Why no mention of the 47 central steel columns that were the main support for each tower?
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."
What is this supposed to prove? So the Pentagon ran a drill simulating an accident, and Condi Rice said they didn't expect an attack. Um, ok. Am I supposed to now be convinced there is a conspiracy?
Now try and convince you average conspiracy nut about the inherent logic in your last sentence there. They are completely blind to it.
Why no mention of the 47 central steel columns that were the main support for each tower?
LOL. Talk about denying reality...
How in the hell do you think our government could pull this off? I find it outstanding that anyone gives them that much credit. Do you think they blew up the levies in NO too???
Of course power corrupts. But this would have been in the works before the Bush Admin, meaning two administrations were involved. You have to believe a lot of far-fetched things to go down the road you have traveled. And don't tell me you are just "asking questions." That's a cop out. Either you can support your theories with facts or you cannot.
#7, a 47-story building was not "shielded by WTC 5 and 6", because those were only 9 or 10-story buildings (which did not utterly collapse because, being long low structures, there wasn't enough weight pressing down from above to cause them to. But they were pretty much completely destroyed anyway because the debris punched gigantic holes through them from ceiling to sub-basements, and then commenced the buildings burning).
Remember the debris formed an umbrella shape as the tower fell? Very easy to reach #7 across the narrow street separating it from the plaza. If you see an overhead diagram of the complex, you will see that #7 was trapezoid-shaped. The debris pretty much took off one lower corner of the building on the short side of the trapezoid. Meaning that gravity was working on all the floors above it (more than were above the strike zone in Tower 2), without enough support to counteract. This is why it eventually collapsed bottom-up, instead of top-down like the towers. The damage was at the bottom of the building not the top.
Faulty premise #2.
There were not "minor fires on two floors". There were huge fires and they burned for hours. Firemen were never sent into #7 because the building was making funny structural noises from the get-go, and they were pretty sure it was coming down. It wasn't worth the risk, so they let it burn.
I confess I don't understand the significance of the squibs or why you guys focus on them so. Smoke goes up. If a smoky building collapses, it's going to expell the smoke through any openings on its way down. You expect the "squibs" to look like they're racing DOWN a falling building or something? I really don't get it.
So, in other words, you have absolutely no qualifications as a professional architect or a civil engineer, but you are undoubtedly smarter than all of them put together, and know far more about their profession than they do.
Pardon me for not going any further than your "The page cannot be found" link.
I'm not the one making assertions that the building was destroyed in a certain manner, you are. So, what are your qualifications as an architect or as a civil engineer for evaluating the circumstances of the WTC 7 collapse?
They weighed about as much as an equivalent volume of solid balsa wood.
Not that I'm finding your "Bush Conspiracy" arguments credible....
What questions? All of your so-called questions are non-critical and of no substance? I could care less "how the government could pull this off?" Who could answer that? It's opinion masked as a serious question. Are you kidding me?
I'm tempted to just reply "Whatever"...
How do you know that's East over thattaway?
For all you know, it's South-Southwest.
You Bushbot.
/s :)
Whatever...
No LOL?
Okay.
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.