We had a server outage, and we're rebuilding the site. Some of the site features won't work. Thank you for your patience.
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
latest news
best of news




A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List


IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

Temps and Time Needed 4 Melting Steel of WTC Towers

by Debunking the 9/11 Debunkers Tuesday, Jul. 08, 2008 at 10:43 PM

With GW Bush regime's frequent and persistant patterns of deceit used to justify invasion of Iraq, why believe the official version of 9/11 Commission on the WTC bombings??

Some interesting concepts coming from the people who refuse to question the official version of the 9/11 Commission report, how the buckling steel and truss failure of the pancake collapse do not hold up to physical reality..

Some further explanations are needed in the 9/11 Commission report's version of the melting point required to cause the steel support columns to "buckle" and weaken to the point of collapse, even the steel as afar down as the basement level. What we should have witnessed if the melting steel hypothesis was true would have been some vertical steel support beams remaining after the "pancake collapse" of the horizontal floors fell to the bottom..

This article is in response to the "Scientific American" fabrication called "Fahrenheit 2777" written by Micheal Shermer that attempts to debunk 9/11 Research by making up fallacies;

"The Cryptic Origin of 2,777 Degrees Farenheit

Just after mentioning "creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics," Shermer states:

[A]ccording to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers.

In fact, 911Research has never contained the figure 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit. What 911Research does contain is passages like the following:

1535C (2795F) - melting point of iron
~1510C (2750F) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825C (1517F) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)."

debunking the debunkers @;

Given the rapid combustion of the jet fuel following impact and the vivid smoking once the fire had less oxygen, it is doubtful that the temps required to melt steel were ever reached for the time required to weaken the supports. In addition, the "pancake theory" of collapse also shows some errors;

"The truss failure theory, a key ingredient of the better known floor pancake theory, was endorsed by FEMA in its 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study . It invites us to imagine the floors assemblies detaching from their connections to the columns of the core and perimeter walls, precipitating a chain reaction of floors falling on one another. Without the lateral support of the floors, the columns, FEMA tells us, buckled and precipitated total building collapse.

The truss-failure/pancake theory offered a way around the obvious problem with the column failure theory: the need for all the columns to be heated to 800 C. It offered instead prerequisite conditions that were far less implausible: that trusses holding up the floor slabs were heated to that temperature, and began to experience some combination of expansion and sagging. Floor trusses are much easier to heat because, unlike the columns, they are not well thermally coupled to the rest of the steel structure.

The Truss Failure Theory was was abandoned by NIST's investigation in 2004 because NIST was unable to get floor assemblies to fail as required by the theory. Documentaries that had promoted the truss failure theory became obsolete, and were quietly replaced with updated versions."

article cont's @;

How do sagging floors lead to total and complete collapse in rapid succession??

"From Sagging Trusses to Leveled Building

The unverified assumptions of the truss theory listed above are the least of its problems. It pretends that a few truss failures would automatically lead to the entire steel building crushing itself. What would be the likely chain of events following a floor failure envisioned by the truss theory?

Let's accept Dr. Eagar's zipper scenario (despite the clear evidence that fires did not cover a whole floor in either tower) and imagine that all the trusses of a floor failed in rapid succession and the whole floor fell. Then what? It would fall down about ten feet, then come to rest on the floor below, which was designed to support at least five times the weight of both floors, the fall cushioned by the folding of the trusses beneath the upper floor. But let's imagine that the lower floor suddenly gave up the ghost, and the two floors fell onto the next, and that failed, and floors kept falling. Then what? The floor diaphragms would have slid down around the core like records on a spindle, leaving both the core and perimeter wall standing.

Truss theory proponents hold that the core and perimeter wall lacked structural integrity without mutual bracing provided by the floor diaphragms. That may have been true in the event of a 140 mph wind, but not on a calm day. Note that the core had abundant cross-bracing, and would have been perfectly capable of standing in a hurricane by itself. And even if one imagines the outer wall buckling without that support, it does not begin to explain how it shattered into thousands of pieces, many of the column sections ripped from the spandrel plates at the welds, and how it shattered so quickly that no part of the wall remained standing above the falling dust cloud."

Sometimes it appears the authors and supporters of the 9/11 Commission report were operating under some other dimension where the normal laws of physics are suspended in some "Twilight Zone" episode of alternate reality. Good that there's enough logical people out there who refuse to accept the bizarre version of science as put forth by 9/11 Commission..

David Ray Griffin writes;

"The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never.

One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three.

There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel. Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: It was the fire that killed the buildings. Theres nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted (Barter, 2001).[7]

These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800 Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---can at most rise to 1700F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted.[10]

Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled.[11] For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300F, argues that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot.

But they were not. Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were probably only about 1,200 or 1,300F (Eagar, 2002).

There are reasons to believe, moreover, that the fires were not even that hot. As photographs show, the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin (Hufschmid, 2002, p. 40). This photographic evidence is supported by scientific studies carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250C [482F], and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures (2005, p. 88).

NIST (2005) says that it did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors. That only such a tiny percent of the columns was available was due, of course, to the fact that government officials had most of the steel immediately sold and shipped off. In any case, NISTs findings on the basis of this tiny percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher temperatures would be just that---pure speculation not backed up by any empirical evidence.

Moreover, even if the fire had reached 1,300F, as Eagar supposes, that does not mean that any of the steel would have reached that temperature. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. Put a fire to one part of a long bar of steel and the heat will quickly diffuse to the other parts and to any other pieces of steel to which that bar is connected.[13]

For fires to have heated up some of the steel columns to anywhere close to their own temperature, they would have needed to be very big, relative to the size of the buildings and the amount of steel in them. The towers, of course, were huge and had an enormous amount of steel. A small, localized fire of 1,300F would never have heated any of the steel columns even close to that temperature, because the heat would have been quickly dispersed throughout the building.

Some defenders of the official story have claimed that the fires were indeed very big, turning the buildings into towering infernos. But all the evidence counts against this claim, especially with regard to the south tower, which collapsed first. This tower was struck between floors 78 and 84, so that region is where the fire would have been the biggest. And yet Brian Clark, a survivor, said that when he got down to the 80th floor: "You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames . . . just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall."[14] Likewise, one of the fire chiefs who had reached the 78th floor found only two isolated pockets of fire.[15]

The north tower, to be sure, did have fires that were big enough and hot enough to cause many people to jump to their deaths. But as anyone with a fireplace grate or a pot-belly stove knows, fire that will not harm steel or even iron will burn human flesh. Also in many cases it may have been more the smoke than the heat that led people to jump.

In any case, the fires, to weaken the steel columns, would have needed to be not only very big and very hot but also very long-lasting.[16] The public was told that the towers had such fires, with CNN saying that very intense fires burned for a long time.[17] But they did not. The north tower collapsed an hour and 42 minutes after it was struck; the south tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

To see how ludicrous is the claim that the short-lived fires in the towers could have induced structural collapse, we can compare them with some other fires. In 1988, a fire in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for 3.5 hours and gutted 5 of this buildings 62 floors, but there was no significant structural damage (FEMA, 1988). In 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphias One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the buildings 38 floors, but, said the FEMA report, although [b]eams and girders sagged and twisted . . . under severe fire exposures. . . , the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage (FEMA, 1991). In Caracas in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely gutting the buildings top 20 floors, and yet it did not collapse (Nieto, 2004). And yet we are supposed to believe that a 56-minute fire caused the south tower to collapse.

Unlike the fires in the towers, moreover, the fires in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Caracas were hot enough to break windows.

Another important comparison is afforded by a series of experiments run in Great Britain in the mid-1990s to see what kind of damage could be done to steel-frame buildings by subjecting them to extremely hot, all-consuming fires that lasted for many hours. FEMA, having reviewed those experiments, said: Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900C (1,500-1,700F) in three of the tests. . . , no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments (1988, Appendix A).

These comparisons bring out the absurdity of NISTs claim that the towers collapsed because the planes knocked the fireproofing off the steel columns. Fireproofing provides protection for only a few hours, so the steel in the buildings in Philadelphia and Caracas would have been directly exposed to raging fires for 14 or more hours, and yet this steel did not buckle. NIST claims, nevertheless, that the steel in the south tower buckled because it was directly exposed to flames for 56 minutes.[18]

A claim made by some defenders of the official theory is to speculate that there was something about the Twin Towers that made them uniquely vulnerable to fire. But these speculations are not backed up by any evidence. And, as Norman Glover, has pointed out: [A]lmost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire. The WTC was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service (Glover, 2002)."

article cont's @;

One last question for the supporters of 9/11 Commission report;

Why the rush by Giuliani and GW Bush to destroy evidence of the WTC steel support beams by quickly recycling them by melting??

"The Expeditious Destruction of the Evidence at Ground Zero

Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble. Since no steel-framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fires, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure? They recycled it!

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. 1

The bulk of the steel was apparently shipped to China and India. The Chinese firm Baosteel purchased 50,000 tons at a rate of $120 per ton, compared to an average price of $160 paid by local mills in the previous year. 2

Mayor Bloomberg, a former engineering major, was not concerned about the destruction of the evidence:

If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything. 3

The pace of the steel's removal was very rapid, even in the first weeks after the attack. By September 29, 130,000 tons of debris -- most of it apparently steel -- had been removed. 4

During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. 5 One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fresh Kills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation."

article cont's @;

Was there nothing that could be learned from studying the steel support columns, or maybe too much could be learned??

Some extra thoughts on left gatekeepers (Chomsky, Churchill, Goodman, etc..) and their followers who are certain that the 9/11 Commission Report is factual evidence. We ALL witnessed during the last eight years of the GW Bush regime one deceitful concoction after the next, ("proof" of WMDs in Iraq, false "confessions" of an alliance between Saddam and Al-Queda obtained under torture, uranium from Niger, etc..) and yet we are to believe that this habitual liar is now telling the truth on 9/11??

We would expect this sort of deceptive nonsense from the likes of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the FOX news camp, though not from otherwise intelligent and informed journalists like Amy Goodman, though they persist in their campaign of 9/11 Truth denial..

"It is not a surprise that the corporate, mainstream media have sought to restrict investigative journalism and dissident opinions about the so-called "War on Terror." However, it is more difficult to understand the fact that the "left alternative" media -- including The Nation, Z magazine, The Progressive, Mother Jones, Alternative Radio and Democracy Now -- have shied away from examining the pretext for endless war. They ignored the national "Deception Dollar" campaign, which has distributed six million Deception Dollars listing websites of the independent investigations of 9/11. Do these alternative publications expect the readers to believe that they did not attend the many peace rallies around the time of the US seizure of Iraq, where many of the DDs were distributed?

Most "alternative" media institutions have chosen not to help the independent investigations sift through the evidence for official foreknowledge and complicity, and have spent three years pretending that the evidence does not exist. While some of the evidence is questionable or erroneous, there is an enormous amount of material that has been tripled checked from mainstream sources and is extremely credible -- but you would not be aware of this from the liberal / left / progressive media. Worse, several of these publications have attacked independent media and journalists who have done excellent work exposing the lies behind the official stories of 9/11. In the spring of 2002, when some of the material documenting official foreknowledge of 9/11 began to surface in the corporate media, The Nation, Z, Political Research Associates and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting attacked independent investigators who pieced together the documentation that proves 9/11 was not a surprise attack.

Within a few weeks of 9/11, independent journalists using mainstream news sources had pieced together a mountain of evidence that proved beyond reasonable doubt that Team Bush had full foreknowledge of 9/11 and allowed the "attacks" to happen to create the pretext to seize the Middle East oil fields. In early 2002, Norman Solomon and David Corn of The Nation waged a smear campaign against these efforts. This gave the Bush regime critical assistance at its most vulnerable point by scaring away much of the peace movement from Bush's Achilles heel. Their attacks ignored the documented, specific warnings from US allies that 9/11 was imminent, the "put option" stock trades on United and American airlines just before 9/11, and the suppression of FBI agents who had figured out what was coming. Solomon campaigned for censorship at Pacifica Radio (KPFA in Berkeley) on these themes, and a few months later got to go on a US government sponsored trip to Iraq. Meanwhile, non-embedded peace activists were threatened with felony prosecutions for visiting Iraq."

read on @;

Plenty of shame to go around on both the right and the left gatekeepers for their role in the continued cover-up of the domestic war crimes of the GW Bush regime of the 9/11 deception..

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments

© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy