors yet. The paper itself is beyond my expertise, so I'll let others comment on it. I did look at the abstract and conclusion and don't believe it states what eznutz wants us to believe it states.
LOL. LOL. And what does that prove? The reason it collapsed has been explained logically. The conspiracy theories have been debunked. How do you know it will never happen again? Crystal ball? Seance? Spirit bones? WTC7 has now proven that it can happen again.
Listen, Honestly I'm not trying to be a dick. I actually view/read through ALL the stuff you guys are posting (except the looney stuff) and I like the learning experience as I research your theories - I want to have an open mind although it's hard with some of the more wanky stuff you guys post. I enjoy conspiracy theories and do believe gov't and big business cover-up and lie all the time. President Kennedy being a perfect example, most of his presidency was based on cover-ups and lies. I just happen to believe the WTC collapse is fully explainable ... except where are the flight recorders??
Justify the number! Please be clear and logical, because either I or someone else will probably fact check.
BTW this is why I love to hate Donald Trump. He's a habitual liar and he's easy to fact check. It's fun!
Some people can't take a hint, the twin towers were a huge liability since they were constructed using asbestos. The costs in removing the asbestos was going to surpass the value of the towers. Demolition was out of the question due to all the asbestos it would release in the city. The only way to remove the two towers would be to dismantle them and again the cost would be ridiculous. Simply bombing the building would leave a damaged structure like the building in Oaklahoma. With the plans for One Wtc ALREADY in place the only thing left to do was clear the real estate to begin construction. The only option was a controlled demo but the public wouldn't buy into terrorists rigging two skyscrapers for a controlled demo, this is why the planes were needed to creat a more believable scenario. Elevator maintenance for the two towers has been going on for 9 months prior to the "attack", plenty of time for even just 4 workers to rig the center collums out of plain site. The elevator maintenance crew was approximately a dozen people, thats plenty of men to rig the support columns in 9 months. The buildings being a serious liability and coincidentally insured for an attack only a couple months before will always be a conspiracy. Also when you guys want to post a video that disproves a theory try to post something that isnt unanimously disliked if you want it to hold any credibility.
The building collapsed from the impact floors, so your post is wrong.
If your theory was right we would see the whole building falling into its foundation, as in any other controlled demolition. We don't see that.
We see the building collapsing from the site of the impact. During the collapse the building below the impact remains stationary while the floors above the impact fall onto it.
You can go view the collapse on YouTube, it's easy to see your theory is wrong.
watch the point of the tower in slow motion it falls first, the center cant be seen any other way so how are you so sure the center support wasn't first to go?
Having done a lot of work on buildings with asbestos, you only have to remove it if you disturb it. You can also encapsulate it.
So, they would take the approach of removing it as they renovated the building, not demolish the entire structure to get rid of it.
