Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 6 votes

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
3683 replies to this topic

#1186    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,396 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 23 March 2013 - 03:16 AM

View PostStundie, on 23 March 2013 - 02:44 AM, said:

So are you suggesting that the NIST actually examined some of this steel which had the fire protection removed??

Why not?


Quote

Yes of course you are, because you have deluded and fantasised they have examined steel with the fire protection removed, even though there is no evidence for it whatsoever!

Let's take another look.

Quote



World Trade Center 5 Failure Analysis

World Trade Center 5 (WTC 5) was a 9-story office and retail building at the World Trade Center complex in New York City, NY. On September 11, 2001, flaming debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers penetrated the roof of WTC 5, causing a fire that burned unchecked until the fuel from building contents was consumed (FEMA, 2002, p. 4-4). While impact damage over a portion of the building and an intense fire throughout are not surprising given the assault this building received, engineers inspecting the building after the event were not expecting to see an interior collapse, due entirely to the influence of the fire. The floors collapsed between the 8th and the 4th levels in the eastern section of the building, where there was no initial impact damage (Figure 1).


Posted Image
Figure 1: Internal Collapse Area in WTC 5 (FEMA, 2002, p. 4-18).


The major fire-induced collapse that occurred in WTC 5 involved the portion of the building that had Gerber framing (girder stubs welded to columns, and simply supported central girder spans with shear connections to the ends of the stubs (Figure 2)), but not other areas of the building where girders spanned the full distance between columns. This fact, and observations at the site suggesting that the failure was early in the fire, raised the possibility that this structure had a vulnerability that led to premature failure, perhaps during the heating phase of the fire.

Now, what was that you were saying!

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 March 2013 - 03:17 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1187    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,396 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 23 March 2013 - 03:20 AM

View PostStundie, on 23 March 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Yes, for you, it is absolutely nothing because you fail to grasp simple logic and have the perception skills of a damp dark cold box.

I am very sure the muslim terrorist who carried out the 911 attacks could have cared less about the financial issues involving the WTC buildings.

Quote

World Trade Center 5 Failure Analysis

Fire Event Reconstruction

The analysis of the circumstances leading to this failure required an understanding of the fire environment in the building. The 2005 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report (NIST, 2005) on WTC 1 and 2, provided a reference for the parameters describing the fire that occurred within WTC 5. Using this information, the Consolidated Fire and Smoke Transport Model (CFAST) software, developed by NIST, provided the fire temperature history models for structural analyses.

Finite Element Model Development

The analytical approach to evaluate the shear connection assembly for the failed girders included temperature-dependent material properties, fed into a geometrically non-linear, structural analysis model. The specific heat, conductivity, instantaneous coefficient of thermal expansion, and stress-strain curves for ASTM A36 steel, as derived from the literature, were converted into the input needed for ABAQUS, the structural finite element model (FEM) software capable of performing the required analyses.
The connections in WTC 5 failed by tear out of the web portion of the girder stubs. Chapter J3 of the AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, S001) (LRFD) for single bolt tear out strength was a basis for evaluation of this behavior; plastic shear strain served as the failure criterion.
The FEM analyzed the stress behavior of the four structural bays of interest on the 8th floor (hypothesized as the initial region of failure). This model served as the foundation for the final model: a sequentially-coupled, thermal stress analysis of the four structural bays of interest, employing symmetry boundary conditions to capture the behavior of several structural bays.

   Finite Element Modeling Results

Modeling the effects of insulation on the framing and heat sinks to non-fire regions, the analyses show that the temperature at the shear connection to the center span could have been as much as 400 Celsius (752 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than in the girder stub at the column face after two hours of fire exposure (Figure 3).


Posted Image
Figure 3: Steel Temperature Distribution (2 Hours of Fire Exposure) (Steel Insulation Not Shown).


The results of the thermal-stress model (a combination of the thermal and structural models) show that the steel girder assembly expanded as it heated, tending to close the gap between the simple span segment and the girder stub. This expansion caused relatively harmless compressive stress concentrations around the bolts, as the bolts were forced into the webs.
At the same time, as the temperature of the steel assembly increased, its rigidity decreased and the floor girder began to deflect significantly. This deflection caused the end of the center segment of the girder to rotate, and the lower flange of the center segment to contact and deform the girder stub web. This caused a fulcrum point that changed the response of the connection as temperatures continued to rise.

After 2 hours, the loss of rigidity in the steel "outpaced" its thermal expansion. As the girder end continued to rotate in response to mid-span deflection, the direction of action of the top bolt of the shear connection reversed, with the bolt beginning to pull toward the end of the web in the direction tending to cause tear out (Figure 4).








Posted Image
Figure 4: Stress Distribution (2 Hours of Fire Exposure).


The calculations predicted that the plastic shear strain in the girder web quickly - over the course of only minutes after the fulcrum formed - reached values that were triple and quadruple the failure limit. At this point the top bolt would tear out, followed almost instantaneously by the failure of the remaining two bolts, unzipping the connection.

The failure predicted by the finite element model can be seen in a connection specimen that was preserved from WTC 5. The angles at which the bolts pried against the bolt holes are similar in the model and the specimen (Figure 5, showing the model at initiation of prying, and the damaged web after the failure). Moreover, photographs of the interior collapse area show that the failed girder stubs are deformed at the fulcrum points.








Posted Image
Figure 5: Equivalent Strain after 2 Hours of Fire Exposure (FEM) Compared to a Recovered Sample (FEMA, 2002, p. 4-19).


The sequentially-coupled, thermal-stress model estimated that the catastrophic structural collapse within WTC 5 occurred approximately 2 hours after the initiation of the fire. This is during the heating phase of the fire, when firefighters normally would be in the building.

Conclusions

It is not the precise time of failure which is paramount, but the fact that the structure failed uncharacteristically during the fire’s heating phase, rather than during the cooling phase when most fire-induced collapses occur. This building was sensitive to early failure because the Gerber beam design, with simple connections located away from columns, isolated the shear connections from their heat sinks to the rest of the "cooler" structure via the columns.

The collapse involved four floors, and might have progressed all of the way down to the ground level, if it had not been for the moment-type connections utilized for the 4th floor.
The fire that destroyed WTC 5 was a severe complete burn-out fire. As such, it is not unreasonable that the structure would experience substantial damage. However, the failure of the building to achieve the preferred performance, with the framing system surviving at least into the cooling phase of the fire, follows from the absence of analyses and design for fire exposure.

The present approach to fire protection engineering in much of the United States is primarily prescriptive, often employing propriety products to insulate structural elements and active fire suppression systems to control fire growth. Such approaches would not lead to an appreciation for vulnerabilities such as apparently existed in some of the detailing in WTC 5. Analytical, performance-based approaches, more akin to common design for wind, seismic, and other environmental loads, are more likely to reveal critical aspects of building performance in fires, and provide engineers with the understanding they need to create designs that are robust, raise safety for occupants and firefighters, and are cost efficient.

In the case of WTC 5, relatively simple detailing changes would have enhanced the structure’s fire resistance. Slotted holes in the girder webs, or increased spacing between the end of the girder stubs and the beginning of the simply supported center spans, would have allowed more girder rotation without developing the prying action that tore out the girder webs. Keeping the shear connection near the face of the column would have reduced the temperature of this critical connection, thereby maintaining higher temperature-induced tear-out strengths during the fire.

In the more general case, we must acknowledge that many buildings in current use have unappreciated vulnerabilities. While analyzing and retrofitting for these vulnerabilities in existing buildings could be undertaken if justified for certain framing systems (e.g., perhaps for the Gerber system, if risk analyses and system testing verified heightened risk for the building system generally), finding the critical shortcomings in the present building stock would be a prohibitive exercise. However, modest expenditures of engineering effort during the design phase for new buildings can reveal fire performance weaknesses that can be avoided, often at minimal cost to construction.▪

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WTC 5 - Local Collapse Mechanisms

Two areas in WTC 5 experienced local collapse under an intact portion of the roof. Although there was debris impact near this area, the symmetrical nature of the collapse strongly suggests that the failures were due to the uncontrolled fires.

This is supported by the observation that the columns in this area remained straight and freestanding (see Figure 4-18). This local collapse appeared to have begun at the field connection where beams were connected to shop-fabricated beam stubs and column assemblies...


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 4-16 Looking through the door into the undamaged stair tower in WTC 5.

It is apparent that fire weakened the steel, contributing to the large shear-induced deformations observed in several of the cantilever beams. The shear failures observed at connection ends in several of the beam web samples shown in Figure 4-18 are indicative of the tensile forces that developed. The end bearing resistance of the beam web was found to be less than the double shear strength of the high-strength bolts, based on the analysis presented in Appendix B.

Figure 4-17 Buckled beam flange and column on the 8th floor of WTC 5 that was weakened by fire.

Tensile catenary action of floor framing members and their connections has been neither a design requirement nor a design consideration for most buildings. Further study of such mechanisms for member failures in fires should be conducted to determine whether current design parameters are adequate for performance under fire loads.

Posted Image

Figure 4-17 Buckled beam flange and column on the 8th floor of WTC 5 that was weakened by fire.


4.4 Observations and Findings

All three buildings suffered extensive fire and impact damage and significant partial collapse. The condition of the stairways in WTC 5 indicates that, for the duration of this fire, the fire doors and the fire protective covering on the walls performed well.

http://911research.w...wtc/WTC_ch4.htm

Now, what was that you were saying about WTC5?

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 March 2013 - 03:46 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1188    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 25 March 2013 - 12:15 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 23 March 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

Why not?
What do you mean "why not?" :blink: lol

The NIST either examined steel which had the fire proofing removed to support their hypothesis, or they didn't examine any steel which had fireproofing removed.

We know the answer. We know the NIST didn't examine any steel which had the fireproofing removed because the NIST had to remove the fireproofing in their theory to get their computer FEA model to collapse.

Even if we assumed that the fireproofing was removed from WTC 1 & 2, it certainly was not removed from WTC7 and we also know that there is no evidence for this theory because not a single piece of steel was examined in the NIST report on WTC7 and the fact that it is not mentioned as the reason why WTC7 collapsed.

Making your entire point about the fire proofing being removed is the reason why WTC1, 2 & 7 collapsed entirely moot and pointless.

But then this is pantomime debunking at its worst....lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 23 March 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

Let's take another look.



Now, what was that you were saying!
Not sure why you do not understand what I am saying, because its been pointed out to you before...lol So even though WTC5 suffered larger fires and a hell of a lot more damage than all three WTC in comparison to the size of the building.

The entire building didn't collapse unlike WTC 1, 2 & 7!

I don't see anything you have posted disproving this point, because it's a fact. lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1189    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 25 March 2013 - 12:20 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 23 March 2013 - 03:20 AM, said:

I am very sure the muslim terrorist who carried out the 911 attacks could have cared less about the financial issues involving the WTC buildings.
I'm sure the muslims terrorists didn't care about the financial issues surrounding the WTC. But I'm sure the home grown terrorist who may have been involved cared about the financial issues and when the towers collapsed, all their problems where solved.

View Postskyeagle409, on 23 March 2013 - 03:20 AM, said:

Now, what was that you were saying about WTC5?
Nothing different to what I have been saying all along.

WTC5 suffered more damage than WTC 7 because it was much closer to WTC 1 & 2 than WTC7, had bigger fires in comparison to the size of the building than WTC 7 and even had huge chunks of the building partially collapse.

Yet it still stood, even after all the damage and fires unlike WTC7 which dropped like a house of cards.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1190    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 25 March 2013 - 12:27 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 23 March 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

So much claims that fire cannot weaken steel.
STRAWMAN ALERT!!!

Now where did I argue that or even claim that fire cannot weaken steel?? lol :blink:

Highlighting your excellent delusional skills and showing the forum what a fantastic imagination you have where you create arguments that no one but yourself have invented......lol

Typical behaviour of a man who knows that when his arguments make no sense, he will invent one that no one has made in order to make it look like he has a point.

Its quite pathetic really and goes to show how little the moderation care for the standards of debate on this forum at times...lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1191    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,396 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:01 PM

View PostStundie, on 25 March 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

What do you mean "why not?" :blink:

It was all very simple to those with right knowledge.

Quote

The NIST either examined steel which had the fire proofing removed to support their hypothesis, or they didn't examine any steel which had fireproofing removed.

How do you know?  You weren't there.

Quote

We know the answer. We know the NIST didn't examine any steel which had the fireproofing removed because the NIST had to remove the fireproofing in their theory to get their computer FEA model to collapse.

Apparently, they did examine steel beams and the vestigators reported they saw no evidence of molten steel, which is a prudent assessment considering there was nothing at ground zero that could have generated molten stteel other than torches and wands used by clean-up crews.

Quote

Even if we assumed that the fireproofing was removed from WTC 1 & 2, it certainly was not removed from WTC7 and we also know that there is no evidence for this theory because not a single piece of steel was examined in the NIST report on WTC7 and the fact that it is not mentioned as the reason why WTC7 collapsed.

Perhaps, you should read this.

WTC7

http://www.structure...lsanz-Nov07.pdf

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

In addition:

Quote


WTC Collapse

Posted Image


7 World Trade Center on fire after the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11


After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.]Over the course of the day fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[ During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.

Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 5:20:33 pm EDT the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, and at 5:21:10 pm EDT it collapsed completely. There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When did WTC 7 collapse?

On Sept. 11, 2001, WTC 7 endured fires for almost seven hours, from the time of the collapse of the north WTC tower (WTC 1) at 10:28:22 a.m. until 5:20:52 p.m., when WTC 7 collapsed.
What caused the fires in WTC 7?

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.
How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

http://www.nist.gov/...c_qa_082108.cfm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.

http://en.wikipedia....ld_Trade_Center

Nothing there about explosives or molten steel.

Edited by skyeagle409, 25 March 2013 - 04:47 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1192    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,396 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:17 PM

View PostStundie, on 25 March 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

Making your entire point about the fire proofing being removed is the reason why WTC1, 2 & 7 collapsed entirely moot and pointless.

On the contrary, investigative reports confirmed what I have stated all along, which simply proved you incorrect. In addition:

Quote


Complete Report on Failure Analysis of World Trade Center 5

Abstract
This research involves a failure analysis of the internal structural collapse that occurred in World Trade Center 5 due to fire exposure alone on September 11, 2001. It is hypothesized that the steel column-tree assembly failed during the heating phase of the fire. Abaqus/Standard was used to predict the structural performance of the assembly when exposed to the fire. Results from a finite element, thermal-stress model confirms this hypothesis, for it is concluded that the catastrophic, progressive structural collapse occurred approximately 2 hours into the fire exposure.


1. Background

World Trade Center 5 (WTC 5) was a nine-story building in the World Trade Center complex in New York City, NY (Figure 1). On September 11, 2001, flaming debris from the World Trade Center Tower collapses ignited fires in WTC 5. These fires burned unchecked, ultimately causing a localized interior collapse from the 8th floor to the 4th floor in the eastern section of the building (Figure 2). Debris impact was not a direct factor in this failure; the collapse was caused by fire alone.

The structural design of WTC 5 employed a common framing configuration, with steel column-tree assemblies that had beam stubs welded to the columns and cantilevering to support simple-span girders. The connections between the girders and the beam stubs were shear plates attached to the webs with bolts. The floor framing was topped with a concrete slab with welded wire fabric reinforcement.
Forensic evidence suggests that the collapse occurred during the heating phase of the fire. The columns remained straight and freestanding after the collapse (Figure 2), suggesting that the girders never developed catenary action that would have pulled columns inward, particularly as the girders cooled late in the fire. In general, the timing of this failure (early in the fire when occupants and firefighters could be in the building and therefore at great risk) is not typical for steel structures.

2. Finite Element Analysis Approach
For this research, the nonlinear heat transfer and stress analysis capabilities of Abaqus/Standard allowed study of the mechanisms that caused WTC 5 to suffer an internal collapse. The structural plans and details of WTC 5 provided the data for an accurate model of the structural configuration.
The process involved sequentially coupled thermal-stress analyses with a heat transfer simulation to determine temperature history, followed by a stress analysis that incorporated the temperature history as part of the loading. The analyses modeled four structural bays on the 8th floor of WTC 5 (a typical bay is shown in Figure 3) using the mesh detail shown in Figure 4 for both models.


http://www.engineeri...e-center-5.html


Edited by skyeagle409, 25 March 2013 - 04:45 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1193    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,396 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:23 PM

View PostStundie, on 25 March 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

STRAWMAN ALERT!!!

Now where did I argue that or even claim that fire cannot weaken steel?? lol :blink:


Were there fires raging within WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7? Did they produce temperatures high enough to weaken the steel structures? Did they suffer from serious inpact damage before the fires commenced? Did investigators state that fires were the reasons why WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsed?

If the answers are yes, then it is very clear that fires, not explosives, were responsible for the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, and there was nothing  there to begin with to even remotely suggest there was a government conspiracy.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1194    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,396 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:26 PM

View PostStundie, on 25 March 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

I'm sure the muslims terrorists didn't care about the financial issues surrounding the WTC. But I'm sure the home grown terrorist who may have been involved cared about the financial issues and when the towers collapsed, all their problems where solved.

When you look at the picture as a whole, what you are saying doesn't make any sense at all.

Quote

WTC5 suffered more damage than WTC 7 because it was much closer to WTC 1 & 2 than WTC7, had bigger fires in comparison to the size of the building than WTC 7 and even had huge chunks of the building partially collapse.

Yet it still stood, even after all the damage and fires unlike WTC7 which dropped like a house of cards.

And yet, WTC5 did in fact, suffer from partial collapse, but the question is: What prevented from the collapse from progressing further? On another note, I think you missed this from my earlier post.

Quote

WTC5

The major fire-induced collapse that occurred in WTC 5 involved the portion of the building that had Gerber framing (girder stubs welded to columns, and simply supported central girder spans with shear connections to the ends of the stubs (Figure 2)), but not other areas of the building where girders spanned the full distance between columns.

This fact, and observations at the site suggesting that the failure was early in the fire, raised the possibility that this structure had a vulnerability that led to premature failure, perhaps during the heating phase of the fire.



Edited by skyeagle409, 25 March 2013 - 04:32 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1195    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 25 March 2013 - 10:17 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 March 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

It was all very simple to those with right knowledge.
Methinks you are losing track of this conversation.

Either the steel with removed fireproofing was examined and witnessed or it wasn't. And as we know there is no mention of this steel with the fireproofing removed in the NIST report, we know that it wasn't witnessed.

So the theory is speculative and we also know that there was no steel with fireproofing removed in the WTC 7 report too.

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 March 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

How do you know?  You weren't there.
I know I wasn't there, but there is no photographs or evidence of the steel with the fireproofing removed in the NIST report. So unless you have evidence that the NIST don't have, you have nothing to support this theory.

No doubt, using that fantastic imagination of yours, you will have convinced yourself that evidence exists....lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 March 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

Perhaps, you should read this.

WTC7

http://www.structure...lsanz-Nov07.pdf

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

In addition:



Nothing there about explosives or molten steel.
I don't read pseudo scientific/sceptical claptrap. And of course there is no evidence of explosives or molten steel, because any evidence which doesn't fit with what they want to believe is IGNORED!

Something which you are quite adaptable at doing without batting an eyelid!! lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1196    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 25 March 2013 - 10:26 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 March 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

On the contrary, investigative reports confirmed what I have stated all along, which simply proved you incorrect. In addition:
Now you are confusing different arguments, this is about the fireproofing being removed from WTC 1 & 2 and possibly 7 because you claimed that fireproofing was removed from all the WTC.

Reports on WTC5 doesn't prove what you said at all.....lol

You have used the worst comparators including a toy factory and an over pass to prove to us all that the WTC 1, 2 & 7 collapsed due to fires, even though the closer comparators such as the Caracas Towers or WTC5 disprove your claim.

WTC 5 highlights to us that just because a building has suffered from impact damage and fires, that it does not automatically mean it will collapse like the WTC 1, 2 & 7, or an over pass or a toy factory in Thailand......in fact, yet again, it disproves your claim. :w00t:

Its really not my fault that you are too simple to understand the basics...lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1197    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 25 March 2013 - 10:34 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 March 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

[/size][/size][/size]

Were there fires raging within WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7?
Yes, but much smaller than WTC 5  in comparison to the size of the building.

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 March 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

Did they produce temperatures high enough to weaken the steel structures?
Probably, just like the fires in WTC 5 were high enough to weaken the steel structure, but yet it still stood.

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 March 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

Did they suffer from serious inpact damage before the fires commenced?
Yes, just like the WTC 5 which was much closer to WTC 1&2 than WTC7.

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 March 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

Did investigators state that fires were the reasons why WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsed?
Yes, but they are flawed. The investigation of WTC7 was not based on evidence as no steel from the WTC7 was examined.

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 March 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

If the answers are yes, then it is very clear that fires, not explosives, were responsible for the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, and there was nothing  there to begin with to even remotely suggest there was a government conspiracy.
Sorry but it's not as simple as that. WTC 5 suffered from fires and impact damage and still survived.

So if WTC 5 survived and yet WTC 1, 2 & 7 didn't, then you have to ask yourself further questions like what caused those buildings to collapse when they didn't receive as much fire and impact damage in comparison to the size of the buildings as WTC5.

And as WTC5 suffered more damage and larger fires in comparison to the size of the building, then you would expect if any building was going to collapse, it would be WTC5.

Yet that is not the case.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1198    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,396 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 25 March 2013 - 10:37 PM

View PostStundie, on 25 March 2013 - 10:26 PM, said:

Now you are confusing different arguments, this is about the fireproofing being removed from WTC 1 & 2 and possibly 7 because you claimed that fireproofing was removed from all the WTC.

It is all there in the reports on what happened, and in all cases, the conclusion was that fire was to blamed.

Quote

Reports on WTC5 doesn't prove what you said at all.....

Yes it does.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1199    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,396 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 25 March 2013 - 10:39 PM

View PostStundie, on 25 March 2013 - 10:26 PM, said:

WTC 5 highlights to us that just because a building has suffered from impact damage and fires, that it does not automatically mean it will collapse like the WTC 1, 2 & 7, or an over pass or a toy factory in Thailand......in fact, yet again, it disproves your claim.

On the contrary, WTC5 did suffer from internal collapse due to fires and remember, WTC5 was not identical in construction as the other buildings.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1200    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,396 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 25 March 2013 - 11:01 PM

View PostStundie, on 25 March 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

Either the steel with removed fireproofing was examined and witnessed or it wasn't.

It was, but I guess you overlooked the video presentations.

Quote

So the theory is speculative ...

Not at all.

Quote

...and we also know that there was no steel with fireproofing removed in the WTC 7 report too.

On the contrary, on the south side, which suffered from massive impact damage.

Posted Image


In that regard, it is logical to say that parts of its steel structure was exposed directly to fire, which was evident of buckling in one corner of WTC7, which clearly indicate that fire was weakening its steel structure.

Posted Image

Quote

Either the steel with removed fireproofing was examined and witnessed or it wasn't. And as we know there is no mention of this steel with the fireproofing removed in the NIST report, we know that it wasn't witnessed.

Let's take a look. What do you see missing?

Quote


FIREPROOFING" AT THE WTC TOWERS

APPLICATION DEFICIENCIES

Fireproofing was applied directly to the long joists that supported each of the floors. Inspections of the floors with asbestos-containing fireproofing (up to the 38th floor in the North Tower) found that there were numerous areas where the fireproofing had never been applied. Top and bottom chords and truss web members were exposed, and the red lead on the trusses was clearly visible in many locations. Photo 1 shows a truss with fireproofing missing from its end where it meets the outside wall. Also, the fireproofing was frequently thinner than the 3/4 inch described in the Federal Emergency Management Agency-funded ASCE BPAT report on the collapse of the towers. Many of the problems observed were clearly the result of poor workmanship.

However, the nature of the structures that were fireproofed and application methods used could also contribute to the problem. Applying fireproofing to a long-span or any type of joist construction is difficult. The round rods and small angles making up a truss are difficult targets for the installer. Spray fireproofing materials are typically applied from the floor with an extended spray nozzle. The installer may be unable to reach or see certain areas of the trusses that must be covered. This frequently results in thin or absent fireproofing on surfaces hidden from the floor by the bottom of steel members (photo 2). In the WTC, this resulted in sections of the top surface of the bottom chord of the trusses receiving an inadequate coat of fireproofing. These are deficiencies that would have been easily discovered by the ASTM field quality assurance tests for adhesion, cohesion, thickness, and density had these test methods existed at the time of construction.

LACK OF QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING

The WTC was built before there were accepted standards for determining if the fireproofing as applied in the field would perform properly. Would the material remain on the steel (adhesion), resist physical damage (cohesion), insulate properly (thickness and density), and behave as a fire retardant? Architects relied on the "testing" undertaken by Underwriters Laboratories. However, without field quality assurance tests, there was no way of knowing if the properties of the applied fireproofing matched those of the material subjected to the UL test. The previously discussed tests would not become available until years after the completion of the WTC. For example, the ASTM test for adhesion would have detected the bonding defects of the fireproofing on core columns. This test and the ASTM test for thickness and density would have determined the adequacy of the spray fireproofing on the floor joists.
The WTC should not be considered unique in this regard. The fireproofing in any building constructed before the ASTM standards became available in 1977 should be considered suspect.


Posted Image


Posted Image


ACCUMULATED DAMAGE TO FIREPROOFING

There is another important aspect to this issue. There is no existing requirement in any building or occupancy code to inspect the fireproofing in a building periodically to determine if it has degraded through gradual physical damage. This is even true for new construction where the fireproofing is installed and tested early in the construction process. Successive work by many trades often damages and removes whole sections of fireproofing. In the WTC, the fireproofing coatings had been damaged by later construction and renovation in many locations.

LESSONS LEARNED

In considering the possible causes of the collapse of the WTC towers, the possibility that the initial application of fire-resistive coatings was deficient must be considered. The implications of this are far ranging. The fire safety of buildings depends on the fire-resistance ratings' successfully resulting in buildings that stay standing despite fire damage. Prior to the collapse of the WTC towers, it was thought that adherence to the fire-resistance ratings in the building codes would result in buildings that were safe for occupants and for those who fight fires. However, the entire scheme currently used to make these determinations must be called into question. If the WTC towers were properly protected but fell anyway, then this would indicate that the fire-resistance ratings and structural reliability of buildings as they are now built are insufficiently protective. However, if the buildings failed because the fireproofing was improperly applied, then the standards for fireproofing application and maintenance need to be strengthened. Peoples' lives depend on properly analyzing these issues and then taking appropriate corrective action.

Deficient firestopping

Deficient firestopping provides an avenue for fire spread. Columns, girders and beams are commonly protected with spray asbestos insulation or a composition material. Spray insulation has been tested to offer four-hour test ratings on columns, three hours on beams and girders.

Test conditions, however, do not match actual conditions in the field. Insulation adhesion may be ineffective because of rust. Frequently, insulation is applied to rusted metal that has not been properly treated before application; the insulation's consistency may vary; its application may be inconsistent; or it may be dislodged during original and new construction and maintenance.

http://www.fireengin...wtc-towers.html


Edited by skyeagle409, 25 March 2013 - 11:06 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX