Tony there are many sources for the effect of heat on the strength of steel. I am not a testing lab and did what you did... cite some source.
Regardless of the actual %, heat weakens steel... and it also caused warping, distorting, elongation, shearing bolts and failing connections. Steel does not have to melt to fail...
Mechanical damage and the effect of heat on some parts of the structure led to a progressive load distribution and eventually to the inability of the remaining columns to support the superimposed loads.
If heat from fire did not effect structural steel there would be no fire proofing requirements. The twin towers faced a double problem... mechanically caused loss of fire protection and no sprinkler to fight the fires. And this on top of mechanical destruction of core columns from the plane impacts and thousands of gallons of fuel adding to the problem.
30-09-2013, 01:42 AM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2013, 04:07 AM by Tony Szamboti.)
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Tony there are many sources for the effect of heat on the strength of steel. I am not a testing lab and did what you did... cite some source.
Regardless of the actual %, heat weakens steel... and it also caused warping, distorting, elongation, shearing bolts and failing connections. Steel does not have to melt to fail...
Mechanical damage and the effect of heat on some parts of the structure led to a progressive load distribution and eventually to the inability of the remaining columns to support the superimposed loads.
If heat from fire did not effect structural steel there would be no fire proofing requirements. The twin towers faced a double problem... mechanically caused loss of fire protection and no sprinkler to fight the fires. And this on top of mechanical destruction of core columns from the plane impacts and thousands of gallons of fuel adding to the problem.
Complete failure of steel structures with the reserve strength and redundancy of that in skyscrapers like the twin towers could not occur until it reaches very high temperatures. Heating of large pieces of steel to the point of weakening takes hours and it is proven that fires burn out in about 30 minutes in any one area in office fires. This is why there have been no steel framed high rise collapses due to fire in history. This is why the firefighters were confident and went up to fight the fires in the buildings.
There were no sprinklers in the North Tower when it had a three hour fire from the 11th to the 19th floors in 1975. How come it didn't collapse? In fact, there was very little to no distortion of the steel. How come?
The aircraft fuel that did make it into the building, and did not go up in the fireball, was burned up in minutes. The fires were nothing but standard offices fires when the buildings collapsed.
You keep going on about heating doing it, but don't seem concerned that there is no physical evidence of high steel temperatures. NIST only found three spots out of 236 pieces they got where the temperature of the steel had gotten above 250 degrees C. If people look at the chart again here they will see that steel has not lost any strength at that temperature. I am afraid you are taking things on faith, have no basis for what you are saying, and are basically just repeating what can rightly be called a propaganda soundbite as to how those buildings came down.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5340[/ATTACH]
Click on image to enlarge
The buildings were demolished and this is easy to ascertain when looking at the floors which actually collapsed first in the North Tower. It started at the 98th floor which was above the aircraft impact and the first floors after that were the 99th through the 101st. Watch this slow motion video to see how the lower part of the upper section disintegrates before anything below the initiation floor starts to collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k. The collapse of several of the lower floors of the upper section first, before anything is impacted and collapses below, could not be due to natural causes such as heating. These floors above the 98th were not even affected by fire and they could not have collapsed due to impact. This also shows why it did not decelerate.
Quote:You keep going on about heating doing it, but don't seem concerned that there is no physical evidence of high steel temperatures. NIST only found three spots out of 236 pieces they got where the temperature of the steel had gotten above 250 degrees C.
How could NIST say, therefore, that fire weakened the steel causing the collapse? Who needs proof when you already know the answer?
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
30-09-2013, 07:37 AM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2013, 08:05 AM by Peter Lemkin.)
NIST was just 'voodoo science' in the service of a hidden political agenda - as have ALL 'official investigations' into deep political events been - to keep the pre-scripted myth/'conclusions' alive, and the Truth from being formalized into consciousness by the majority of the Sheeple. It also gives the controlled MSM their talking points, and their and the politicians their limited frame for discussion. Such 'investigative' reports as those from NIST are part of the cover-up of what really happened - as the Truth is too much for the Oligarchy to survive - as with most big Deep Political Events; so they control the facts/reality by false and controlled, limited and limited hangout investigations - meant to 'satisfy' those who know no better and are inclined to trust the officials - who always lie - in the service of the hidden powers running most finance, wars, politics and control of politicians, banking and institutionalized robbing of the average person, control of resources around the planet and in the country, top-down anti-democracy hidden under a fig leaf of faux democratic rhetoric, a Constitution and laws now supplanted by COG - before just ignored, as needed or changed by controlled judicial appointees or purchased prostituted Congress and Presidents. It is left to the Citizen Investigator and Free-thinkers to unearth our real history and the truth of all public events - especially the Deep Political variety.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Quote:You keep going on about heating doing it, but don't seem concerned that there is no physical evidence of high steel temperatures. NIST only found three spots out of 236 pieces they got where the temperature of the steel had gotten above 250 degrees C.
How could NIST say, therefore, that fire weakened the steel causing the collapse? Who needs proof when you already know the answer?
30-09-2013, 12:14 PM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2013, 12:38 PM by Tony Szamboti.)
It is hard to believe they were errors and not intentional deceptions.
There were flange to web stiffeners at the end of the girder between columns 44 and 79 in WTC 7 that would have made their initiating event of girder walk-off in the northeast corner under floor 13 impossible. The stiffeners are shown on drawing #9114 but are nowhere to be found in the report and were left out of the NIST analysis. How come?
I would encourage everyone here to see this short video about it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz7v8EgCzJM so you can see what is going on in a clear way for yourself.
This is similar to Jerry Ford moving the JFK back wound up to the "back of the neck" in the Warren Report, to make it work with the single bullet theory, when in reality it was well below that at 5.5" below the collar on his back. Of course, in the WTC 7 case the public didn't have the drawings and in the JFK case the public didn't have the autopsy report showing the actual location of the back wound, until years after the reports were issued.
This omission makes the NIST WTC 7 report invalid by itself and there is more.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:It is hard to believe they were errors and not intentional deceptions.
There were flange to web stiffeners at the end of the girder between columns 44 and 79 in WTC 7 that would have made their initiating event of girder walk-off in the northeast corner under floor 13 impossible. The stiffeners are shown on drawing #9114 but are nowhere to be found in the report and were left out of the NIST analysis. How come?
I would encourage everyone here to see this short video about it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz7v8EgCzJM so you can see what is going on in a clear way for yourself.
This is similar to Jerry Ford moving the JFK back wound up to the "back of the neck" in the Warren Report, to make it work with the single bullet theory, when in reality it was well below that at 5.5" below the collar on his back. Of course, in the WTC 7 case the public didn't have the drawings and in the JFK case the public didn't have the autopsy report showing the actual location of the back wound, until years after the reports were issued.
This omission makes the NIST WTC 7 report invalid by itself and there is more.
Indeed it's hard to believe that the mistakes in the published reports were oversights and some how not intentional. But of course accepting that the mistakes were part of a deception, one can't know what they deception was intended to conceal. The truth movement ASSUMES that the intent was to cover for the CD/inside job/ false flag. There are other explanations for the assumed *deception*. I have offered one which simply stated is that the wrong explanation conceals a series of decisions, which may constitute all manner of corruption, and professional misconduct and subject the designers, developers, etc. to wrongful death lawsuits, profession misconduct and expose powerful people to accountability.
There certainly is a pattern in the country of the powerful well connected protected their *own*... whether it is the blue line of silence or the more recent example of the failure to hold the Wall Street accountable for the crash of the mortgage economy. Commissions are made up of insiders who can't seem to find any insiders culpable of misconduct. The best we heard was a cryptic remark that the commission was set up to fail and did not tell the whole story.
Ironically, the same group who are the targets of the truth movement conspiracists are the same group (class) who has benefited and escaped any accountability for their actions. But this class is always benefiting from disasters... and they don't cause all disasters... that is unless you hold the people who brought us nuclear power (industry) as responsible for Three Mile Island and Fukishima. If I recall correctly, not one faced any sanctions/accountablity when those plants *failed*. See a pattern?
Quote:You keep going on about heating doing it, but don't seem concerned that there is no physical evidence of high steel temperatures. NIST only found three spots out of 236 pieces they got where the temperature of the steel had gotten above 250 degrees C.
How could NIST say, therefore, that fire weakened the steel causing the collapse? Who needs proof when you already know the answer?
I think this is the big gray area about the collapse of those buildings. What was the temperature of the steel? What parts of the steel were at those elevated temperatures? How do we know?
I don't think we know with any certainty or precision much about the steel and elevated temps. There were no transducers measuring the temps... no video cameras recording the locations of the fire... or the amount of fire protection left/removed from the steel.
We don't know for sure.
We do know that steel frames rely on applied fire protection which give its a 2 hr rating to resist typical office fires and failure. All the towers experienced extensive fires, probably fuel assisted, no fire suppression from sprinklers and likely loss of fore protection on the steel.
Even in 7WTC where I believe the initiating failure occurred in the load transfer region...there were reported explosions early in the day. I believe they were electrical equipment caused explosions... and I would suggest that these explosions ALSO dislodged fire proofing from steel and may have started fuel fed and unfought fires. THIS IS SPECULATION. I don't know if there is a way to determine if this actually of occurred. Perhaps this could be modeled. I do not know.
The non CD explanation seems logical to me and matches the observations from the public record... however incomplete that record is. CD is an explanation with NO supporting evidence... which ignores contrary evidence (movements of the buildings prior to release).
Quote:You keep going on about heating doing it, but don't seem concerned that there is no physical evidence of high steel temperatures. NIST only found three spots out of 236 pieces they got where the temperature of the steel had gotten above 250 degrees C.
How could NIST say, therefore, that fire weakened the steel causing the collapse? Who needs proof when you already know the answer?
I think this is the big gray area about the collapse of those buildings. What was the temperature of the steel? What parts of the steel were at those elevated temperatures? How do we know?
I don't think we know with any certainty or precision much about the steel and elevated temps. There were no transducers measuring the temps... no video cameras recording the locations of the fire... or the amount of fire protection left/removed from the steel.
We don't know for sure.
We do know that steel frames rely on applied fire protection which give its a 2 hr rating to resist typical office fires and failure. All the towers experienced extensive fires, probably fuel assisted, no fire suppression from sprinklers and likely loss of fore protection on the steel.
Even in 7WTC where I believe the initiating failure occurred in the load transfer region...there were reported explosions early in the day. I believe they were electrical equipment caused explosions... and I would suggest that these explosions ALSO dislodged fire proofing from steel and may have started fuel fed and unfought fires. THIS IS SPECULATION. I don't know if there is a way to determine if this actually of occurred. Perhaps this could be modeled. I do not know.
The non CD explanation seems logical to me and matches the observations from the public record... however incomplete that record is. CD is an explanation with NO supporting evidence... which ignores contrary evidence (movements of the buildings prior to release).
You don't need thermocouples measuring the temperature of the steel during the fire. The steel itself provides a metallurgical record and the temperature it reached can be determined afterward. However, you need the steel afterward to do that. NIST got only 0.25 to 0.50% of the steel from the towers but what they got showed no metallurgical evidence of having reached temperatures where it even lost any strength.
Essentially, there is no evidence whatsoever that fire took those buildings down.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:You don't need thermocouples measuring the temperature of the steel during the fire. The steel itself provides a metallurgical record and the temperature it reached can be determined afterward. However, you need the steel afterward to do that. NIST got only 0.25 to 0.50% of the steel from the towers but what they got showed no metallurgical evidence of having reached temperatures where it even lost any strength.
Essentially, there is no evidence whatsoever that fire took those buildings down.
Your own post / data shows that we NIST either did not test for the temps of all the core steel in the region of the plane strikes and fires or didn't collect the steel from this region and couldn't test it. Reporting a few bits of temp data assuming they could make a reliable assessment does not prove what the temps may have been... all it proves is that NIST reported some data on 0.25%-.05% of the steel.
Of course NIST wanted us to believe it was sagging trusses and so why would they present temp data about the core? Or perhaps presenting just a few bits of data which does not conflict with their thesis.... cherry picking explains that they didn't report data that they may have had.
The steel did not *disappear* as a result of the collapse. One has to wonder why more of the steel in the strike zones was not saved and analyzed. Was it because it showed heat damage or as Tony would have us believe sings of explosives perhaps?
