Towering Inferno-- First Interstate Bank Fire

[DemInDistress]

A raging fire yet this building refused to collapse.




now compare that raging fire to this "puny fire" and surprisingly this major building collapses.. How??





Both had fires on the 12th floor. Both "WERE NOT HIT BY COMMERCIAL JETS" yet one collapses into its footprints.

How'd they do that?

Yes Virginia, 911 was an inside job.

edit to add Madrid fire:

[Americus]

1. Osama's real tall & maybe he jumped up on top of it & mashed it down.

MP: If the OCT'er Brigrade resonds, watch for a "little of this & a little of that" explanation...
either that or else a gibberish-laden tirade.

[LARED]

3. A little of that and a little of this

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; In practice, there is. Chuck Reid

The problem is that none of you "practice" doing anything other than babbling on about stuff you know nothing or little about. All buildings are designed and built differently. The WTC 7 tower was a very unique structure and design. It had large diesel storage tanks in the building. It burned for a long time. Eyewitness testimony speak about large fires not captured on video. There are on-going studies trying to determine why it failed. There is great interest in the engineering and architectural world about the collapse.

But it is far easier for google engineers and architects to carry-on endlessly about one building not acting like another building as if it is meaningful in some way, than actually going out and learning about how buildings are built and constructed and why sometimes they fail.

[petgoat]

5. That it is.

There are on-going studies trying to determine why it failed.

That's just the point. The official studies contradict each other, the
witnesses contradict each other, the steel was "carelessly" destroyed over
protest and despite the great interest in the issue in the engineering
world.

FEMA said the fuel tank hypothesis was not very likely. The only steel
samples studied suggest the use of explosives or thermate. (Or, here's a
speculative theory--somebody salted the steel samples with sulfur in an
effort to make the metallurgists conclude that diesel fuel and jet fuel
brought the buildings down, but the metallurgists didn't take the bait.)

You don't need to be an engineer or an architect to recognize that a shifting
story, destruction of evidence, a late report, and ignored evidence stink.

[LARED]

6. More words of wisdom from yet another

google engineer.

The only steel samples studied suggest the use of explosives or thermate.

Pure BS.

[petgoat]

8. Then how do you explain the sulfidation attack? You should

try google some time. You might learn something.

[LARED]

12. How do I explain it?

I don't. And I don't need to do any googling, as I have practical experience.

I don't have enough information to even guess. I can speculate that while buried in an underground fire there was sulfur available to form the eutectic. Sulfur is hardly rare as it is found in manifold compounds. Seems to be far more viable than the sulfur came from thermate, or some explosive.

I have worked for many years with metallurgists. Due to the nature of my work I see eutectic corrosion/erosion maybe once or twice per year. They will tell you if you hire two metallurgist to determine a failure mode due to this phenomena, you will get three answers. Eutectic corrosion/erosion phenomena is not a well understood process.

[petgoat]

15. The report says it's very unusual. If there were a hundred

mechanisms (somebody on this board suggested the sulfur came from drywall), you'd
think we'd get eutectic sulfidation commonly. We don't. WPI calls it a "deep mystery."

NIST pretends those samples don't exist.

The movie of the molten metal pouring out of WTC2 makes the thermate hypothesis
reasonable.

[LARED]

27. Just because sulfur compounds are common

does not mean eutectic corrosion would be commonly seen. Other conditions are required such as high heat and time.

The movie of the molten metal pouring out of WTC2 makes the thermate hypothesis reasonable.

Reasonable? You do not even understand the conditions under which eutectic corrosion occurs, but this movie showing one single area having molten materials fall makes themate a reasonable theory. Sure!!

[petgoat]

32. "Other conditions are required such as high heat and time. "

So let's have a study and find out how we got enough high heat in the WTC7 pile
to "evaporate" the steel. Heat from a diesel fuel fire, with no claims that
subway tunnels blew air to charcoal-ized rugs.

You do not even understand the conditions under which eutectic corrosion occurs

I understand eutectics just fine. I used to live with a potter who made her own
glazes. You think you can wave esoteric diction around and that will scare everyone
away.

this movie showing one single area having molten materials fall makes themate a
reasonable theory.

"One single area." Right. Let's talk about the 99.99% of the WTC that did not
mysteriously melt and pour out the side of the building. Let's talk about the 99.99%
of people who were not murdered last month.

How can you explain that molten firefall? Kerosene fires don't get hot enough
to melt steel. Do you think it's aluminium ?

You do pretty good work, but you're hampered by the fact that the truth is not on your
side.

[AZCat]

7. Perhaps I haven't been reading as much as I should...

but I wasn't aware of explosives or thermite being discussed as possible theories by the engineering community.

[petgoat]

9. They're very loudly NOT being discussed. Have you got

another explanation than exlosives or thermate for the Deep Mystery
of the Melted Steel?

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

[AZCat]

10. I didn't have to look far...

The article you linked has several possibilities listed.

<quote>
Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.
</quote> (emphasis mine)

I'm not sure how someone loudly does not discuss something.

[petgoat]

14. "I'm not sure how someone loudly does not discuss something."

I guess you've not experienced many elephants in living rooms, then.

Yes, he mentions a lot of possible explanations. But he refuses to declare that any of them
are likely. And if hot steel commonly formed eutectic mixtures with burning shower curtains
or drywall, or rugs, you'd think the fire engineer on the team would say so. The Appendix
C report says:

"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."

But FEMA did not fund any further studies. And NIST pretends these samples don't exist.

The event is very unusual, no explanation for the sulfur is known, nobody is
making any serious suggestions, nobody is funding any further studies, and Dr.
Biederman is dishing up explanations like a guy trying to explain to his
girlfriend how a matchbook from a gay bar turned up in his pocket: "Well maybe
I just went in there to use the bathroom. Maybe I just went in to ask directions.
Maybe I just went in to use the telephone. Maybe I just wanted a book of matches.
Maybe I was just really really thirsty. Maybe one of my buddies suggested we meet
there just to play a trick on me. Maybe I was doing research for a short story.
Maybe I didn't know it was a gay place. Maybe I got the wrong address--I wanted
5372, not 3572. Maybe somebody slipped the matches in my pocket as a joke."

[AZCat]

16. I still don't see how that leads to your theories.

The lack of any further investigation into the source of the sulphur doesn't seem to me to suggest that the source must be from either of the theories mentioned by you - demolition or thermite. I don't see the analogy that you do (the gay bar) perhaps because I don't expect research to happen in any coherent manner. The NIST wasn't exactly overflowing with spare cash for the WTC investigation and anyone else is dependent on circumstance - professors usually only get to investigate this stuff if they get a grant. So what am I missing here that leads you to these conclusions that isn't occurring to me - is it a question of perspective?


No, I have experienced no elephants in living rooms, although an elephant did steal my bag of popcorn once (damn you, Jumbo).

[petgoat]

17. "lack of any further investigation into the source of the sulphur"

is very peculiar to me. An article in the NYT says the collapse of WTC7 was much
more important to structural engineers around the world than the collapse of the
towers was.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/engineers_are_baffled_over_the_collapse_of_7_wtc.html

The obvious hypothesis was that the diesel fuel in the building was the sulfur source,
but the WPI investigators don't even mention it, FEMA says the diesel thesis has a low
probability, and the NIST preliminary report leans to structural damage rather than
fires as the cause of collapse.

As the NYT article points out, many hospitals and mission-critical facilities have
backup generators, so the question is an important one. And yet nobody can get funding
to incinerate some steel with diesel fuel. Methinks they don't want to know the answer
of that study.

Failure to fund some cheap studies to get easy answers leads me to suspect that the
unpleasant answers are the answer.

As to elephants in living rooms, that's what co-dependancy is all about. You're lucky
you have no experience with them. Hopefully those of of us who do have learned something
from our experience.

[AZCat]

18. Perhaps I am more confident in my peers than you.

I have ample experience with the tenacity of my compatriots when exposed to a problem and while answers might now be forthcoming immediately, someone somewhere will usually find a way to investigate any unanswered questions, it just takes longer when funding sources are not readily available (and that is more due to the Bush administration's general hostility towards science than any 9/11 issues, IMHO).

I have serious doubts about the validity of any theories that involve some sort of collusion between researchers - the engineering community is full of head-strong individualists (although it does have its share of yes-men) and any attempt to corral them would raise a furor (or what passes for a furor among engineers).

[petgoat]

19. I have little confidence in your peers because they quietly

assented to the patently ridiculous zipper/pancake theory for three years,
then let NIST overthrow it without comment.

Compartmentalizing the investigations, making clear that comment outside one's
permitted area is unwelcome (Kevin Ryan), limiting the mandate, and destroying
or suppressing the evidence makes collusion unnecessary.

[AZCat]

20. Kevin Ryan was wrong.

That is the essence of his situation.

My peers have a nice habit of only wanting to voice opinions about issues that they are familiar with. Richard Feynman once made the point that an opinion expressed by a scientist out of his area of expertise is no more valuable than the opinion of any other layman. Perhaps you have read all the technical articles related to the collapse of the WTC and can comment on any particulars, such as where the various collapse mechanisms (or other issues) are discussed and verified (or invalidated)? I have read articles myself that have disagreed with the NIST report, and am fairly certain you are not familiar with the body of work that relates to the WTC collapses, else why would you be making statements that are contrary to what is actually out there? Now do those articles make sweeping statements? Generally not, because that isn't how the engineering community works. If you are looking for a blanket refutation of the NIST WTC study you won't find it - various individuals look at separate pieces and produce reports full of qualifiers but no-one is going to spend the time to verify or refute the whole thing until there is a preponderance of analysis. Sure, it isn't newsworthy (at least to laypeople) but it has the benefit of being right.

[KJF]

22. Posting

It would be useful if you posted links to the technical articles related to the collapse of the WTC to which you refer (if they're available online), so we could all read them. It might enhance the quality of debate.

[AZCat]

31. Actually I've been waiting for a series to be available.

There's a series of articles written by a fire protection engineer that I've been reading over the past few years that should be available online at some point (but I don't know when). The engineer is quite critical of the NIST investigation in a majority of the articles and I find no fault with his criticisms.

I'll let you (and everyone else) know when the series is finally online.

[KJF]

45. Thanks

How about the engineer's name and a brief summary of one or two of his points?

[AZCat]

56. Sure.

His name is Richard Schulte, of Schulte & Associates in Evanston, Ill.

Brief summary: If, as representatives of the NIST have stated a number of times, the NIST project shifted from an investigation of terrorism (and prevention) to an investigation of hi-rise safety then the Institute failed to adequately justify it's recommendations for improvements in hi-rise building safety (he also disagrees with most of the design, construction and maintenance recommendations in the final report).

[petgoat]

24. Right, so you're saying everyone's afraid to be wrongand so

says as little as possible.

[AZCat]

34. No, that's not what I am saying.

If someone is dumb enough to make the kind of statements that Kevin Ryan did without knowing what they are talking about then they should expect the kind of reaction he got.

Being wrong isn't unforgivable, but being an idiot is.

[petgoat]

40. What was Kevin Ryan wrong about? nt

[AZCat]

43. See any of the previous innumerable threads...

about Kevin Ryan in this forum for specifics. I have posted about it before, as have a number of other DUers.

[petgoat]

47. I other words, you can't remember what Kevin Ryan was

wrong about.

Your posts on the subject:

"The only thing obvious to me after reading his letter is that Kevin Ryan doesn't understand the relationship between temperature and yield strength in metals. He appears to have read (or at least skimmed) ASTM E119, but does not see that the standard says nothing about the behavior of structural members during the test other than requiring that they be able to support the anticipated load for the duration of the fire resistance level sought."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=69958#69980

"Elevated temperatures weaken steel.

"There is no debate about this - it is just how the material reacts. The relationship between temperature and yield strength is continuous so while steel at 250 C may not be as weak as steel at 500 C, the yield strength still decreases. Ryan doesn't understand this and that is why his letter is unimportant - he doesn't know what he is talking about."

When you say "the relationship... is continuous" are you saying it's linear?
The curve is nearly flat at the lower end, and the structure was, of course,
heavily overbuilt. Are you asserting that Ryan was wrong because temperatures
of 250 degrees C could have weakened the steel sufficiently to cause the collapse?
If so, you're far more bold than NIST is. They hypothesize fat higher
temperatures than that to explain the collapse.

[AZCat]

51. I don't know why...

you would want to be insulting about this - why would I not remember Kevin Ryan? And if I didn't it certainly wouldn't take long to refresh my memory. Are you deliberately trying to antagonize me?

I do not mean that the relationship between temperature and yield strength is linear. It is a continuous - as opposed to discrete - relationship. Temperatures of 250 deg. C would have decreased the yield strength of the steel.

[petgoat]

41. The first blanket refutation of the NIST WTC study was written by

Sami Yli-Karjanmaa and it's only about 300 words long.

He points out that the NIST models were truncated both in space and in
time. They cut off the model 2 floors below the impact zone, and
they cut off the time of modelling at the inception of collapse.

It is thus not satisfactory in explaining why the towers collapsed
completely and progressively and symmetrically.

http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html

Another one was written by Jim Hoffman:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

[AZCat]

42. Anyone expectations of a "global" model..

for the behavior of the WTC towers fails to understand the significant difficulties involved with modelling such events. I have posted about this before (at length, I think) but the basic problem is that with any nonlinear system is impossible to recreate a particular sequence of behavior because of the differences in initial system configurations. No matter how precise a digital model might be, it still cannot replicate the actual system (quantum uncertainty can be enough to change outcomes with certain nonlinear systems).

If you want a better explanation, I can try to find a "primer" for nonlinear (aka "chaotic") systems on the net.

On Edit: Here's a link to a Sci.Nonlinear FAQ. It's not really for laypeople but you might find some answers there.

[dailykoff]

44. What a load.

Obviously enough people understood these structures well enough to design, build and maintain them, which is a hell of a lot harder than destroying them and then lying about it.

Try answering the objections for once instead of dodging them.

[petgoat]

48. You said it. nt

[AZCat]

52. Obviously?

Please learn more about this before accusing others of dodging instead of answering.


Oh, and hostility sure is a great asset in a discussion, isn't it? It really helps smooth things out, especially when talking about things that you don't have a very good understanding of. I know that I personally am more willing to discuss things with people who, instead of being polite, seem to go out of their way to write rude, insulting posts.

[dailykoff]

53. Yes, obviously.

These buildings were built and maintained for thirty years and their structural systems have been thoroughly understood for at least that long. "Our wee little heads will never undertand" is a dodge.

Tone: I don't mean to give offense, but whether you realize it or not you're using terrible science to cover up a terrible crime. If that isn't obvious to you then you have a lot to learn.

[AZCat]

54. Perhaps we are discussing two different things here.

Complex systems (like buildings) are composed of elements that, taken individually, can behave linearly but when put together in a particular configuration no longer behave in such a "predictable" way. It isn't that our "wee little heads" won't ever understand it, but that the system itself cannot be modelled. The stock market is the same way - no matter how much data you collect or how detailed a model is, it cannot predict the behavior of the stock market. You can, however, get a general idea of how it will behave, and that is what structural engineers do when designing buildings. Read up on the Citicorp Center in Manhattan for reference on this sort of modelling.

The specific sequence of the collapse of the WTC towers is not one you can replicate because the nature of complex systems precludes such predictive behavior. You can however build models (digital or otherwise), study the general behavior during collapse (Monte Carlo methods are popular) and use those results to draw conclusions. That isn't a dodge - it's just the nature of the system.

Regarding terrible science: This is what I do for a living. I am pretty confident in my knowledge of buildings and complex systems and while I may be failing to properly express myself I don't think I am failing in my understanding of what is and isn't possible.

[dailykoff]

55. We're discussing the cause of two highrise collapses,

or at least I am, and the stock market has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't take digital "modeling" to figure out that a fire on the 90th floor has no effect on the 88+ floors below it, certainly not in the time frames we're talking about, 10,000 pages of idiotic flim-flammery notwithstanding.

[AZCat]

57. Perhaps my tangent was a little off.

But it does take detailed analysis to determine whether or not fires in hypothetical hi-rises can have catastrophic consequences, especially when coupled with damage from aircraft impacts. Did the NIST do this? Dunno, because I haven't had the time to look at all their work (nor is all of it present in the final report). But I think your claim about fire effects is wrong - this is not an intuitive situation.

[dailykoff]

58. Sorry, that's bunk.

And the appeal to intuition is yours: "fires couldn't do it, but fires AND crashes could, although nobody knows exactly how, because there's no computer in the universe big enough to model it, so trust the NIST."

That's crap, but if you're hellbent on fooling yourself I can't stop you.

:shrug:

[AZCat]

59. When have I suggested that you trust the NIST?

And I haven't at any time suggested that you take something on intuition, but instead argued that your statement was incorrect for expressing a certainty that does not exist.

Upthread you stated that the buildings were destroyed. Please explain to me how (other than through some sense of intuition) you arrived at this conclusion.

[dailykoff]

61. That really isn't the issue

is it? :eyes:

[AZCat]

62. What?

Pardon me for being thick, but what isn't the issue?

[dailykoff]

63. Any of it.

It's a polite way of saying this is getting ridiculous.

[AZCat]

64. Now I'm really confused. n/t

[Jazz2006]

65. Mission accomplished.

That's her specialty - inserting inane nonsense into a dialogue to deflect the actual conversation away from physical and scientific evidence to ensure that the conversation goes awry and becomes unintelligible.

No idea why she has been tasked with that particular mission, but that is what she does ad nauseum, and, to give her credit, she's good at it.

[AZCat]

66. Jeez - it's a bit overwhelming.

It's like I'm speaking a different language.

[Jazz2006]

69. AZCat

Yes, that is exactly it. Certain posters (i.e. the one at issue here) seem to specialize in turning a conversation upside down with ridiculous assertions and outrageous diversionary tactics for the specific purpose of derailing a rational conversation that threatens the conspiracy theory of the day. It's quite bizarre, and can easily leave a rational person thinking that they are speaking a different language.

My theory - and it's only a theory but one based on reading a whole lot of archives here - is that they do it to deliberately disrupt conversation in hopes that the rational poster will just give up out of bewilderment or out of frustration with the ridiculous stuff they post.

On the up side, the reality is that you are not speaking a foreign language, but rather speaking the truth that so many CTers don't want to hear. Those who do not view the world with their eyes closed and their ears covered recognize rational posts when they read them.

So, I hope you will carry on and can ignore, to the best of your ability, the disruptions of the cheerleaders and (for want of a better term) deliberate nonsense-spouters.

[AZCat]

70. Ugh.

There have been some real nuts here, but it seemed easier to spot them before. It is sad that the truth can get so easily sidetracked.

I just can't figure out why anyone would behave this way. There doesn't seem to be any real benefit other than establishing some sort of territorial claim over this forum group.

[Jazz2006]

71. Yes, it is odd indeed.

And I do not purport to understand the objectives behind such bizarre behaviour, but the idea that it is simply a form of territorial claim could certainly fit.

I don't know what motivates the kind of poster that we're talking about.

But I do know that it's bizarre.

[dailykoff]

67. You're a little late, but thanks. (n/t)

[John_and_Shirley]

68. Better late than never

[Jazz2006]

21. Best line ever.

"or what passes for a furor among engineers"

understatement at its finest because it is soooooooo true

:D

[petgoat]

23. "soooooooo true"

Right, because what passes for a furor is related to what passes for
"head-strong individualists" who can not be expected to challenge an
official gov't report when they don't have access to the blueprints
and when the steel has been destroyed.

[Jazz2006]

25. LOL

No, no.

You clearly don't know engineers or you would have got the joke.

It really was a beautifully executed bit of understatement based on reality.

Hahahahahaha.

[Twist_U_Up]

26. Heres a funny heard around my profession:

Why do engineers wear ties?


So they have something to pull when their head slips up their ass.

Now thats Funny

[Jazz2006]

35. Lol ~ yes, I agree.

That is funny.

I've heard the same joke used re: various professions, but it's still funny.

[petgoat]

28. You're bluffing and I do know engineers nt

[mirandapriestly]

37. Engineers

My husband has a masters in engineering.He follows 9-11. He never uses his degree or expertise to claim "expert knowledge" of 9-11. I ask him for his opinion all the time and there are too many variables and not enough information available for really valid opinions. Same with my sister who is an engineer (at Boeing ). I say that from time to time when I see people trying to use some degree which they may or may not have to win an argument.

[AZCat]

38. A degree should never be used as an excuse.

I hope I didn't imply the opposite.

[Grateful for Hope]

46. Your husband and sister are very wise

"there are too many variables and not enough information available for really valid opinions" is very true. And, this is precisely why we need an independent, non-partisan investigation of 9/11.

[LARED]

29. I noticed something about you

You play a myth maker role in 9/11

the steel was "carelessly" destroyed over protest and despite the great interest in the issue in the engineering world.

There were "protests" about destroying the steel prior to it being recycled? Tell us more.

[petgoat]

33. "protests" about destroying the steel

It's well known in the record. Please inform yourself.

"Fire Engineering" magazine for one. See "Burning Questions...Need Answers"

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

and "$ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION", both by Bill Manning.

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&ARTICLE_ID=133237&VERSION_NUM=1

Google is your friend, and I can't believe you are innocent of this knowledge.

And get some sleep! You posted at 4:55. Has your job been outsourced to Bangladesh?

[mirandapriestly]

39. "carelessly" is better than " intentionally"

I think it was quite fair of Petgoat.

[quickesst]

2. But...

haven't your heard? The fires softened the steel, then cooled and became brittle. That's what caused the WT.....Oh, wait a minute. The building in your picture MUST have collapsed when the steel cooled. Right? I mean, if you follow the logic of the gubment shills, virtually every fire that has occurred in tall skyscrapers surely must have resulted in their collapse due to brittle steel. Right? :sarcasm:
Good comparison. Thanks.
quickesst

[DemInDistress]

4. thanks quick.... knew I could count on you..unlike the master debunker

LARED and his band.
How did fires in the basement of WT7 leap up to the 12th floor? Secondly, the S.E.C. has offices on that floor. Was it "ARSON?" I'll buy that argument (arson).Also, the 7th or 8th floor was on fire. I hear the CIA
special operations office was located there.
Makes a good case for "controlled demolition" especially after larry the thief silverstein bemoans,"we decided to pull it" h'm. Pull what? I'd like to know.

[wildbilln864]

11. Master debunker!?

You're kidding right? I've seen nothing debunked except the official story.

[quickesst]

13. No problem DemI....

I suppose their are different paths that lead to truth or denial. My path has been a simple one of logic, one being your example by comparison. The Knights of NIH have had both arms and both legs cut off, but they keep insisting they're right, and nothing's wrong with their "body" of argument. Thanks.
quickesst

[vincent_vega_lives]

30. More WTC7 pics

Impact and fire damage to WTC7


Yes that is smoke from WTC7.


Thats debris from WTC1 between WTC7 (left) and Verizon Building (right). Think any debris hit WTC7?

[sabbat hunter]

36. you need to fix your links

the pics arent showing.

thanks

[vincent_vega_lives]

49. Really?

showing just fine?

[petgoat]

50. I'd bought the story that the "smoke" was dust from the WTC1 collapse.

But this must be relatively late in the afternoon, because the
west sides of the World Financial Center buildings are sunlit.

I don't think they'd be sunlit at 9:59. Do you know where this
picture came from (besides the FEMA report, I mean.)

[mirandapriestly]

60. I can't see pix.nt