47 vertical support columns in core of each Twin Tower from bedrock to top floor

Skateguy · Jan 18, 2010

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:
Bman, you havent really thought this through.

Now I understand what you are saying about maybe only half the fire-retardant coating being knocked off by impact damage.

But how would that "prevent" heat from travelling through the exposed metal to the still-covered metal ???

Heat, being energy, will STILL travel, it won't magically just stop at the covered part, for it to remain cold !!!

That HEAT will still transfer through the metal and the fire-retardant will KEEP it insulated, so the steel BENEATH the coating will get heated too, although slower.

Fire-retardant coatings are designed to place a physical BARRIER between the object and an outside source of fire.

But if that barrier is then removed at any part ... that HEAT ENERGY to still get through, by CONDUCTION, and the insulating properties will then PREVENT that heat escaping !!!

Metals usually EXPAND when heated ... so that expansion could then have knocked off or split the coating and opened the steel to even MORE fire damage ... (although that is entirely speculative but within the realm of reason)

Steel softens when heated ... fact !!!

Softened steel is weaker steel ... inescapable fact !!!

Heat transfer is governed by the First Law of Thermodynamics.

6(e). Laws of Thermodynamics

Heat Transfer

Do you cook with pots and pans??---do they melt?

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue · Jan 18, 2010

Skateguy said:
Do you cook with pots and pans??---do they melt?

Do you understand the differences between temperature and heat ???

They are NOT the same thing !!!

Skateguy · Jan 18, 2010

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:
Do you understand the differences between temperature and heat ???

They are NOT the same thing !!!

Do you know the melting temperature of steel, and the burning temperature of Kerosene?? I have cooked on kerosene stoves. they are not very efficient. Gas burns much hotter.---Not to mention, no one has explained how much actual kerosene would have been left, after those massive fire balls that every body likes to mention. The fireballs, were caused by the fuel all being burned, as you know.

Porchev · Jan 18, 2010

Skateguy said:
Do you know the melting temperature of steel, and the burning temperature of Kerosene?? I have cooked on kerosene stoves. they are not very efficient. Gas burns much hotter.---Not to mention, no one has explained how much actual kerosene would have been left, after those massive fire balls that every body likes to mention. The fireballs, were caused by the fuel all being burned, as you know.

It was after a huge impact to the buildings, and the fires don't have to melt anything, the heat caused extreme expanding of the trusses pushing on the perimeter columns that were left and at first may have handled it forcing the trusses to sag. Additionally, jet fuel was not the only thing burning to create heat. It caused everything flammable in the building and what was left of the plane to burn.

Skateguy · Jan 18, 2010

Porchev said:
It was after a huge impact to the buildings, and the fires don't have to melt anything, the heat caused extreme expanding of the trusses pushing on the perimeter columns that were left and at first may have handled it forcing the trusses to sag. Additionally, jet fuel was not the only thing burning to create heat. It caused everything flammable in the building and what was left of the plane to burn.

Ok, agreed. the trusses very well could have weakened and gave way. ---but please explain how that would in any way affect the central core Columns. To my way of thinking, they should still be standing, ready to be re floored. To only focus on the floors collapse, as a separate issue, does not address the fact the entire building collapsed, and not just the floors. I'll give ya the floor thing.

creativedreams · Jan 18, 2010

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:
First of all let's talk about these 47 columns you like to keep banging on about ... WHICH 47 columns ???

Or are you asserting that the entire tower had ONLY 47 columns running from bedrock to roofline in one continuous length ???

You need to clarify ...

For it is my understanding that there were 47 core columns on EACH floor, 110 floors ... that makes 5170 colums.

So WHICH particular 47 are you talking about ???

You continue to lie....being the good disinfo agent you are.

Don't you have another 9/11 petition to infiltrate and destroy the wishes of Americans wanting a new investigation?

You never did clarify what kind of person would infiltrate a petition in attempt to destroy it and in doing so crapping on the wishes of American citizens.

Back to the core columns you keep lying about.

The 47 vertical core columns in each Twin Tower are welded all the way up fusing them together to be ONE piece from bedrock to the top floor.

The debunking propaganda misleads and focuses on the floor trusses and avoids explaining the inner core columns that run from bedrock to the top floor that are ONE piece welded all the way up.

Somehow these 47 core columns that run from bedrock to the top floor cut themselves and blew out of the way fast enough all the way down to allow the top floor in each building to hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would hit the ground if dropped right beside it.

While they just happened to cut themselves and blow out of the way all the way down for the top floor to hit the ground at almost freefall speed........somehow everything but the steel was also exploded into a huge cloud of dust before it even hits the ground and settled in a thick layer throughout the city.

Here is more on it:

James Peter Leritz, B.Arch, M.Arch – Licensed Architect, State of California. 30 years experience as an Architect and Urban Designer in San Francisco and Denver. Former Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, University of Illinois, Champaign. Former Assistant Professor, College of Environmental Design, University of Colorado, Boulder.

"At 1.8 million square feet, WTC 7 was possibly larger than any building on the West Coast. Bank of America (1.4 million sf) and the Transamerica Pyramid (.5 million sf), the two highest buildings in San Francisco, are together only slightly greater in area.

Few Americans know that WTC 7 collapsed, even fewer know how big it was. I have read that its collapse was shown only one time on television; in its documentaries about the WTC collapse, PBS not only didn't explain the collapse of WTC7 but never even mentioned the collapse of a third building, because doing so would have undermined their conclusion that planes and jet fuel were responsible for the collapses.

Much evidence exists of explosions throughout the WTC buildings. Persistent pools of 2000 degree metal can only be explained by the presence of thermite/thermate, used in planned demolitions. Squibs, puffs of smoke characteristic of planned demolitions, can be clearly seen in advance of the collapses.

The official story does not explain the collapse of WTC7 or the collapse of the cores of WTC 1 and 2.
There is just one explanation for the evidence associated with these collapses: demolition by expertly planned and placed explosives."

Kerry Lewis McCarthy, B.Arch – Licensed Architect, State of Oregon. Experienced with high-rise steel frame structures, including building-forensic, some steel frame but mostly concrete. Studied WTC's design, structure and construction at university. Over 30 years experience.

"Very hard to understand the 'complete' lack of concrete rubble in the debris field. Even had the basements filled with concrete topping slab debris. There should have been a stack of jumbled building elements about 9 more stories above grade. The core columns were fully welded yet none were longer than 40 ft (max trucking length). This event as portrayed by the NIST Report totally messes with my understanding of how buildings behave. I haven't been able to reconcile the promoted theory of collapse with the way I know buildings to behave."

Brian Brademeyer, MS CE – Former Senior Research Engineer, MIT. Currently Software Engineering Consultant

"My first-order analysis of WTC1 collapse suggests insufficient energy for pulverization of concrete slabs in the floor elements. Official story does not explain why weakening by fire resulted in abrupt collapse, rather than a sagging-slumping failure mode."

Frank J. Cullinan, BS CE, PE – Licensed Professional Civil Engineer, State of California.

"The buildings fell at or very near free fall speed and into their own foot prints! The second airplane went through the corner of the building and did not hit the structural core, yet it fell the same as the first tower?"

Hermine E. Ricketts, B.Arch –Licensed Architect, State of Florida. Owner of the architectural firm HER Architects.

"From the first day of the 'attack' my intuition told me that some things did not fit. I knew that the buildings collapsed too quickly and that the manner of the collapse was too 'controlled'. With each new piece of mainstream media news release from 'official' sources my response was 'Yeah, right.' I knew, without any doubt, before the invasion began and without seeing one bit of 'official evidence' that there was no link between the 9/11 attack and Iraq. I knew then as I know now that it was all about control of oil and empire building.

I, however, did not take the time to do a study of the facts until recently when the new drums calling for war with Iran by the same folks who masterminded the war with Iraq by linking 9/11 with Iraq. My research has indeed pointed to too many discrepancies and outright lies regarding the events of 9/11. Afterwards, the collapse of Building 7 was so 'neat and clean' anyone could see that it was a pre-planned controlled demolition.

A totally independent study and report needs to be presented to the public."

Donal Butterfield, BA, B CE, M Urban Design, PE – Licensed Architect, States of New York and Connecticut. Professional Engineer, State of New York. In private practice, responsible for full architectural and engineering services on houses, apartment buildings, retail, office & industrial buildings. Former U.S. Navy officer.

"My first doubts about the official story began when I read the heavily documented The War on Freedom by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, listing all the public records of warnings to the US government. I was especially alarmed by the fact that standard operating procedure to dispatch fighter planes against a hijacked plane had been violated. The technical evidence presented since then certainly warrants a full and honest investigation."

BmanMcfly · Jan 18, 2010

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:
Please explain how a symmetrical collapse can leave large portions of the structure visibly intact during collapse ???

That would be about the point where gravities energy had dissipated from the loss of downward momentum to the point where it was no longer destroying the core structure... Also, many people talk about the visible 'squibbs' as proof of 'compressed air' (in spite of the fact that one of the squibbs shot out the window roughly 40 floors below the collapse, and half a second before the next one to come out around 20 floors higher up the building), that same effect, or a similar effect, would see portions of the building 'fall off' the main structure collapsing through.

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:
Bman, you havent really thought this through.

Now I understand what you are saying about maybe only half the fire-retardant coating being knocked off by impact damage.

But how would that "prevent" heat from travelling through the exposed metal to the still-covered metal ???

Heat, being energy, will STILL travel, it won't magically just stop at the covered part, for it to remain cold !!!

That HEAT will still transfer through the metal and the fire-retardant will KEEP it insulated, so the steel BENEATH the coating will get heated too, although slower.[/quote]

Precisely... the heat wouldn't stop... but the fire retardent was either asboestos, or the glue/paper mix that replaced it. So, although I can't quantify the heat loss/dissipation that represents... that puts a cog in things, since there were areas that WERE still protected by fire... so even the following assumption that the flames occupied the entire floors means that a portion of the steel was still protected.

Fire-retardant coatings are designed to place a physical BARRIER between the object and an outside source of fire.

This is true, it does more then just that but yes. There also, if the standards back then are the same / similar today, should be a number of the drywalled walls built up to the floors ceiling, that gets as much of a seal as possible so that any flames couldn't quickly heat the metal on the other side of those walls to start secondary fires. Where the divisions between offices themselves would go up to the T-bar (which itself is typically rated to burn for an hour)

But if that barrier is then removed at any part ... that HEAT ENERGY to still get through, by CONDUCTION, and the insulating properties will then PREVENT that heat escaping !!!

yes, and conduction through that structural steel is actually quite slow, apparently the heat conduction slows down with hotter temperatures.... I don't know why that is though.

Metals usually EXPAND when heated ... so that expansion could then have knocked off or split the coating and opened the steel to even MORE fire damage ... (although that is entirely speculative but within the realm of reason)

Yes, it's within the realm of reason. Though, steel and other solids don't expand very drastically. Ultimately, it would boild down to how thoroughly coated the steel is... the last building I worked in with spay fireproofing had close to 2 inches of coverage over all exposed steel, if its comparable to what is found at the WTC buildings, I would question if steel's expansion would be enough to offset that.

Steel softens when heated ... fact !!!

Softened steel is weaker steel ... inescapable fact !!!

Heat transfer is governed by the First Law of Thermodynamics.

6(e). Laws of Thermodynamics

Heat Transfer

The Ka in that formula, in steel is quite low... compared to other metals, like copper transfers heat at a much higher rate then structural steel... we're talking about the structural steel that's almost an inch thick at it's thinnest.

The main point that I was making was that the NIST report makes the assumptions without declaring them as assumptions, then builds on those assumptions to make further assumptions, never declaring them assumptions, but using those assumptions to make the calculations work.

Porchev · Jan 18, 2010

Skateguy said:
Ok, agreed. the trusses very well could have weakened and gave way. ---but please explain how that would in any way affect the central core Columns. To my way of thinking, they should still be standing, ready to be re floored. To only focus on the floors collapse, as a separate issue, does not address the fact the entire building collapsed, and not just the floors. I'll give ya the floor thing.

Once the perimeter structure started to fall apart and detach from the floors the only thing holding up the floors against forces of gravity were the columns, so they collapsed.

BmanMcfly · Jan 18, 2010

Porchev said:
Once the perimeter structure started to fall apart and detach from the floors the only thing holding up the floors against forces of gravity were the columns, so they collapsed.

huh?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww"]YouTube- Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question[/ame]

Porchev · Jan 18, 2010

BmanMcfly said:
huh?

:roll:

Once the perimeter structure started to fall apart (outer skin of building) and detach from the floors (thngs people stand on) the only thing holding up the floors against forces of gravity were the columns (the only things left must have been those 47 support columns you guys are so obsessed with), so they collapsed (under the incredible weight of multiple floors and the rest of the building...and jet parts).

BmanMcfly · Jan 18, 2010

Porchev said:
:roll:

Once the perimeter structure started to fall apart (outer skin of building) and detach from the floors (thngs people stand on) the only thing holding up the floors against forces of gravity were the columns (the only things left must have been those 47 support columns you guys are so obsessed with), so they collapsed (under the incredible weight of multiple floors and the rest of the building...and jet parts).

Ok, that one at least makes sense...

Then what caused the WHOLE outer structure to fall apart simultaneously, when only a portion of them were actually damaged??

Do you realize that you are making the same flawed assumption that the core of the building was little more then a 'tube to hold the elevaters and stairwells'?? Rather then what it REALLY is, the main supporting structure... and if the outer shell fails and disloges from the core... those core columns would still be carrying the wieght of the higher floors.

creativedreams · Jan 18, 2010

Porchev said:
:roll:

Once the perimeter structure started to fall apart (outer skin of building) and detach from the floors (thngs people stand on) the only thing holding up the floors against forces of gravity were the columns (the only things left must have been those 47 support columns you guys are so obsessed with), so they collapsed (under the incredible weight of multiple floors and the rest of the building...and jet parts).

The floor trusses have absolutely nothing to do with the core columns standing....especially the inner core columns that don't even touch the floor trusses.

Skateguy · Jan 18, 2010

Porchev said:
:roll:

Once the perimeter structure started to fall apart (outer skin of building) and detach from the floors (thngs people stand on) the only thing holding up the floors against forces of gravity were the columns (the only things left must have been those 47 support columns you guys are so obsessed with), so they collapsed (under the incredible weight of multiple floors and the rest of the building...and jet parts).

If the floors fall, there is no added weight to the columns from the floors, there is actually less weight. the columns no longer have to hold up the floors, which is their job. . Come on now. Draw out a simple diagram and figure how this stuff works.--the outer structure works in much the same way. It stands alone, regardless if floors were ever installed or not. It would stand like a big chimney if there were never any floors put in the structure. .

creativedreams · Jan 18, 2010

BmanMcfly said:
Also, many people talk about the visible 'squibbs' as proof of 'compressed air' (in spite of the fact that one of the squibbs shot out the window roughly 40 floors below the collapse, and half a second before the next one to come out around 20 floors higher up

I didn't even look into the squibs.

It definately cannot be compressed air if it is 40 floors below the collapse....or 20 floors below for that matter.....besides how can the air compress in the building when there is a big gaping hole above it? Did the steel that was falling have air tight gaskets between them to keep air from escaping up through all the gaps between them?

Porchev · Jan 18, 2010

BmanMcfly said:
Ok, that one at least makes sense...

Then what caused the WHOLE outer structure to fall apart simultaneously, when only a portion of them were actually damaged??

Do you realize that you are making the same flawed assumption that the core of the building was little more then a 'tube to hold the elevaters and stairwells'?? Rather then what it REALLY is, the main supporting structure... and if the outer shell fails and disloges from the core... those core columns would still be carrying the wieght of the higher floors.

Based on the design of the building, it needed the outer structure, the floors, and the "core" of the building--they all needed each other. Those many many floors were too much weight for the "core" of the building to handle.

creativedreams · Jan 18, 2010

Porchev said:
Based on the design of the building, it needed the outer structure, the floors, and the "core" of the building--they all needed each other. Those many many floors were too much weight for the "core" of the building to handle.

These two new videos show absolute proof of explosives used to bring down the World Trade Center Buildings.

This footage came right from the history channel itself....

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_B_Azbg0go"]YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBVhxnkK6s8"]YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up)[/ame]

Porchev · Jan 18, 2010

creativedreams said:
These two new videos show absolute proof of explosives used to bring down the World Trade Center Buildings.

Absolute proof? You must be kidding. That just shows a huge building falling apart.

"...those who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth--and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day." -James Meigs

Skateguy · Jan 18, 2010

Some people see what ever they chose to see, which is fine by me. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, --just make up my own. Those videos showed me details I had not noticed before. but they do seem to make sense. Also, just a thought here, most things I have seen fall, fall down, not to the side, or even up, without some type of help. Lots of things being projected up and out in those videos, that should be falling downward.

Zinc Route · Jan 18, 2010

Skateguy said:
Some people see what ever they chose to see, which is fine by me. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, --just make up my own. Those videos showed me details I had not noticed before. but they do seem to make sense. Also, just a thought here, most things I have seen fall, fall down, not to the side, or even up, without some type of help. Lots of things being projected up and out in those videos, that should be falling downward.

***** Would you like to think this one over just a bit ???? Please.

Skateguy · Jan 18, 2010

Zinc Route said:
***** Would you like to think this one over just a bit ???? Please.

Thought about it plenty already. I have an open mind. I have from the start of this make shift third hand investigation. I see nothing to dispute anything I have set forth, other than to be told "I'm wrong." --Nothing. And it is sure not for lack of Fine folks trying. so I'm just more convinced that my hypothesis is correct. If you gubment folks had any useful information, you would have shared it by now. Our side presents valid information--your side simply says we're wrong. and then quote some guys statements as your "Facts" to defend your stance. ---and on and on again.

BmanMcfly · Jan 19, 2010

creativedreams said:
I didn't even look into the squibs.

It definately cannot be compressed air if it is 40 floors below the collapse....or 20 floors below for that matter.....besides how can the air compress in the building when there is a big gaping hole above it? Did the steel that was falling have air tight gaskets between them to keep air from escaping up through all the gaps between them?

It's not like I counted the number of floors precisely, but the point was that we're talking at least more then 10 floors below the collapse wave where the lower 'squib' is ejected about a half second before the one that occurs some floors higher.

Porchev said:
Based on the design of the building, it needed the outer structure, the floors, and the "core" of the building--they all needed each other. Those many many floors were too much weight for the "core" of the building to handle.

I'm sorry, but that's not entirely accurate... It's more like the inner core of the building supported the structural load, while the outer skin provided the structural stability.

Now, that latest video from creative was actually quite compelling cause it showed something I had not considered previously... that the top 'block' of the buildng that was falling down was pulverized while in a free-fall...

What the hell are these incomplete floor models supposed to prove anyway??

Porchev said:
Absolute proof?

Yes, who are you kidding?? You don't need a masters degree in anything to know that an object at motion will continue in that motion unless something interferes. Which has been corroborated by at least 2 groups of scientists, over at least 3 different studies.

You must be kidding. That just shows a huge building falling apart.

Did you even pay attention? It's explained quite clearly.

"...those who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth--and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day." -James Meigs

Who is this 'James Meigs'?? Is it you? Either way, there are also many victims family members that are vocal 9-11 truthers, and more often then not the victims family members that are truthers are very vocal, where those that claim to speak on behalf of the victims family members never seem to be able to have one of them come up and make such a statement... is James one of the exceptions?

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue · Jan 19, 2010

Bman, would you like to look again at this sentence of your and tell me what you think is wrong in it ???

BmanMcfly said:
That would be about the point where gravities energy had dissipated from the loss of downward momentum to the point where it was no longer destroying the core structure...

Think about it ...

ADK_Forever · Jan 19, 2010

creativedreams said:
I didn't even look into the squibs.

It definately cannot be compressed air if it is 40 floors below the collapse....or 20 floors below for that matter.....besides how can the air compress in the building when there is a big gaping hole above it? Did the steel that was falling have air tight gaskets between them to keep air from escaping up through all the gaps between them?

OMG! Puh-leeze. You guys aren't even reading or listening to what others are putting in front of you. It's been stated, several times, that air was compressed down thru stairwells and elevator shafts and popped out at weak points.

That guy in that video is talking nonsense. There was no evidence of thermite.

You guys are not open to facts... or common sense.

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue · Jan 19, 2010

BmanMcfly said:
Who is this 'James Meigs'??

For someone who claims to have read, viewed and looked at "everything" there is to know about 9/11 from both sides ... it comes as quite a surprise that you do not recognise the name !!!

You have been quick enough at denying his understanding and area of expertise often ...

Mmmmm ... leads me to think you are, in fact, not as well-read regarding 9/11 as you say :roll:

Debunking 9/11 Myths - Conspiracy Theories - James B. Meigs - Book Afterword - Popular Mechanics

ADK_Forever · Jan 19, 2010

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:
Debunking 9/11 Myths - Conspiracy Theories - James B. Meigs - Book Afterword - Popular Mechanics

This is one of thee best sites debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. If only these guys would look their various theories up on this site. I have heard of no conspiracy theory that is no debunked here.