since the info in the last thread hit so close to home that instead of locking the thread, it had to be deleted, can not let the truth air out for too long.

i will be complete in my research here, done MOSTLY with the us governments OWN reports.

let us start with understanding what a "theory" is.

The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.


In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.


so in other words, for the government's theory of how the wtc buildings failed, it has to have happened before or be able to be tested and acheive the same results.

so to begin with, we now all understand that the government is GUESSING as to what happened.

sort of like how in the 30's the government guessed pot smoking would lead to you doing heroin and killing your family...lol


now, where is the evidence to back up the governments guess?

well they have alot of "this is what must have happened" in the nist and fema reports, but even there own research shows this was not possible.

let us get some stuff out of the way first

Everyone, including the NIST, agrees that the twin towers survived the initial Boeing 767 impacts on September 11, 2001â??â??â??despite serious damage. The buildings survived because the WTC was hugely overbuilt: redundant by design. The towers simply transferred the load from the severed/damaged members to other undamaged columns.
ok now some tests done on the steel that was super heated in 45 mins to the point of collapse.

Because the NIST did not have the necessary facilities, it contracted Underwriter Laboratories to conduct a series of fire endurance tests on trusses like those in the WTC. (The recovered truss samples were too badly deformed during the collapse to test them directly, so NIST fabricated new trusses identical in design.) The purpose of the tests was to establish a baseline, and the results were surprising. Not one of the truss assemblies failed during a series of four tests, not even the truss sprayed with the minimum amount of fireproofing. â??The floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over two hours.â?

Another finding: The WTC steel turned out to be significantly stronger than expected. Tests showed that the yield strengths of 87% of the perimeter/core columns, and all of the floor trusses samples, exceeded the original specifications by as much as 20%. â??The yield strengths of many of the steels in the floor trusses were above 50 ksi, even when specifications required 36 ksi.â?[53] (1 ksi = 1,000 lb/per square inch) The NIST performed similar tests on a number of recovered bolts, and found that these too were â??much stronger than expected, based on reports from the contemporaneous literature.â?[54] Notice, none of these findings support the NISTâ??s official explanation for the WTC collapse. On the contrary.

The Fire Tests:
Core Weakening?

Another series of tests sought to address the alleged weakening of the WTC support columns. During a first-run investigators placed an uninsulated steel column in a 2,012ÂșF (1,100ÂșC) furnace and measured the rise in its surface temperature. Notice, this laboratory furnace was significantly hotter than the fires on 9/11 caused by jet fuel or any other combustible in the WTC. The column reached 600ÂșC in just 13 minutes, the temperature range where significant loss of strength occurs. When the test was repeated again with an insulated column, the steel did not reach 600ÂșC even after ten hours. The NIST concluded that â??the fires in WTC 1 and WTC 2 would not be able to significantly weaken the insulated....columns within the 102 minutes and 56 minutes, respectively, after impact and prior to collapse.â?[55]

more?

It certainly was not supported by the NISTâ??s metallurgical analyses, which showed that not even one of the 236 steel samples, including those from the impact areas and fire-damaged floors, showed evidence of exposure to temperatures in excess of 1,110ÂșF (600ÂșC) for as long as 15 minutes.[56] In fact, out of more than 170 areas examined on 16 recovered perimeter columns, only 3 reached temperatures in excess of 250ÂșC (450ÂșF) during the fires.[57] And why ? Well, perhaps, in part, because, as Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, admitted, â??the jet fuel....burned out in less than ten minutes.â?[58] Also, NIST scientists made another surprising discovery: The actual amount of combustibles on a typical floor of the WTC turned out to be less than expected: only about 4 lbs./sq. foot. Furthermore, â??the fuel loading in the core areas....was negligible.â?[59] The shocking fact is that the World Trade Center was fuel-poor, compared with most other buildings. The NIST estimated that a fire in a typical area of the building would have burned through the available combustibles at maximum temperatures (1,000ÂșC) in about 15-20 minutes.[60] Not nearly long enough even at that temperature to cause exposed steel to lose 80% of its strength.


Although the NIST took the position that â??temperatures and stresses were high in the core area,â?[61] as Iâ??ve noted the investigation suffered from a persistent lack of information about real conditions at the core. The NIST had no hard evidence about the actual amount of protective insulation damaged/dislodged during the impacts. The NIST report acknowledges this,[62] then goes on to assume that all structural members in the debris path at the time of impact suffered 100% loss of insulation.[63] Surely, we are safe to conclude that the Boeing 767 impacts did cause damage to, or strip away, a substantial portion of the fireproofing material. Exactly how much is not knowable. But even if the NIST estimate of total loss of fireproofing is correct, there is virtually no chance that the fires on 9/11 weakened the WTCâ??s core piers within the allotted span of time: 56/103 minutes.

A Vast Heat Sink

The reason for this, nowhere acknowledged in the NIST report, ought to be obvious: The WTCâ??s support columns did not exist in isolation. This was no laboratory furnace. The columns in each tower were part of an interconnected steel framework that weighed at least 100,000 tons; and because steel is known to be an excellent conductor of heat this massive steel superstructure functioned on 9/11 as an enormous energy sink. The total volume of the steel framework was vast compared with the relatively small area of exposed steel, and would have wicked away much the fire-caused heat. Anyone who has repaired a copper water pipe with a propane torch is familiar with the principle. One must sit and wait patiently for the pipe temperature to rise to the point where the copper finally draws the solder into the fitting. While it is true that copper is more conductive than steel, the analogy holds, regardless. The fact that only three recovered steel samples showed exposure to temperatures above 250ÂșC indicates that the steel superstructure was indeed behaving as a heat sink. The fires on 9/11 would have taken many hours, in any event, much longer than the brief allotted span of 56/103 minutes respectively, to slowly raise the temperature of the steel framework as a whole to the point of weakening the exposed members.

now what about those raging fires in the south tower?


But perhaps the most serious challenge to the official view that fires were gravely weakening WTC 2 comes from an audiotape released in August 2002 by the Port Authority of New York. The tape, which was lost or neglected for more than a year, is the only known recording of firefighters inside the towers. When city fire officials belatedly listened to it they were surprised to discover that firemen actually reached the impact/fire zone of WTC 2 about 14 minutes before the building collapsed. On climbing to the 78th floor sky lobby Battalion Chief Orlo J. Palmer and Fire Marshall Ronald P. Bucca found many dead or seriously injured people, but no raging inferno. The audio transmission between Palmer and another fireman shows no hint of panic or fear, as the following transcript shows:

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones.

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, okay."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."

Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."

Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up, Orio."[67]

Here, Battalion Chief Orlo Palmer calls for hoses to be brought up to put out the fires. His expression â??10-45 Code Onesâ? refers to dead bodies, of which, evidently, there were many. The tape shows that the firemen were not turned back by heat, smoke, or a wall of flames. They were able to function within the impact zone and were prepared to help the injured and combat the small fires they found. Palmer even mentions that the stairwell up to the next floor, i.e., 79, was passable. Minutes later the building came down on their heads.

Inexplicably, the NIST never considered this important evidence. The question is why? Their omission is especially damning, since, as Iâ??ve stressed, the NIST investigation suffered from a persistent lack of information about actual conditions at the core.[68] Here was real-time testimony from firefighters who were on the scene, and the NIST simply ignored it.

notice reference numbers in the above quoted text


almost every single one of them comes from nist themself

53. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 67.
54. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 67.
55. NIST NCSTAR 1, WRC Investigation p. 130.
56. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 88.
57. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 176.

58. Andy Field, â??A Look Inside a Radical new Theory of the WTC Collapse,â? Fire/Rescue News, February 7, 2004. Sunder made a similar statement during an October 19, 2004 presentation. See â??World Trade Center Investigation Status,â? S. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, NIST. This paper can be downloaded as a pdf file at NCST Advisory Committee Mtg. Oct. 19-20, 2004

59. The NIST makes this important point in two seperate places in the text. NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation, pp. 49 and 51.
60. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation p. 127.
61. NIST NCSTAR 1-6, WTC Investigation, p. lxvix.
62. NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, Executive Summary, p. xli.
63. NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation, p. xliv.
64. NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, p. 126-127.
65. NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation, p. 121.
66. NIST NCSTAR 1-6, WTC Investigation, p. lxvix; also see NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation, p. 51.

67. Jim Dwyer and Ksvin Flynn, 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers, Times Books, 2005, p. 206; also see Jim Dwyer and Ford fessenden, â??Lost Voices of Firefighters, Some on 78th Floor,â? New York Times, August 4, 2002; Christopher Bollyn, â??Feds Withhold Crucial WTC Evidence,â? American Free Press, August 8, 2002.

68. NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, p. 5.
69. NIST NCSTAR 1-3, WTC Investigation, p. 95.
VisionaryUrbanTactic Reviewed by VisionaryUrbanTactic on . another intelligent 9-11 debate since the info in the last thread hit so close to home that instead of locking the thread, it had to be deleted, can not let the truth air out for too long. i will be complete in my research here, done MOSTLY with the us governments OWN reports. let us start with understanding what a "theory" is. so in other words, for the government's theory of how the wtc buildings failed, it has to have happened before or be able to be tested and acheive the same results. Rating: 5