What really happened ....11 september

[Bitstream]

Quote from dpt:

To be sure, the building partially collapsed, but stood. The perimeter support
columns failed on the upper stories, leaving the reinforced concrete
core exposed and standing.



On what basis do you say that?

because it was in a hell of inferno for 26hours. while the fire in the towers lasted for a bit over an hour. i don't believe for an instant that lack of fireproof in the towers was enough to weaken the steel because of the duration of the fire. it is safe to say 26 hours of raging inferno do much more damage, fireproof or not, than 1 hour of contained fire. also u'll see below that it is impossible for the towers steel structure to be impaired by fire: ludicrous to say the least and certainly not supported by facts.
u gotta also keep in mind that most of the jet fuel was consumed in the massive 3 fireballs u can clearly see in the videos. and what remained of the jet fuel itself burned for only 10minutes; the fire that ensued later was apparently caused by furniture, ect. and in the area of impact there was very little if none fire, since we can see a lady [rachel] standing exactly there, and no flames, not fumes visible.

The Madrid building had extensive passive fireproofing for its steel
structural members, due to its relatively traditional concrete masonry + steel
frame construction. It had no active fireproofing, and it was in fact in the
process of being renovated to add active fireproofing systems when the fire
broke out.

Now why is it that fireproofing is universally used to protect structural
steel in steel frame buildings, including the Madrid Windsor building?

The basic reason is: it is very well known that structural steel has
properties that change very significantly when it is heated above room
temperatures.

Steel deforms far more easily once its temperature is raised to 400-500 C than
it does when it is cold. Also, the cold yield strength of steel is far greater
than the hot yield strength. This fact is employed in a commonly
used technique for forming enormous steel bridge girders to precisely fit
roadway curves in road bridges. Girders are first heated to the region of 400
C and they can then be deformed into shape by applying relatively small
lateral bending forces.

Just as importantly, even before reaching 500 C steel expands
considerably as it is heated. If steel beams are heated non-uniformly, as can
be pretty generally expected to happen in the case of a building fire, then
thermal expansion will produce non-uniform stresses on any structural beams
that are exposed and heated to high temperature, as well causing stresses on
the beams to which they are attached. Such stresses, caused by thermal
expansion alone, could reach yield levels, even in moderate fire conditions.

Temperatures in the region of 400-500 C are easily achievable, even in
diffuse flame, fuel rich fires.

this is not backed by the evidence. the steel analyzed not only never reached those temperatures with consistency but was also passed every test for structural integrity. temperatures were found to be around 250-c.

and here we go, there's a huge difference between traditional steel and the tower steel: this was not ordinary steel, it was certified ASTM E119 and surely didn't deform at any temperatures found in the towers. kevin rayan of underwriters laboratories executive, who speaks out on the wtc study: "the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. ryan goes on to say: "we know the steel components were certified ASTM E119. the temperatures curved for this standard require the sample to be exposed to temperatures around 2000-C for several hours, and as we all agree, the steel met those specifications". so u understand that the steel was heated up to 2000-C and if it passed the test it was employed.
to note that kevin ryan was fired by underwriter lab in a very strange turn of events.

so, u see that u just cannot buy the fire theory, the steel was much stronger than traditional steel and designed to withstand extremely high temperatures. i will also post a 3d animation of the real structure of the towers that clearly is not even comparable in strength to the design attributed by nist/fema.

So all steel frame buildings would be vulnerable to collapse in fire, if it
were not that fireproofing of some form were employed in the construction, to
prevent structural steel from being rapidly heated. It would be sheer lunacy
to build a steel frame building without using some form of fireproofing for
the steel support members.

In case of a fully developed building fire, such as occurred in Madrid, where
the building did not fully collapse, there can be little doubt that passive
fireproofing played a role in the long survival time of the building. However
there are other reasons why this building survived so long relative to the WTC
towers.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1205

`Crucially, the building remained standing despite the intensity of the
fire. An investigation is underway between Spanish technical agency Intemac
and UK authorities including Arup Fire, the University of Edinburgh and the
concrete industry including Cembureau, BCA and The Concrete
Centre. Preliminary findings suggest that a combination of the upper technical
floor and the excellent passive fire resistance of the tower's concrete
columns and core prevented total building collapse.

(emphasis added)

http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150

`The building had a concrete central core with two rows of reinforced
concrete columns in the north-south direction, aligned with the core side
walls. The structure above ground was characterised by two transition floors
at 3rd and 17th Floor levels, which housed plant and services.'

So we see that the central core of the Madrid/Windsor building, which bore the
major fraction of the vertical load on the core in compression, was
constructed using reinforced concrete as the major load bearing
material.

This fact may very well account for the building's extraordinarily good fire
resistance.



There was a massive wall of concrete around the base of the core: 17
feet thick at that point. This wall did not extend all the way up the
towers. In any case, concrete was not employed for bearing the gravity load in
the WTC. This load was transmitted to ground at the foundation on bedrock,
through compression of the steel core columns and the steel perimeter tube
columns.




The cores were rectangular areas 27m by 41m containing the 47 steel load
bearing columns which extended from the foundation above the bedrock to the
top of the tower. The four corner columns were larger than the all the rest in
the core and bore about 20% of the vertical load on the core. All of the core
columns were, of course, tapered with height, and the construction of them
varied with height, becoming in general lighter as one moved higher in the
building.

The twin towers can be roughly described as being primarily of lightweight
steel construction, having to be sure, a very high degree of structural
redundancy due to the large number of support columns on the peripheral load
bearing exterior walls and also in the core, but also leaving a very high percentage of
empty space in the building, approaching in fact about 95%.



The core of the Madrid building was no joke at all. It was constructed very
well when it came to fire resistance, since it utilized reinforced concrete
for the load bearing columns.

Cheers!

first i never said it was a joke in itself but in contrast to the towers. and u are wrong about the core: it was completely surrounded by reinforced concrete, from top to bottom and the towers as well had those pivotal floors designed to prevent total collapse. one of the floors in q, is the number 76. there's a link about the design of the cores i posted a few pages back, check it out.

 

[man]

Quote from ratboy88:

maybe it's one of these:



<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SUdB9yhKdT4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SUdB9yhKdT4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

ah and sorry. if you look a this carefully a couple of
times it starts to appear staged. please look at the
moment when she points her finger to ask what is
that. while the object starts to appear a second later
behind the tower. looks very much like she expected
it or even pre reacted. am i the only one seeing that?

an UFO behind WTC. wow that is half way to the
demon face in the smoke ...

 

[Bitstream]

yeah but keep in mind she's watching it from the camera and it is probably magnified. looks a bit staged tho, i agree but i like this video whatever that shit is.

Quote from man:

ah and sorry. if you look a this carefully a couple of
times it starts to appear staged. please look at the
moment when she points her finger to ask what is
that. while the object starts to appear a second later
behind the tower. looks very much like she expected
it or even pre reacted. am i the only one seeing that?

an UFO behind WTC. wow that is half way to the
demon face in the smoke ...

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from man:

there was an UFO filmed next to WTC??? and when
was that? on 911?

do i sense correctly that this thread is a little .. changing?

its called comic relief.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from Bitstream:




even if that was the case, and according to firemen it was just a couple of pockets of fire small enough to be controlled by a couple of lines

and then Bit says...

"it's YOU now carrying the burden of proof to highlight what has been misquoted and quote mined. prove that relevant material contains false premises and information otherwise zip it. "

Here's a fine example of YOU believing some thing that has been taken out of context, and is believed by you to be indicative of cool/low level fires in the WTC towers .

Here's the misleading quote:

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

“Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."

Recorded audio of the actual event..

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/wtcaudio9.html

South tower is WTC 2.

The glaringly obvious logical problems with using Orio Palmers quote are:

Orio Palmer was in the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower which was not damaged because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it.

It’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires on a floor where only a wing tip entered. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote.

The 78th floor was a sky lobby which didn’t have much office furniture to catch fire. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?

If there were small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, does that mean the 78th floor never had larger fires?

If he was in the staircase which is in the core, how would he know the perimeter columns were about to get pulled in?

If he did see the building was about to collapse, why would they predict he would get on the radio instead of take immediate action to save his life?

Why do they think the visibility from the smoke of two small fires were such that he could see to the four corners of the building?

Why are they using this quote as a ruler by which to measure the whole building?

This quote was obviously chosen to give the reader the impression that there were only small fires throughout the event. But what is telling is the characterization of the quote. The writer says it “contradicts the official explanation”.

And it's like I've said all along, you believe the lies. Open your eyes, dude, use your head, you're too smart to NOT realize when you've been manipulated....

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Bitstream:

u on the other hand wont ever be able to provide any shred of evidence for a motive... actual proof it was those 14 arabs sent by obl. what was it, hatred for the american people

Motive? You are saying that the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have no motive for attacking the US?

I just wanted to make sure that this gets into the permanent record. Incredible as it may seem, this member now seems to be questioning the fact that Islamic Extremists have anything against the US or the West. He appears to be saying 'if you think OBL and the other terrorists are motivated by hatred for the American people, you are mistaken'.

If I hadn't just read this, I would never believe that anyone could possibly make this claim. I challenge the other conspiracy theorists here to stand up behind Bitstream and openly state that Islamic terrorists are not motivated by a hatred of America and the Western lifestyle.

 

[Bitstream]

this post of yours shows how desperate and starved for arguments is the defense for the official story. 911 researchers were spot on saying the fires were small and not enough to bring down the towers. in the PM photo galleries it is clear the fire were only present in one, max 2 floors, in just only one side of the bdg and starved as indicated by the presence of black smoke, plus the discontinuity of the fires themselves does confirm it was not spreading. furthermore researcher were perfectly correct to refer to the firemen testimony because it is one piece of evidence corroborating the fact fire could not have been as fierce as made up to be. and again, their job is to analyze the evidence, in this case based on what the firemen communicated, not as PM did, speculate if large fires invisible to the naked eye could have been present or not. there's just no clue that was the case. infact everything points at the contrary. the argument for small fire is there, the argument for large, fierce fire, is not, as evident by the black smoke, sign of a suffocating, starved and weak fire.

Quote from Haroki:

and then Bit says...

"it's YOU now carrying the burden of proof to highlight what has been misquoted and quote mined. prove that relevant material contains false premises and information otherwise zip it. "

Here's a fine example of YOU believing some thing that has been taken out of context, and is believed by you to be indicative of cool/low level fires in the WTC towers .

Here's the misleading quote:

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

“Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."

Recorded audio of the actual event..

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/wtcaudio9.html

South tower is WTC 2.

The glaringly obvious logical problems with using Orio Palmers quote are:

Orio Palmer was in the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower which was not damaged because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it.

It’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires on a floor where only a wing tip entered. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote.

The 78th floor was a sky lobby which didn't’t have much office furniture to catch fire. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?

If there were small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, does that mean the 78th floor never had larger fires?

If he was in the staircase which is in the core, how would he know the perimeter columns were about to get pulled in?

If he did see the building was about to collapse, why would they predict he would get on the radio instead of take immediate action to save his life?

Why do they think the visibility from the smoke of two small fires were such that he could see to the four corners of the building?

Why are they using this quote as a ruler by which to measure the whole building?

This quote was obviously chosen to give the reader the impression that there were only small fires throughout the event. But what is telling is the characterization of the quote. The writer says it “contradicts the official explanation”.

And it's like I've said all along, you believe the lies. Open your eyes, dude, use your head, you're too smart to NOT realize when you've been manipulated....

now, i see that u continue to post those links when i already shown to everybody how deceitful and misleading PM work has proven to be. i dont understand why u do that, since it doesn't make sense that u quote a govt source to defend the govt. and u got balls to take a quote out of a comprehensive piece of research and then say 911 researchers take quotes out of contest. once again, u show your hypocrisy since 3/4 of PM claim-fact analysis have thoroughly been dismissed as total manipulation and a poisonous piece of junk. do u want me to post all the inconsistencies in PM? because if i do u will have to accept to read and swallow many pages exposing their lies.

and lemme tell u something else, do u even know who wrote that crap?
i bet u dont,...i will give u more than a clue since u didn't care at all to check the source to see if there is any conflict if interests or if the research can be validated as independent and fair:

the guy who wrote Pm is benjamin chertoff and who's this fella? well...he is a cousin to the new secretary for homeland security michael chertoff also former assistant attorney general. this guy not only is not qualified to criticize the work of scientists since he holds a bachelor degree in arts but has and deep ties to the govt.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=66176

michael chertoff has also ties to the russian secret service and questionable contacts with the ex-boss of `STASI, the feared former east-germany secret service. u better find other sources my friend, i hoped u would have understood u cant quote govt sources to dismiss govt complicity, but i now see that this is completely lost on u. but certainly u are free to make a fool out of yourself, so carry on.




oops;

http://star.txstate.edu/main/article.php?aid=1236

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/12/302870.html


as for your last comments, they don't even deserve a reply.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from Bitstream:

this post of yours shows how desperate and starved for arguments is the defense for the official story. 911 researchers were spot on saying the fires were small and not enough to bring down the towers. in the PM photo galleries it is clear the fire were only present in one, max 2 floors, in just only one side of the bdg and starved as indicated by the presence of black smoke, plus the discontinuity of the fires themselves does confirm it was not spreading. furthermore researcher were perfectly correct to refer to the firemen testimony because it is one piece of evidence corroborating the fact fire could not have been as fierce as made up to be. and again, their job is to analyze the evidence, in this case based on what the firemen communicated, not as PM did, speculate if large fires invisible to the naked eye could have been present or not. there's just no clue that was the case. infact everything points at the contrary. the argument for small fire is there, the argument for large, fierce fire, is not, as evident by the black smoke, sign of a suffocating, starved and weak fire.


now, i see that u continue to post those links when i already shown to everybody how deceitful and misleading PM work has proven to be. i dont understand why u do that, since it doesn't make sense that u quote a govt source to defend the govt. and u got balls to take a quote out of a comprehensive piece of research and then say 911 researchers take quotes out of contest. once again, u show your hypocrisy since 3/4 of PM claim-fact analysis have thoroughly been dismissed as total manipulation and a poisonous piece of junk. do u want me to post all the inconsistencies in PM? because if i do u will have to accept to read and swallow many pages exposing their lies.

and lemme tell u something else, do u even know who wrote that crap?
i bet u dont,...i will give u more than a clue since u didn't care at all to check the source to see if there is any conflict if interests or if the research can be validated as independent and fair:

the guy who wrote Pm is benjamin chertoff and who's this fella? well...he is a cousin to the new secretary for homeland security michael chertoff also former assistant attorney general. this guy not only is not qualified to criticize the work of scientists since he holds a bachelor degree in arts but has and deep ties to the govt.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=66176

michael chertoff has also ties to the russian secret service and questionable contacts with the ex-boss of `STASI, the feared former east-germany secret service. u better find other sources my friend, i hoped u would have understood u cant quote govt sources to dismiss govt complicity, but i now see that this is completely lost on u. but certainly u are free to make a fool out of yourself, so carry on.




oops;

http://star.txstate.edu/main/article.php?aid=1236

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/12/302870.html


as for your last comments, they don't even deserve a reply.

Honestly, I have no idea why you keep saying I'm quoting PM, when I'm not. And you have proven NOTHING regarding the links. It's all just a desperate attempt to preserve your little world where the boogeyman is the big bad govt. LMAO.......

I'm providing links from debunking 9/11 and 9/11 myths. They're not govt sponsored. And they were written in response to questions Cters have AFTER the PM article was written. LMAO .... again at the comprehension inability of the now reigning CT'er at ET.

Black, smoky fires? Have you ever seen plastic and/or other petroleum based products burn? Like the plastic used in computers, or petroleum used in rugs? Black smoke is TOTALLY inconclusive and has been thoroughly been shown to be total bs. LMAO at the utter stupidity you display here.

So I take it you agree that the fire was weak where Palmer's call came from. ANd on what floor was the fire "present"? Above him, perhaps? Certainly NOT on the same floor. LMAO......... Great lack of critical thinking again here Bitty.... It's so easy to tear your posts apart, i swear, you show such a clear lack of logical thinking ability and a lack of comprehension that it's pathetic.

Here's something about smoky fires, if you can even comprehend. Note the very last line before the link:

While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:

“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”

Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke
indicates nothing meaningful.
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf

Picture of a black, smoky fire.

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/BlackSmoke1.jpg

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from traderNik:


If I hadn't just read this, I would never believe that anyone could possibly make this claim. I challenge the other conspiracy theorists here to stand up behind Bitstream and openly state that Islamic terrorists are not motivated by a hatred of America and the Western lifestyle.

you rang??? to be exact he said "hatred of the american people." yes i will defend his statement then. remember that this administration and it's complicit criminal media, tried to sell it as "the terrorist hate our freedoms." and in a sick way he/they were correct. the terrorist do hate our freedoms. the deception is in "who the terrorist" really are.

who is trying to take away these freedoms they fervently pretend to defend? who wrote the inappropriately named "Patriot Act" that seeks to negate the Constitution and Bill of Rights? who illegally termed Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant and accused him of plotting to use a dirty bomb against this country? who deprived him of one of our most basic rights of due process and then tortured him. who rescinds habeas corpus? who flies suspects overseas to circumvent laws against torture? who then passes legislation to try to make torture legal?

who, in the face of his own country's cries of ending a war that was started on manufactured evidence, decides that adding to the conflict seems like a good idea?

what military cites arcane fine print to redeploy servicemen in a back door draft, that have already fulfilled their commitments? who racks up unprecedented debts with illegal wars based on lies, that our childrens' children will never be able to repay?

who pats down grandmothers in airports in the name of homeland security but leaves our borders woefully unprotected?

islam does not hate the american people.... not a chance. they hate our government's actions, and they hate our complicit laziness not to restrain it ... plain and simple.

 

[neophyte321]

Quote from traderNik:

Motive? You are saying that the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have no motive for attacking the US?

I just wanted to make sure that this gets into the permanent record. Incredible as it may seem, this member now seems to be questioning the fact that Islamic Extremists have anything against the US or the West. He appears to be saying 'if you think OBL and the other terrorists are motivated by hatred for the American people, you are mistaken'.

If I hadn't just read this, I would never believe that anyone could possibly make this claim. I challenge the other conspiracy theorists here to stand up behind Bitstream and openly state that Islamic terrorists are not motivated by a hatred of America and the Western lifestyle.

I see you like picking this scab of a thread also. This thread is a mental car wreck and it is hard to look away.

Not only that, in his latest post he aruges; 911 researchers were spot on saying the fires were small and not enough to bring down the towers.

Never once does he mention that each building was nearly cut in half by direct hits by jumbo jets traveling hundreds of miles an hour, loaded with thousands of gallons of highly explosive jet fuel. "..the fires were small", obviously his blocked out the near mushroom cloud explosions that occured upon impact.

I honestly don't think these people believe half the shit they spewing, they simply like creating satanic images of America in their heads. It simply should go ignored, but considering how many people fall for this crap, it also needs to be refutred.