HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:rook you need to start sourcing your info
you've been fed a lot of bullshit which you're just accepting
for example, the wtc columns were 18 inches wide not 36 inches
I'm talking about the center columns, for the core of the building.
Hold on and I will get you a source...
edit: This is a first source I got quickly. It's the article by the former Bush administration official who recently came out and said the official story isn't plausible:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
Also, Underwriters Labratories is the company contracted by the NIST to conduct the tests on why the WTC collapse happened as it did -- they are also the company who originally certified the steel in the building when it was constructed. They concluded their tests last year. They didn't release their findings publicly, but gave them over to the NIST. The NIST then released their report.
This is a letter from Kevin Ryan, of Underwriters Labratories, to Frank Gayle, of the NIST:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsar ... 1-ryan.php
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.
I'll find a more official source for the thickness of the WTC core columns for you.
edit2:
Appendix B of the official FEMA WTC report:
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wt ... apndxB.pdf
From that report:
The difference was up to 15 ksi (i.e., 75 ksi, 85 ksi, and 90 ksi). The core columns were
box sections fabricated from A36 steel plate and were 36 inches x 14–16 inches with plate thickness from 3/4
inch to 4 inches. Above floor 84, rolled or welded built-up I-shaped sections were used.
The shape of the core column changed above the 84th floor, but the size was the same.
