From that same article:
“
The NIST found that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers’ steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, had this not occurred, the towers would likely have remained standing”
Spilling did not anticipate that factor.
“
One of my pet peeves: people who don’t read the article they excerpt. Here are some excerpts that should help you:
So your very cite says fires caused the collapse. Furthermore, according to the book 102 Minutes [, written by two New York Times reporters,
.
[Bolding mine.]
And I’m sure someone has mentioned this already, but the entire support for the towers came from exterior steel columns and a core consisting of shafts housing elevators, electrical conduits, and stairs. The 1968 building code also allowed less fireproofing than the earlier code. The stairwells were encompassed not by concrete but by drywall.
I’m not an expert on any of this stuff, but other Dopers are. They’re explained to you why it’s certain that no explosives were used to bring down the towers. Trust them.
Both Towers were built to withstand impact by a 707, inbound from Europe, low on fuel, lost in fog, on approach to JFK. Not a 767, nearly full of fuel for a cross-country trip.
How did NIST arrive at the conclusion that the fire proofing was blown off? Much of it had been recently reinstalled due to asbestos abatement. Was it 100 percent? 75%? 50%? Could you find me a video demonstrating the fragility of fireproofing on steel? Thanks in advance.
Why haven’t there been new regulation for installing fireproofing so this doesn’t happen again?
I’ve personally seen fireproofing flaking off steel beams simply due to age. What would you expect would happen to old fireproofing, already flaking off, when hit by a very large object travelling at nearly 600 mph?
The fireproofing wasn’t “reinstalled.” It was a spray mixture, as I said in my earlier post. The NY Port Authority sued the manufacturer, stating that the fireproofing mixture contained asbestos and wasn’t adhering well. Originally, they used 1/2 inch spray-on coating. In 1995, six years before 9/11, the Port Authority switched to an asbestos-free fireproofing and sprayed on 1.5." There was no scientific basis for this. No tests were conducted.
Why do you need a video? Here. Read this:
“The insulation is going to turn out to be the root cause,” said James G. Quintiere, a professor at University of Maryland’s Fire Protection Engineering Department who analyzed the fireproofing in the two towers.
Neither tower, he found, had fireproofing thick enough to withstand the fire’s blast furnace intensity for two hours, which is considered the minimum needed for those on the upper floors to escape the towers. “A two-hour fire resistance is right on the ragged edge,” Quintiere said.
And the NIST determined all this by examining 236 pieces of the steel structure, as well as computer simulations, witness testimony, etc.
Observation of the WTC remains and testing. As one would expect.
If you had ever visited the WTC towers you would see the stuff was a spray-on mixture. It was actually kind of ugly.
While not in video format for your convenience, the method for testing the fragility of the spray fireproofing is explained in the NIST report. Fun fact: a shotgun is involved!
a) I’m pretty sure they have.
b) Even before NIST finished their report most architects & structural engineers knew what the inherent weakness of the WTC tower’s design was and used different designs. Hence why the tallest building in Philadelphia, the Comcast tower has a hefty concrete core vs the WTC tower’s steel core. The demand for concrete in this skyscraper actually meant there were local shortages of concrete for other projects.
The WTC buildings were designed like giant square tube-shaped bundle of sticks with each floor being suspended from the outer load-bearing perimeter and the inner core by a series of pins and trusses. The floors also serve to bundle the outer perimeter together to provide strength. One thing that the WTC lacked was a lot of inner load-bearing columns.
IOW it seems pretty straightforward to me that once a couple of floors broke loose from the outer perimeter due to damage from the impact and fire weakening their supports, it would cause a cascading failure that acted very much like a pile driver. The 95th floor would land on the 94th, detaching it. Both floors would land on the 93rd. The debris from 4 floors landing on the 92nd, so on and so forth, accelerating as it goes.
Such a collapse would likely not happen in a conventional steel frame building because the columns are designed to take the load of the entire building above it.
Maybe you should try reading the NIST report before you come here asking a bunch of questions that have been long answered.
Here. The NIST report links were provided to you four days ago. I’ll do so again.
If you can’t be bothered to read the investigation of how the towers collapsed, why do you think your criticisms have any validity or that anyone should take you seriously?
You want new building codes to cover fireproofing protection in the event of an airliner impact at speed? :dubious:
As far as NIST goes, I think they used a combination of goat entrails and a Ouija board to arrive at their conclusions. There definitely was 5 feet or so of asbestos abatement on each and every load bearing beam in the place, and folks saying that it used a façade based perimeter loading structure are part of the conspiracy. You’ve masterfully seen through both!
As for new regulation, yeah, I agree! I mean, we have 2-3 fully loaded and large air craft flying at nearly top speed hitting buildings every year now, so we need to step it up on those new regulations to stop them all from burning (though, they never fall down, so that is pretty telling!). You have put your finger on a high probability event that definitely needs a ton of new regulations (instead of the ones we actually got which were lame, amIrightorwhat??) for 10 or even 20 feet of asbestos abatement for not only load bearing members but really for each item inside the building, including office furniture, PC’s, mops and cleaning supplies and even baby cribs! Maybe 30 feet! And non-flammable bubble wrap for the occupants, though not sure how much. I need to check back on that after watching the Mythbusters again with their bubble wrap episode…
LAZombie, you’ve been asked several times if you don’t believe the that the pance and resulting fires brought down the buildings, what do you think did?
I’ll ask again LAZombie, why do you think they collapsed?
I don’t know why you can’t grasp that tens of floors collapsing onto the rest of the building would create a catastrophic failure that the building wasn’t designed to hold.
Say I wanted to hand you a bundle of shingles that weigh about 80 pounds. That would be heavy by not an issue. Say I was on the roof (about one story) and I wanted to toss the 80 pound bundle down to you, would you still offer to catch it? I be you wouldn’t. Same thing with tens of floors collapsing onto one floor. That acceleration increases the force of the floors crashing onto the rest of the buildings.
[quote=“spifflog, post:213, topic:840064”]
LAZombie, you’ve been asked several times if you don’t believe the that the pance and resulting fires brought down the buildings, what do you think did?
I’ll ask again LAZombie, why do you think they collapsed?
I’ve been trying to stay of this, and I have not read the whole thread. I feel I must respond to this question.
When I’m asked this question now, and yes I’m still a 911 truther, I simply say I don’t know, but we know the official story is not true. I will then explain how I know this by using known science. Only then will I offer my opinion on how the buildings were brought down.
That question is basically a gotcha. They want you to come up with some kind of answer like laser beams or directed energy. The goal is to make anyone that doesn’t believe the official story sound crazy, thereby preventing a real investigation.
Almost 20 years later, I think people are waking up and understanding that our reality today was born in the lies of 911.
Well that would certainly make a change from every other thread on the subject we’ve had.
“They” do? It seems to me that Truthers (collectively) are perfectly willing to put forth every crazy theory under the sun all on their own (my personal fave: “pyroclastic flows”. Naturally there was a YouTube video about it.). I don’t know about “they”, but **we **would certainly like the crazies to shut the hell up. If you’ve got an actual argument that isn’t predicated on false assumptions, poor logic and incorrect or deliberately distorted data we’d love to hear it (but again, it would differ from every other thread here on the subject).
Please don’t say “freefall”.
This is true, although I don’t think the lies you mean are the lies I mean.
I mean they as in the collective, now a religion that a lot of the country believes as fact and I know your trying to bait me with your personal fave.
I’ll admit, I don’t know how the buildings were brought down. We also know that science does not allow the official story to be true either. The fact that I cant explain the collapse doesn’t make the official story true.
From previous threads your misunderstanding of what science is and what it isn’t, coupled with dubious cites from even more dubious people lend serious street cred to the official story.
I love how this part is in singular, first person.
But this part is plural, as if you are trying to boost yourself by standing on tiptoe.
It is objectively wrong that science does not allow the official story to be true. Either such claims are based on massive misinformation or outright lies.
Just focus on the second part, since you’ve decided to wade in. I actually DON’T know that ‘science’ (however you are defining that) doesn’t ‘allow’ for the official story to be true. In fact, quite the opposite. I have never seen anything in the ‘official story’ that is contradicted by actual science. This isn’t about faith. It’s about actually understanding the science and engineering.
But, feel free to expound on this. My guess is you won’t because, but maybe I’ll be surprised by a real answer.
It may give you some comfort to think you’re far too clever for those “egg-headed” experts to pull the wool over your eyes, but just because you don’t understand enough science and engineering on the subject, doesn’t mean others don’t. It especially doesn’t mean that those who do understand it are in a conspiracy to deceive you.