Posted on 08/30/2006 12:57:41 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The government is taking the unusual step of responding to conspiracy theories about the destruction of the World Trade Center.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, Gaithersberg, Md.), which investigated the causes of the collapse of the twin towers, said Wednesday (Aug. 30) that it has posted a "fact sheet" addressing alternatve theories about the fires and collapse. Several academics have put forth a "controlled demolition" and missile attack hypotheses for the destruction of the towers.
NIST concluded after a three-year building and fire safety investigation that the towers collapsed after being hit by separate, fuel-laden aircraft flown by terrorists. The impacts severed and damaged support columns, dislodging fireproofing insulation and dispersing jet fuel over multiple floors of each tower.
The resulting fire, which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees C, weakened floors and columns, causing upper floors to collapse after sagging and pulling inward on perimeter columns. "This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers," NIST concluded.
NIST's probe rejected claims that upper floors "pancaked" on top of lower floors, causing the collapses. Other investigations pointed to huge amounts of office supplies, especially paper, as a source of fuel that significantly raised the temperature of tower fires beyond those that jet fuel would normally burn outside of an aircraft engine combustion chamber.
"Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower." NIST concluded.
Far more controversial are theories about explosions inside the towers. Conspiracy theorists postulate that puffs of smoke seen at the time of each collapse are evidence of a controlled demolition. Critics of the official probe also cited seismic data they claim showed evidence of explosions just before each tower collapsed. Other theories alleged missiles were fired at the doomed towers.
While both NIST and the 9/11 Commission have dismissed these theories, U.S. officials have been compelled to address allegations widely disseminated on the Internet.
"NIST respects the opinions of others who do not agree with the findings in its report on the [World Trade Center] collapses," the agency said in a statement. "However, the WTC Investigation Team stands solidly behind the collapse mechanisms for each tower and the sequences of events (from aircraft impact to collapse) as described in the report."
It's been reported in numerous circles that the Chicago Bd. Options Exch. rec'd orders on 9-6&7 for approx. 4700 United put options and 4500 or so for American a couple days later........both figures were far, far more than normal trading patterns.
Ever heard of the phrase "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"? If you need a quick lesson find an old FR thread called "Batting a Thousand"......love to hear your take on that info.
You are correct. Long before it actually melts, a steel support beam will lose most of its strength.
I've done blacksmithing (on an amateur basis). At red-hot heat you can shape steel with a hammer (although it's easiest at yellow-heat). Working steel at yellow heat can be a bit tricky, because if you over-do it and get it to white heat, the steel will start to burn. I did that once -- the piece started shooting sparks like a 4th of July sparkler. And that was WELL below actual melting point.
At the temps inside the WTC, once the support beams got past red-hot, it was going to come down
Numerous circles, huh? Got a link?
Also, what does this prove? Are members of Al Queda incapable of buying put options?
NASA was going to give James Oberg a grant to prove that they landed on the moon but withdrew it after news of it leaked out. He said he's going to write it anyway without the grant.
What are your professional credentials in architecture or civil engineering to assess the collapse of WTC 7?
What are your professional credentials in architecture or civil engineering to assess the collapse of WTC 7?
Is your real name Teri Smith Tyler by any chance?
Just a little side note that's all.
So, what are your qualifications as an architect or as a civil engineer for evaluating the circumstances of the WTC 7 collapse?
BTW, that "skinny guy in the cave" grew up as the son of the owner of Saudi Arabia's biggest construction firms, and had a degree in Civil Engineering. He knew all about how to take down a building
Sure. I use line on any woman who asks if I ever consider getting remarried.
If you need a quick lesson find an old FR thread called "Batting a Thousand"......love to hear your take on that info.
I've got to run to the store right now, but I'll give you a preview of my likely answer: "If the CIA wanted to blow up the WTC back in 93, they wouldn't have waited almost a decade to try again. Neither conspiracies nor conspirators age well."
While I'm gone, see if you can answer my earlier question about bin Laden and al-Qa'ida. I'm riveted (in spirit anyway) to my seat.
I can see the possibility of steel getting so hot that weakness does occur causing some type of collapse but the video I've seen shows a simultaneous, symmetrical collapse........no, I'm not an engineer but how could all the supports fail at the same time.
Back in 1996, a fire in a tire dump located underneath an overpass of I95 caused structural collapse
TOO HOT TO HANDLE? In 1996, a tire fire in an illegal dump buckled three spans of the 26-span, 1,707-foot-long Westmoreland Viaduct between Westmoreland Street and Tioga Street. The resulting closures affected traffic as far north as central New Jersey (it was even reported on traffic updates from New York radio stations), and as far south as Wilmington. Immediately, temporary spans were constructed to carry I-95 traffic. Within weeks, PennDOT replaced the three simple-girder spans.For five weeks during the summer of 1998, traffic along I-95 was disrupted once again, this time following a fiery crash that damaged the bridge over Chester Creek near the Pennsylvania-Delaware border. At the beginning of the Memorial Day weekend, a tanker truck loaded with 8,700 gallons of gasoline swerved to avoid a passing car, crashed across a concrete barrier and exploded after striking a pickup truck. The driver of the tanker truck and the pickup truck were both killed in the crash.
PennDOT found nine steel support girders, each girder six feet, eight inches tall and between 65 and 80 feet long, under the southbound lanes of the bridge that were damaged in the fire. During the five-week-long, $3.5 million reconstruction project, four lanes of I-95 traffic (two lanes in each direction) were shifted onto the undamaged northbound lanes. All six lanes of the Chester Creek bridge - three northbound and three southbound - were reopened in time for the Independence Day weekend.
So, what are your qualifications as an architect or as a civil engineer for evaluating the circumstances of the WTC 7 collapse?
Well.....if the FR thread is correct we both know it wasn't the CIA, but you're close........check it out you might learn something.
No doubt a fire as intense as you describe would damage or cause buckling but the question is with these accidents did it cause a total symmetrical failure?
Good example. Each time I hear one of these nitwits say "the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel, Steel melts at blah blah, the fire burns at blah blah", they seem to gloss over that it didn't need to melt. In 2001 on Rt 80 in NJ, a similar incident occured...bridge was out for months.
1996, 2001, 2004 bridges melted with burning Fuel Oil which burns at a temp very close to Jet fuel. This doesn't even include other stuff in the towers that caught fire.
It was not just those. Boeing and a bunch of others had put options placed. See 2001 FR thread on it. Yes, there were people who knew that it would happen. At the time, it looked to me like they decided to cash in. Unfortunately for a lot of their plans, the US trading system was shut down for a while after 9/11, and the patterns were discovered before trading resumed
Do you have a reasonable explanation as to why all of the videos of this implosion show small dark squibs racing "up" the building "before" the collapse?
I'm sure that you have researched all of this yourself though, haven't you?
As an aside, I don't know of any major researcher/critic of the 9/11 Commission (and/or the official explanation) claiming "missiles" hit the trade center. That is clearly a straw man hit piece much like Chertoff's Popular Mechanics famous "debunking" issue was (they debunked their own characterizations).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.