PCTers, you really believe that the WTC's were brought down...

[SidDithers]

by the use of thermite demolitions?

Simple yes or no will do, thanks.

Sid

[petgoat]

1. We're not allowed to say "I don't know?" nt

[greyl]

2. I don't know = No, you don't believe. nt

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

3. i don't know = i don't know

[greyl]

5. Yes, and it also equals I do not believe. nt

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

8. I do not believe = I do not believe

:eyes:

[greyl]

9. Duck season!

In regard to the OP, is there anyone who believes one of the choices is true, but would also admit they don't know one way or the other?

The people who don't know, also don't believe - simple as that.

[petgoat]

11. Not believeing does not equal disbelieving, however. nt

[greyl]

14. No shit, disbelieving isn't a choice. nt

[petgoat]

17. SInce "I don't believe X" is used conversationally to mean

"I disbelieve X" a simple yes and no answer is inherently ambiguous.

"I don't want to fall and break my head" is similarly used conversationally
to mean "I wish not to fall and break my head."

[greyl]

21. A simple yes or no is ambiguous?

The question unambiguously reveals those who believe it.

More importantly, if you hadn't noticed, the OP isn't exactly a poll where you must click on one of two choices.
You're free to respond however you like, or not at all. It was suggested that a yes or no would satisfy the OP's curiosity, and who are you to argue with that? You don't believe it, but you haven't ruled it out - we get it.

[wildbilln864]

4. What we really believe is....

that the Bush cabal has said fuck you to the public and you'll take the fucking answer we fucking give you no matter how rediculous it is and like it! We don't know what did cause the collapses and you don't either because no investigation has been done. Only speculation.

[SidDithers]

23. But I'm only asking about the collapse...

I'm not really that interested in everything else you've said.

Do you believe that thermite was used to bring down the towers?

Sid

[wildbilln864]

40. Well I'm not sure what brought them down!

Thermit may or may not be a possibility.

[nebula]

6. The official "pancake collapse" theory states...

that fires weakened the steel beams to a point that allowed the floors to pancake down into one another. An idea which is incredibly absurd.

For it ignores the fact that every steel beam in the towers was covered with a FIRE-PROOF coating. Explosives such as dynamite or thermate could have compromised FIRE-PROOF coated steel beams, but not fire!


Edit: typos

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Nebula: really, you've got to at least skim through the NIST report

So that you know what it's saying. If the "official story" is anything, it is the NIST report, and the NIST report is not talking pancake collapse.

Plus, fireproofing does not protect steel when it has been removed in an airplane impact that flings debris in all directions.

[nebula]

10. Its hard to imagine how a ONE-HOUR long fire

on a couple of floors could cause inches-thick steel beams to weaken to the point that causes them to completely fail. The idea seems quite presposterous. Fireproofing or not.

In 2005, a fire burned for 19 hours straight and engulfed EVERY floor of a skyscraper in Madrid, Spain. But the building never collapsed and the next day, it is seen standing as tall as it was before the fire.

[petgoat]

12. Allah is indeed great. nt

[nebula]

13. Yeah, quite a miracle.

Praise Allah.

[greyl]

15. Failure of imagination. nt

[mirandapriestly]

18. Imagination is what one needs to believe

the propaganda of 9-11. I wonder what Russian media tells the Russian people about their 1999 bombings...

[Bolo Boffin]

19. That skyscraper in Madrid wasn't a steel structure through and through

like the WTC towers.

Really, read the NIST report. At the very least, you can actually be dealing with the official story instead of what you think the original story is.

[KJF]

16. Maybe

The thermite people have made a couple of decent points, but they haven't proved it yet.

[rman]

20. I think it's more plausible than the OCT

[John Q. Citizen]

24. Bingo! I second that.

[quickesst]

22. I think....

that in my humble opinion, there are not a lot of people here who do not understand the construction business. I don't give a rat's ass how much education you have, practical experience will tell you all you need to know. The ignorance of the practical application of commercial construction is astounding, especially with statements like the fireproofing being knocked off the steel. Perhaps in and around the impact area, but I can assure you the fireproofing remained in place on all the steel, probably starting a floor or two below impact. I deal with that stuff on a regular basis. In order to start the top track on a wall, attatched to a steel beam, I have to manually scrape, using a putty knife, the fireproofing from the steel. That's about three and a half inches by maybe six inches. I place the track into place, and pin it to the steel using a 25 caliber Hilti gun. A 25 caliber impact directly to steel has a pretty good kick to it. Guess what? The fireproofing that I am shooting that load next to will remain intact. Now, go ahead and expect me to believe the fireproofing was dislodged on the bottom seventy or so floors, and it will only be good for a laugh. I only wish more people had the experience of practical application, plus the academics to fully discuss this in it's proper perspective. I have the construction experience(twenty years), but lack the academic skills to compliment it. Architects in England have to spend a minimum of two years in the field before they can obtain a licence. Why? Because what they draw on paper, using what they have learned in school, will constantly run into problems applying what's on paper to the real world. Just my 02, and the yes or know question in the op is just ignorant. Thanks.
quickesst

[Bolo Boffin]

27. NIST only expects that the fireproofing was removed on the impact floors

That's all that necessary for the fires to bring the buildings down.

I'm glad your practical application has confirmed the NIST report.

[nebula]

39. But please explain...

how a ONE-HOUR long fire managed to compromise structural steel beams to the point of total failure.

I would really like to how something so amazing can happen.

[Bolo Boffin]

47. wtc.nist.gov

Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

Read.

[quickesst]

48. That may be true....

but, what about all the floors below that fell exactly like the impact floors? So now, all the fireproofing is intact on the undamaged(?)floors below the impact area. You're asking me to believe something that is at odds with twenty years experience in commercial construction. Those building should have been twisting and turning during the collapse. Those areas where the steel beams are put together not only have bolts and nuts, but welds, that on a job of this size, , would have been subject to testing. A proper weld, which is the only welds accepted on that sort of job is absolutely stronger than the steel itself.
So now, the steel below the impact area was not affected by the heat of fires, such as from fuel down, heh-heh, s'cuse me, the elevator shafts, because now, the fireproofing is intact in those areas. I suppose I'll have to wait for the next thread involving those floors to hear about the heat that affected the steel in those areas, weakened it, and contributed to the collapses. Why is there one story for the bottom of the towers, and another for the top floors? You know, the otc may be absolutely correct, and may have happened the way you hope it did, but to believe that, it takes an incredible stretch of the imagination, a stretch the most alternative theories do not require. At least the ct theories are consistent. Thanks.
quickesst

[MervinFerd]

25. Remarkable. Complete inability to give a coherent answer to a simple Q.

Really, guys. It's just a very simple question.

Do you believe X. YES or NO.

You can elaborate for clarification.

But if you cannot answer such a simple questions, your minds are completely muddled.

[greyl]

26. It indicates that most of what is written here by Inside Job Cultists

is no more than unexamined fantasizing - not analytical thinking at all.

[piobair]

29. It's really just mental masturbation.

N/T

[John Q. Citizen]

35. Yes, In your mind analytical thinking always revolves

around yes/no answers. Good one greyl. Very analytical of you.


:rofl:

[greyl]

38. I don't believe in psychic phenomenon either.

But, I'm certain straw arguments are a trait of positions acquired free of analytical thought.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

28. 9/11 Truthers

can insinuate all the shit they want as long as they are "just asking questions" apparently.

[wildbilln864]

44. that's right...

so get used to it!
:hi:

[quickesst]

50. You restrict...

your choices to what? Two ? You're giving only two choices, and the question demands either the answer, yes, or the answer, I don't believe any type of outside tampering. On edit, maybe not so much trying for an admittance that there wasn't any, but to perhaps restrict some people's view to thermite only, while those who answer no, but believe in ct, are put into a position to explain what did bring them down. You will have, with this question, eliminated thermite/thermate from their choices of speculation, you know, "But, but, you said you didn't believe that!", which will of course, ignite your need for another demeaning jab at other members here on DU, which I believe, is your ultimate goal as far as this thread is concerned. Thanks.
quickesst

[dailykoff]

30. Demolitions, yes. Thermite, likely. Planes/fires, absolutely not.

Hope that helps. :)

[MervinFerd]

31. How many floors? How much thermite?

OK.

"Demolition".

Do you mean a few charges near the impact sites to help things along? Or, many, many charges on each floor, so that the building collapsed "at free-fall speeds", or "was completely pulverized"?

If the former, what evidence of this would there be?

If the second, HOW MUCH thermite, or other material would be required?

Once again, simple questions.

[dailykoff]

32. We can say with certainty that they were demolished.

How it was done, I personally can only speculate. But the towers don't seem to have been demolished using conventional gravity-assisted CD techniques (as was WTC7 for example) as explosives appear to have pulverized the entire structure, not just the foundations.

Anyway here's my theory in a nutshell:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=131239&mesg_id=132061

[MervinFerd]

55. So, you claim there were very large numbers of explosives?

To "pulverize the entire structure" would surely require many TONS of dynamite, thermite, TNT, or whatever was used. ON EACH FLOOR. I can't see any way around that.

So, your theory is:

"The Secret Shadow Government planted upwards of 200 tons of explosives distributed over all 100 floors of each of the Twin Towers. And nobody noticed this."

Is this your theory?

YES or NO.

[dailykoff]

56. No.

I'm making claims about the buildings, not the explosives.

p.s. I think I made my claims clearly enough that they don't need to be repeated, so instead of asking me to, please just reread the post. :)

[MervinFerd]

79. No? Explosives demolished the bldgs, but there were no explosives?

If you claim the buildings were "pulverized", you are NECESSARILY claiming that there was release of enormous energy from -somewhere-. If not explosives, then --what--?

What you are trying to claim is simply incoherent.

[MervinFerd]

90. Once again, no answer to a simple question.

Were there many tons of explosives?

YES or NO?

[MervinFerd]

92. Still no answer.

And we were doing so good before.

[SidDithers]

36. Thank you for the first direct answer in this thread....nt

Sid

[frylock]

33. for anybody to state with any authority that they know for a fact..

what happened, one way or the other, is the height of arrogance. Isn't it okay to ask questions and expect reasonable answers? This black/white bullshit is a fucking load of crap as evidenced by the enthusiasm of the OCT clique.

[dailykoff]

34. I know for a fact that the towers were demolished.

I've studied the available evidence carefully and even without the construction documents which will show that the NIST reports are fraudulent, the case is airtight.

That's just the way it is. :shrug:

[SidDithers]

37. I'm not asking what you know for a fact...

I'm asking what you believe.

Sid

[frylock]

49. i believe that players within the us govt were complicit in the destruction..

whether thermite or thermate was utilized is beyond my level of expertise.

[nebula]

41. Can anyone answer a burning question?

Or should I start a new thread? Thanks.


That is,

How in the world did a ONE-HOUR long fire manage to compromise structural steel beams to the point of total failure (even if by some chance the fire-proofing failed)? I would really love to know how something so amazing and unprecedented can take place.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. http://wtc.nist.gov

http://wtc.nist.gov

Download the NIST report. Read it.

[nebula]

45. So many links on that page

I don't know where to begin.

Can you summarize or point to the part that explains how a one-hour long fire could have weakened structural steel to the point of total failure?

Thanks.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Spend some time there.

There's a lot of good information there, and sometimes you have to invest some time to get acquainted with things.

However, to find the final reports on the World Trade Center disaster, click on the link under Important Links on the top right column that's labeled Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster.

[nebula]

58. I clicked the "Final Reports" link

The Final Report seems to be broken up into these 8 major areas. Any one of them could probably have what I'm looking for, judging from the titles. The problem is, each of the 8 sections contains hundreds, even thousands of pages in .PDF format. I don't have the time or the ability to wade through so much material. And unfortunately, the language of these reports is extremely technical in nature. I doubt if anyone, including myself, would be able to make much sense of it unless they had a degree in engineering or something like that.




NIST NCSTAR 1-1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems

NIST NCSTAR 1-2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers

NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel

NIST NCSTAR 1-4: Active Fire Protection Systems
NIST NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers

NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers

NIST NCSTAR 1-7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication

NIST NCSTAR 1-8: The Emergency Response Operations


Does NIST (or anybody for that matter) provide an explanation , in lay terms, of how an (approx.) 1 hour fire can compromise steel to the point of failure? I do understand that NIST says a combination of the plane impact and fire weakening brought down the towers. But what I'm interested in right now is specifically the part about fire weakening steel to the point of failure.

Or, perhaps NIST never attempted to answer that question in their report?


Edit: typos

[dailykoff]

59. Bingo.

What you're looking at is a multi-thousand page snow job that manages to postpone or evade all the essential questions including how the towers collapsed to the ground, what happened to building 7, etc.

Last time I checked it had no index either. Now you see its usefulness as an evasion.

[nebula]

61. The technical language is over the top.

It might as well be written in Chinese.

[dailykoff]

65. Yeah it's meant to sound like it means something.

Most of it seems plagiarized from various construction documents which I'm guessing they mangled completely before ditching.

:crazy:

[Bolo Boffin]

68. You're misrepresenting the report.

Let nebula decide for his or herself, why don't you?

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

71. Not for the first time. n/t

[dailykoff]

75. He asked a question. The NIST does not supply a direct answer.

Let's focus on answering the question instead of evading it.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. As a PDF file, it's fully searchable with the Find function.

I don't think it's light reading material, but it's not that dense. With a decent amount of effort, the persistent reader can actually understand what it's saying.

I would say it's not even a third as hard to read as Godel, Escher, Bach.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

72. Perhaps you would quit...

trying to pretend you've understood it?

[dailykoff]

73. Get back to me

when you finish reading it.

[AZCat]

74. We won't be able...

to hold an educated conversation until you work on understanding those engineering fundamentals, regardless what you've read of the NIST report.

Maybe you should work on that?

[dailykoff]

78. That is incorrect.

The report is broken into a series of loosely connected and poorly tabulated chapters, appendices, and subdocuments that make searching the entire document impossible.

[Bolo Boffin]

82. Right now, I have the main report open in Adobe Acrobat in front of me.

It's got an detailed table of contents, that lays out exactly what is in the report. Finding a section is as easy as plugging the name into the find window.

In addition, the main report has an appendix (Appendix C) which is titled Subject Index of Supporting Investigation Reports. It is a concise indexing of the supporting reports, directing you to the exact places in the supporting reports to find fuller treatments of topics covered in the main report.

Stick with the main report right now, nebula.

[dailykoff]

83. Grand. That doesn't make it searchable using Find. (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

84. No. Opening the Find window and entering a search term does that. n/t

[dailykoff]

85. The Acrobat find window searches one doc, not all the docs. (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

86. That's not an insurmountable difficulty.

If you need to search another document, Adobe has provided a Open button right there on the toolbar. Downloading all the PDFs into a folder of their own makes this even easier.

The NIST final report and supporting documents are remarkably well-organized. The Adobe Acrobat makes reading them and searching them extremely easy.

[dailykoff]

87. Your claim that the report is fully searchable is incorrect.

Because it is broken up into a number of subdocuments it is not fully searchable using browser or Acrobat search functions.

[Bolo Boffin]

88. The report is fully searchable - each part of it.

The main report is a single PDF file. There are only eight more documents, each with quite descriptive titles.

The report is fully searchable.

[dailykoff]

89. Please. (n/t)

[AZCat]

62. You've put your finger on the principle problem.

This discussion really isn't fit for laypeople. In order to converse intelligently about the building failures a person needs to have at least passing familiarity with engineering principles.

For example, your question about fire compromising steel misses an important point - that the potential failure of a structural member depends on the load placed on that member. Heating steel just reduces the amount of weight a structural member can bear without failing - the reduction depends on the intensity and duration.

Since we don't know what the loads on the structural members were after the impacts of the aircraft on the WTC towers, we can't say for sure how long or how hot the fire would need to be in order for the members to fail. We can make some reasoned judgements, but to expect the NIST to provide an explicit answer is to misunderstand the whole issue.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Just stick with the main report right now.

It's above the companion reports you listed.

NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower

Start at the Executive Summary on page xxxvii (page 39 of the PDF file).

You are going to have to invest some time understand how the buildings were built if you want to understand why they fell.

Also, if you are further interested in the WTC structural response to steel, you want to look at NCSTAR 1-6.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dailykoff]

77. None of this answers his question.

I suggest that the NIST report is not useful here except as an evasion.

[nebula]

80. I think this topic deserves a new thread

first thing in the morning.

Good night all.

[dailykoff]

81. Good move. (n/t)

[quickesst]

51. boloboffin's repeated...

referrals to the nist report let you know he knows nothing about real construction. Any wall with sheetrock on it has a one hour rating, if it rocks to the deck. All mechanical rooms will have four layers of sheetrock for a four hour rating, plus all floor contacts and cieling contacts are sealed with fireproofing. All elevator shafts are doublerocked with fireproofing sealing all penetrations. Fact is, most don't have any idea how much sheetrock contributes to the fireproofing and strength of a commercial steel building. Just think, all that untouched sheetrock and steel below the impact area that retained it's fireproofing(monocote) vaporized just like the areas of impact. Incredible, to say the least. Thanks.
quickesst

[Bolo Boffin]

52. Steel below the impact area "vaporized"?

Who has ever claimed that?

[quickesst]

53. That word....

was used to describe what I see when I look at the collapse as a whole. I really didn't literally mean vaporized steel. Sorry for the errant inclusion. Perhaps not proper, but I ain't no scholar. Without slo-mo, those towers look like 100 plus story sand-castles that were dried in the sun coming down. Just a mass of pulverized concrete falling on supposed floor after floor after floor of undamaged and intact concrete and insulated cold steel beams, and those floors look no different coming down than the floors just below and around the impact area that were damaged by impact, and speculatively, intense heat. Knowing steel, sheetrock, concrete, etc. like I do, it just doesn't feel, or look right. Doesn't mean anything in the big scheme of things, but that's the way I feel about it. The otc simply seems silly to me. Thanks.
quickesst

[Bolo Boffin]

54. All that is required in the NIST report is that the impact floors lose

their fireproofing. Once that section failed, it bisected each tower into two sections. Each part was structurally sound, but the upper section had momentum and acceleration, the two trump cards in the WTC tower collapses.

[dailykoff]

57. You won't find any answers in the NIST report.

The NIST starts from the assumption that plane crashes and fires brought down the building and then spins ludicrous and convoluted hypotheses as to how that occurred based on bogus "tests" (like blowing fireproofing off with bird shot), "enhanced" photos, and software "models." They are completely unpersuasive.

I'd say yes, start a new thread.

[DoYouEverWonder]

43. If thermite was used

it was only on key columns and corners to preweaken the structure.

I think a more likely senerio is the use of natural gas or other vaporized fuel on the mechanical floors (plus a floor under the hat trusses in WTC 1 and the 81st floor in WTC 2) in all three buildings.

Keep in mind that the closer to the top of the towers, the more empty space you will find that had never been 'finished'. Plus the mechanical floors had no tenants.

[mirandapriestly]

60. Who here can look at any professional demolition

and tell the exact method used? you can't. But most can tell the difference between a building brought down by fire and a building brought down by a controlled demolition and the towers and wtc7 are much closer to a building brought down by controlled demolition, in fact wtc7 seems identical or even much more advanced than most demolitions or implosions.
Thermite is something that could have had the necessary effect on the steel to demolish the buildings, but since it leaves almost no trace that can't be explained away from materials found in the area, and since the evidence disappeared or was destroyed, NIST will say there was no evidence for thermite and then ALL of cd will be thrown out along with it before you can say "the fix is in" and since thermite got all the attention nothing else will have been investigated.

Funny, how you demand "yes" or "no" answers from people on a message board, but do not seem to feel that public officials/9-11 Commission, or Bush science scientists should have to answer with the same specificity.

[SidDithers]

63. So we can put you down as a definate yes...

for controlled demolition? It's just the materials used to bring down the towers that you're still not sure of?

Is that a fair interpretation of your post?

Sid

[leftofthedial]

76. don't have a clue

except that it wasn't airplanes

[vincent_vega_lives]

91. You have to understand the thought process

The demolition theories are not based on any reasonable analysis based on evidence. It is based on "questions" originating from a lack of understanding. Since I don't understand A then B must be true.

With that type of "reasoning" you don't need evidence, or even critical thinking. Its fucking BRILLIANT!