9/11

Actually, the question is: Is that your response to learning that the NIST contradicted itself in its own report?

 

And how did they contradict themselves?

 

Here, I'll try to condense my point so that even you will have no trouble comprehending its meaning.

From the NIST:

"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC (482 degrees Fahrenheit).

". . . Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC (482 degrees Fahrenheit).

". . . Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC (1112 degrees Fahrenheit).

" A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (1292 degrees Fahrenheit) (300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward. (p 96/150)."

So, the NIST decided that the temperature to be applied to the steel being tested should be more than 842 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the actual temperature of the steel that they themselves reported. As I've said, they worked backwards from a desired conclusion. They performed a test creating a condition that was inconsistent with what their own evidence showed. That's a deliberate, dishonest contradiction. But that's what happens when you start from a desired conclusion and work backwards from there. You fail!

 

Bullshit!!!!

Perimeter columns yada yada

Core columns yada yada

Means they contradicted themselves with the floor system???

Bullshit.

You know full well that is bullshit by the way you edited it there.

Spell out exactly what you are claiming they contradicted themselves with? Analysis of the core columns vs tests on the floor system?

So now we have another pathetic lie, all in an attempt to hide you have gone 17 yrs thinking those core columns are supposed to stand up by themselves, 17 yrs never bothering to check how long it actually took wtc 1 and 7 to collapse. 17 years never bothering to check what loads the floors can handle

 

I just did. I spelled it out for you as concisely as possible. The first sentence of my last paragraph put it in terms that even a ten-year old could understand. Go ahead and reread it, and tell me what part you don't get. I'm here for you.

"So, the NIST decided that the temperature to be applied to the steel being tested should be more than 842 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the actual temperature of the steel that they themselves reported."

If you believe that I edited the NIST material to change its meaning, you are free to back up that accusation. So, what do you got?

 

Yes, this is a flat out lie.

You took one section on the testing of centre columns took another section on a test run on the floor system. Somehow in your mind they are the same thing, and tried to imply NIST somehow contradicts itself.

Another pathetic attempt to hide you went 17 yrs believing those core columns should be able to stand up by themselves.

And now we can also add to the list that you have believed for 17 yrs the floor and the centre columns reached the same temperature in the fires, even though you previously maintained those centre columns were protected.

Are you now trying to claim floor trusses didnt get to 600C? That would be the floor trusses that sagged and caused the collapse of the building.

We are extending the nonsense of this thread for all to see, all the lame truther tricks, all the lies to how easily you and those like you got duped by subway sandwich artists whose nightime hobby was truther websites and youtube videos.....for 17 years

 

Uh, yeah. You'd better read this again.

" A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (1292 degrees Fahrenheit) (300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward.

Let me spell this out for you again. They are saying that their modeling, which was done to investigate failure of the floor section, showed that the floors did not sag until they increased the heat to 1292 degrees Fahrenheit. Perhaps if I allow you to interact in this, you'll understand what's being said. With that in mind, what temperature did the NIST say the floors experienced? Go.

Oh, and where did Ii claim that the core columns were protected from fire?

 

Now you are trying to weasel out of this one

So what has that got to do with your 482 for the two centre columns.

That is how you claimed they contradicted themselves.

They tested the floor from a heat source about the concrete at 700C so the steel in the floor would get past 600C and it sagged.

This is also yet another attempt to stall about getting back to those floor trusses sagging which led to the initial collapse

 

Hmm. The question to you was: What temperature did the NIST say the floors that sagged experienced?

 

Tell me how 842 degrees means they contradicted themselves?

 

I'm going to make you say what temperature the NIST claimed the floors that sagged experienced. Do you know the answer or not? What did the NIST investigation determine concerning the highest temperature experienced by the floors that they say sagged?

And while you're at it, what proof did the NIST provide that everything they said about the damage to the core is accurate? Don't you think it odd that they would admit to not being able to comment on the extent of the fires because they couldn't see them, yet they came up with a detailed "probable" sequence of events that could only be had if one of them were in the Tower at the time and taking notes close up?

 

Oh, you were quoting that from the modelling section that got rejected anyway.

So 842 degrees is your smokung gun for them contradicting themsleves from a computer model they rejected.

Floor system sagged at 400C

 

Uh huh. So when they said that the floor truss of their model didn't sag until they applied 700 degrees Celsius (1242 degrees Fahrenheit) to it, are you saying that they lied about that, but put it in the Report anyway?

 

Dude, columns arent going to stand up on their own anyway once the floors are gone. 95% of the population gets that, we just wait 17+ years for the rest of you to catch up. Gravity load was shared almost equally between centre columns and external columns. The hundreds of computer models tell them to a small margin of error which centre columns failed. You are saying because no one was inside taking snapshots, building couldnt have fallen down

 

You are now saying they "lied" about information they listed in a computer model they say they rejected?

Now to ad to the list we have you intentionally quoting sections out if a rejectef computer model trying to claim its fact

 

Sad and desperate truther tactics

 

You're one of those who have been believing that the floors supported the core structure instead of the other way around. I've shown you a photo that show that the core was adequately cross-braced. You remember, right? The one you thought was something from the 1930s? And did you know that the core columns were also held in place by the concrete and steel floor pans that they went up through. Here's a photo of that:



And you still haven't explained how severing 6 or 8 of 47 core columns, and 33 of 240 perimeter columns can lead to global collapse. Neither did the NIST explain it. Nor did they try. They simply claim that total collapse was inevitable, and they didn't say anything more.

 

Oh well then bring me the segment from the Final Report where they say they made a mistake concerning the temperature required to cause the floor truss to sag.

 

1:05 so last 20 seconds of flight you a 175 made perfectly timed and executed that it 01:11 could not possibly have been piloted by human being..

843 a.m. they would appear that flight 04:03 93 was their backup plane in case one of the plane missed the towers rigged with explosives..

 

We're going to wake the children . . .