portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation | media criticism

Propaganda Can't Melt Steel Beams (9/11)

Although it's not a secret that jet fuel can't melt steel, due to propaganda from sources like The Washington Post, Popular Mechanics and The Huffington Post, Americans often get confused about what facts like that mean to any national discussion.

In a nutshell, what it means is that the molten metal found at the WTC, for which there is a great deal of evidence, cannot be explained by the official 9/11 myth.
 http://digwithin.net/2015/12/20/propaganda-and-steel/

Propaganda Can't Melt Steel Beams

Posted on December 20, 2015 by Kevin Ryan

Eleven years ago, I initiated a discussion about the fact that jet fuel fires could not have melted steel at the World Trade Center. The government agency investigating the WTC destruction responded by holding "some of its deliberations in secret." Although it's not a secret that jet fuel can't melt steel, due to propaganda from sources like The Washington Post and The Huffington Post, Americans often get confused about what facts like that mean to any national discussion. In a nutshell, what it means is that the molten metal found at the WTC, for which there is a great deal of evidence, cannot be explained by the official 9/11 myth.

Today no one thinks that jet fuel fires can melt steel beams—not even The Posts' new science champion, who doesn't bother to actually use jet fuel or steel beams to teach us about "retarded metallurgical things." Instead, he uses a thin metal rod and a blacksmith forge to imply that, if the WTC buildings were made of thin metal rods and there were lots of blacksmith forges there, the thin metal rods would have lost strength and this would be the result. If you buy that as an explanation for what happened at the WTC, you might agree that everyone should just stop questioning 9/11.

This absurd demonstration highlights at least two major problems with America's ongoing struggle to understand 9/11. The first is that there was a great deal of molten metal at the WTC. Those who know that fact sometimes share internet memes that say "Jet Fuel Can't Melt Steel Beams" when they want to convey that "Thermite Melted Steel at the WTC." The second major problem is that certain mainstream media sources continue to put a lot of energy into dis-informing the public about 9/11.

Sources like The Posts, The New York Times and some "alternative media" continue to work hard to support the official myth of 9/11. That effort is not easy because they must do so while providing as little actual information about 9/11 as possible. The dumbing down of the average citizen is a full time job for such propagandists. Luckily for them, American students receive almost no historical context that encourages them to think critically or consider ideas that conflict with blind allegiance to their government. When it comes to the WTC, it also helps that almost 80% of Americans are scientifically illiterate.

As media companies attempt to confuse the public about 9/11, they must avoid relating details that might actually get citizens interested in the subject. For example, it's imperative that they never mention any of these fourteen facts about 9/11. It is also important to never reference certain people, like the ordnance distribution expert (and Iran-Contra suspect) who managed security at the WTC or the tortured top al Qaeda leader who turned out to have nothing to do with al Qaeda. In fact, to support the official myth of 9/11 these days, media must ignore almost every aspect of the crimes while promoting only the most mindless nonsense they can find. Unfortunately, that bewildering strategy becomes more obvious every day.


See Also —

The New York Times' 9/11 Propaganda
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/11/430932.shtml

How To Spy The 9/11 Lie
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/10/430687.shtml


9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/11/428610.shtml
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

An outstanding, must-watch video produced by an engineer, who clearly shows how existing high temperature pyrotechnic chemicals can be used to melt structural steel, of the type used in construction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers.

He first explains the context, and in the last half of the video demonstrates (using actual steel and thermate) how these chemicals can be used not only to melt, but also make precision cuts in heavy, thick steel beams - the kind used in skyscraper construction.

homepage: homepage: http://digwithin.net/2015/12/20/propaganda-and-steel/
address: address: Dig Within


Always remember 26.Dec.2015 13:59

Garth

Always remember the racism at the heart of the conspiracy theorists: people from the Middle East are just too stupid to have done this.

I Ain't No "Conspiracy Theorist" 26.Dec.2015 14:23

blues

The CIA invented the term "conspiracy theorist" and then presstitued it all along their massive media grapevine to make everyone think everything was just fine as it is. It's not fine at all.

I am an insecurity theorist. Suck on that. I believe in The Conspiracy.

You believe the massive media? Really? All their intricate lies?

Well then, Santa is coming to town for you!

Bruce Springsteen Santa Claus Is Coming To Town
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAEBdP_4aog

Just believe.

Troll Garth has _absolutely NOTHING_ left 26.Dec.2015 14:29

—

Garth "too stupid / racist" has been wholly exposed and debunked here before:


RE: " Brown people are too stupid to have done this " 22.Feb.2015 18:53
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/02/429231.shtml#441321

Further to the " Brown people did / didn't / couldn't do it " 22.Feb.2015 19:25
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/02/429231.shtml#441326

" racist assumption that people with brown skin are too stupid to have done this " 28.Jul.2015 05:57
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/07/430151.shtml#443684

" Confused "
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/09/430474.shtml#443973
and
" racist tenant [sic] " 06.Dec.2015 05:50
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/12/431161.shtml#444933

give it up 'Garth'

Airliner Jet Fuel Is Just Kerosene -- Or At Least Burns Just Like It 27.Dec.2015 06:50

blues

Airliner jet fuel is just kerosene with slight modifications -- It doesn't burn any hotter. The biggest difference is simply that gas-station kerosene contains a wax component that hardens at the very frigid temperatures in the very high altitudes where the airliners fly, and clogs the fuel lines. That's about it.

Jet fuel gets nowhere near hot enough to weaken structural steel. My grandfather's kerosene stove never melted in its fifty years of service. We don't use them any more because they emit carbon monoxide.

Reality: Everybody knows that the Western Security Syndicate perpetrated 9/11. They are "our own" terrorists, and they have us so scared that many of us cannot admit to what we deeply know. We are their hostages (not "citizens"). And their greatest pleasure derives from torturing us. Maybe they will kill us all.

"Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors." -- Wikipedia (limited reliability)

Not MELT 27.Dec.2015 11:20

Mike Novack

You are unlikely to understand the issues unless you are familiar with the properties of metals and how they are worked (how we form things out of metal)

You DON'T have to melt steel to "anneal" it. In the annealed state, metals are fairly fluid. Their shape can be changed under pressure or tension. That's how a piece of steel can be forged into the shape desired, say under the blows of a smith's hammer, or drawn into finer and finer wires.

Jet fuel (or for that matter, the charcoal briquettes you use in your BBQ) can burn plenty hot enough for that.

That kerosene heater? Any parts that were going to get hot enough to visibly glow red were probably CAST iron. Any steel parts that got red hot were probably under close to zero load, so not going to bend.

A structure made of steel will collapse if the steel beams get annealed. That's because the beams were engineered to be large enough to support the loads on them with a safety factor of between 3 to 5 (in other words, would fail were the load 3 to 5 times greater). But in the annealed state that beam would be able to support only a small fraction of its normal load. So under the load, sags and stretches.

Imagine you had a model structure made out of spaghetti, glued together with waterproof glue. It stands, can even support a small load. But what would happen if you put it in water and let it soak for a few hours so that the spaghetti softens. Could collapse under just its own weight.

For steel, if you can see it glow red (if it has reached a temperature where that heat radiation from it is visible) then it is annealed. For some metals it depends on how fast or slowly they cool down from being annealed whether they stay annealed or re-enter a hard state. For example, for copper, silver, etc. it doesn't matter (cool quickly or slowly, they stay annealed. For steel it does matter, but we aren't talking about afgter the fire.

the whole "jet fuel can't melt steel" myth will never die 27.Dec.2015 11:35

...

Here is a steel worker explaining just why the jet fuel conspiracy angle is totally absurd

 link to www.mediaite.com

Of course, in true conspiracy theory fashion, wingnuts will either:

a) claim this is also a lie or conspiracy

or

b) simply move on to their next talking point in laundry-list fashion. "oh yeah? well what about WTC 7?"

Or my personal favorite (blues and Tracy Mapes love this one)


c) The person debunking the lunacy is a CIA/FBI/insert-other-scary-agency-here operative


In short, the batshit crazy conspiracy theorist would rather have you believe that not only were planes hijacked and flown into the buildings, but ALSO, the buildings were secretly laced with explosives beforehand without anyone noticing or saying anything. The most pathetic part about this is that adults who vote are the ones pushing this idea. Scary.

And now, in classic nutjob fashion, be prepared to see my post challenged with a massive wall of poorly formatted text containing 1,000 links to horribly coded websites which contain 1000 more links to hilariously inept youtube videos PROVING 9/11 was an inside job.

took the Trolls ~ 24 hours but they arrived in force 27.Dec.2015 14:51

—

QUOTE:
"PROVING 9/11 was an inside job"
----

_you_ have "proof" of this?

No one I have seen or heard claims to have 'proof'.

The problem with events of 11 September 2001 is that the U.S. government's explanation does not add up or withstand scrutiny.

This is why so many continue to ask relevant questions about that day's events. Questions that deserve explanation.




RE: "steel worker explaining absurd"

HE'S A REALITY TV 'star'
(furthermore his 2-minute vidclip is beyond pathetic and 'scientifically'/mechanically/otherwise 100% irrelevant) —

Get to know your 'Blacksmith' B.S.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgCoZsVSy0s



Also, pre-debunked by
(before the 'Blacksmith' appeared and he obviously neglected to heed)
the 2010 video in the original post of this thread, demonstrated by an engineer with a lot more working steel knowledge and experience —

9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/11/428610.shtml
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g




Mike Novack -
you have already been debunked about your total misunderstanding of basic physics and structural engineering principles before on Portland Indymedia, (for example) here —

What A Gravity-Driven Demolition Looks Like
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/03/429511.shtml

9/11 WTC 7 Trusses & Tanks — Popular Mechanics Helps NIST Create More Myths
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/04/429616.shtml


(there are many more examples and much other information provided if one clicks the '9.11 investigation' tab at the left of Portland Indymedia's page)

Yes, Mike _____ANY_____ structure, steel-constructed or otherwise will [QUOTE Mike Novack] "collapse if the steel beams get annealed / under the load, sags and stretches " .

That is not at all the point however.
On 11 September 2001 in New York City the three skyscrapers (one of which was not even struck by an aircraft) collapsed vertically, at free fall velocities.
No deformation or irregular collapse of the buildings' structures occurred, and furthermore the collapses happened at the acceleration of Earth gravity.

i.e. the strength provided by structural members of these skyscrapers, was instantaneously _removed_ throughout the collapses. As is done by the science, technology and engineering of Controlled Demolition.

( If these technologies had not been applied to these 3 buildings, the collapses that day due to "sags and stretches" would have been irregular, far slower, and incomplete. )


NIST's reports on both the main WTC tower collapses, and the collapse of WTC 7, conclude that these collapses — Vertically into their own footprints, in less than 10 seconds each — were due to 'office fires'.


Never before or after in the history of structural engineering or high rise steel framed buildings, has this occurred (collapse into own footprint at free-fall velocity due to fire).


as well, no fire safety or structural engineering standards have been altered globally as a result of the prestigious NIST's conclusion of 'office fires' being the primary cause of these 3 major steel frame high rises' collapses.


i.e. the U.S. government agency laboratory, tasked with discovering the cause of (and providing official scientific explanation for) collapse for the 3 skyscrapers in New York that day, concluded it was the temperatures generated by ordinary office fires.

And no safety or engineering design changes were implemented, either for existing buildings or for new high-rise steel structures. The world of skyscraper construction proceeds unaltered as of the results of 11 September 2001 in New York City.

really interesting to watch the Trolls flock irrelevantly to this topic

hah yep 27.Dec.2015 16:25

..

"And no safety or engineering design changes were implemented, either for existing buildings or for new high-rise steel structures. The world of skyscraper construction proceeds unaltered as of the results of 11 September 2001 in New York City.
"

Yes, EVERYONE is in on it. Even the entire nation of structural engineers know it was an inside job!

You've really got this 9/11 thing nailed down.

SHILLS, PLANTS, AGENTS! 27.Dec.2015 16:28

TROLL GARTH trolls, take notice

-
QUOTE
-

do _YOU_ know your local OCD posters? LISTEN

QUOTE____

You will "often" see him using _UNUSUAL_ punctuation, as though he grew up learning braille from drunk tutors

RE: "Trolls"
QUOTE

You will see them behind every post, every link. Ferret them out. Make sure to _QUOTE_ them at length. Do not let them slip by, COMRADES


RE: " You will "often" see him using _UNUSUAL_ punctuation, " 27.Dec.2015 17:17

Lol, Troll **TRIGGERED**

"You will ....."
ROFL, the troll addresses the internet users of PDX IMC with the Royal You, as a 'beware' / warning ..... ROTFLMAO

looks like (even though nameless) my remarks touched a nerve as the TROLL concentrates / has been "triggered"....

focusing natch, on "punctuation" rather than content
(27.Dec.2015 16:28 and 27.Dec.2015 16:25 ^^ are 100% content-free trollposts)


The trolls of course, completely ignore any actual content regarding the topic of 9/11. And their own "content" consists entirely of ad hominem, insults, "calling out_UNUSUAL_ punctuation" etc.

Never do the trolls want to comprehend or address the actual scientific and engineering facts of the World Trade Center skyscraper collapses on 11 September 2001.

only emotional appeals, splutter- and ad hominem-filled "triggered" nonsensical rants.

Never any facts or reasoned analyses.


Witness 'Garth' who repeatedly has been one of the first posters (his assignment??) to appear on PDX IMC 9/11 topic threads,
with his "racism" meme  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/12/431300.shtml#445071



Anyway the last 2 posts ^^ 27.Dec.2015 16:28 and 27.Dec.2015 16:25 above are really not worthy of comment except to characterize as worthless, content-free ad hominem.


but (even so), regarding one of the remarks [QUOTE]:
" Even the entire nation of structural engineers know it was an inside job! "

You of course as per usual, missed the point.

[QUOTE]:"entire nation" ??
Why would the "nation" (presumably you meant USA) be the _only_ ones concerned about NIST's conclusion,

i.e. that of an INTERNATIONALLY respected laboratory,

that the temperatures generated by ordinary office fires burning for LESS THAN A COUPLE HOURS, could bring down into their own footprints in under 10 seconds two of the tallest steel-framed skyscrapers in New York City?

The job of scientists and engineers (including structural engineers who design and construct steel high rise buildings) is to adjust to major events and conclusions in their profession, so that new information and technology can be implemented for safer and more effective buildings, and building design procedures.

11 September 2001 was unique in structural engineering history, in that 3 skyscrapers collapsed at freefall velocity into their own footprints — and the officialconclusion of the national laboratory assigned to forensically investigate their destruction was that they were due to 'office fires'.


Obviously the INTERNATIONAL community of structural engineers is not "in on the conspiracy",

but rather CHOOSES TO IGNORE / count as otherwise insignificant, the conclusion that "office fires" of moderate to low heat caused three steel-frame high rise buildings (on this day, 11 September 2001, and this day ALONE in all of history) to collapse at free fall speed into its own footprint.

e.g. the new replacement WTC building, tall buildings constructed since September 2001 in Dubai or any other major city worldwide, are from the perspective of the structural engineering profession, not at risk from such fire-generated structural weakening (or 'collapse').


So what this really means is, that the only real repercussion of the U.S. government (Commerce Deparment) NIST laboratory's reports on the three WTC tower collapses, nationally and globally, is solely a __POLITICAL__ one.
(i.e. "Arabs did it", illegal invasion / military occupation of Afghanistan even-though-no-Afghani-"highjackers"-were-on-any-of-the-planes, etc.)


No scientific, engineering or fire safety high rise building construction or operations adjustments / changes, worldwide, have been implemented as a result of the 'scientific' conclusions of NIST about that day's skyscraper collapses.


What does that say for the scientific / engineering credibility of NIST?

floor / truss sagging, steel weakening, fire temperatures etc. 28.Dec.2015 01:14

—

There is absolutely nothing scientific about the U.S. government (NIST) theory of the WTC tower collapses in New York City on 11 September 2001.

All scientific laboratory tests to reproduce even similar results to what the government told us has happened have failed. Tests were performed by UWL for NIST and they could note even cause the floor trusses to sag under heavier loads and longer duration, hotter fires; let alone cause a few floor trusses to take the whole structure apart.

All of the government experts have 'hung their hat' on the floors-sagging, so-called "pancake theory" for collapses of the WTC skyscrapers. None of the floor models failed (even for a 2-hour duration which is longer than either of the 2 main towers stood).

The floor trusses do not keep the building standing upright. The floor trusses are connected between the core and perimeter columns. Taking them all out at once would do nothing to the core. The floor trusses would never begin to sag even from hotter temperatures as the concrete would remain unharmed.

Even if powerful explosives were used on the floor trusses, the load-carrying core beams would remain unaffected. Even a partial collapse would never occur. No floor truss is 'pressing onto' another floor truss. A 'chain reaction' effect is not possible.


From pages 142-143 of NIST's own report:

"NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers.... In furnaces, all four uninsulated steel member test specimens sustained maximum design loads for approximately 2 hours without collapsing."

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given [building] location on September 11."

Who Gives a Fuck! ... 28.Dec.2015 02:04

Tracy Mapes

We Know They Did It, Let's Just Make Sure They Can't Do It Again.

Mike 28.Dec.2015 13:14

shaker

Is your familiarity with steel book-learning, or actual?

Sounds like book-learning to me, which I've nothing against as at least you have that, which most don't. Your description of the annealing process sounds like it came from a book or from an engineering standpoint that misses some points in actual practice.

When one talks about annealing, what must be considered is the mass of the object and length of time at which it's retained at temperature. In these types of fires of short duration (those kerosene fires were rather muted, even with what seemed no lack of oxygen, and that's evidenced by the lack of burning of the carbon in the burned materials, ie the black smoke) the mass hasn't absorbed the heat equally, and one wonders at how many points sufficient heat soaked the full cross-section of major structural components. Beyond the visible evidence of actually low-rate and poor-quality fires, I've a picture that I saved of a woman standing at the open hole created by the collision damage and also evacuees encounted unignited jet-fuel on their way down along with the radio transmissions of firefighters. At any rate, it was extremely variable, and there were other masses present to aborb the heat, for instance, the concrete floor decking. While concrete has little tensile or yield strength, it was a great heat-sink even if cracked/fallen into pieces. Remember, also, that the basic volume of the building was simply air, and that with vast holes to vent the heat elsewhere.

I've personally met few who have looked at available construction drawings. I found a few. What amazes me is that most commoners think that construction is like building a stick-house, a stack of boxes. Here that's hardly the case. The column splices at the perimeters were staggered through floors so that only 1/3 of those splices available at any one floor juncture with its lower and upper neighbors. The core structures were very robust. While in the tower that took the direct center-hit, one could imagine gross core failure, the tower that basically took the corner-hit should have anyone doubting, even if the core structure was damaged to failure. Actually, from the standpoint of the geometric ability to keep the upper undamaged sections upright, I thought the corner-hit worse. That upper section was visibly leaning before collapse, and since accelaration would progress from the bottom, I can't imagine that upper section falling as it did without some intervention that isn't evident from what I or anyone else has suggested of construction technique or necessity.

I'm no engineer. But I have been a life-long metal-worker, and I've experience with steel building construction, down to doing material take-offs from construction drawings. I've done extensive work in materials from tungsten, tantalum, niobium, stainless steels, tool steels, titanium, zirconium, nickel-based iron alloys through more common everyday materials one encounters such as aluminum, plain carbon steels, copper and its alloys. I'm a journeyman machinist and have been a certified welder, and have experience with heat-treat. The anneal theory just doesn't cut it for me at all.

Myself, I think 9/11 is a really bad joke that preys upon our ignorance (as in ignore; I never use the word to mean 'stupid', and see my comment to this as an actual comment). While I give that one tower and the skill of the cessna pilot to accomplish a direct center-hit, the second tower and bldg 7 really stress even common sense beyond its limits. Conspiracy? Sure was, no matter which direction it's viewed from, be it terrorists or whomever. As much as I believe and entertain synchronicity in human action, coincidence in these purely human matters I always view as lame excuse and efforts to just move on. It's surely beyond poor welds, unrattled or missing connection bolts, or sagging trusses, which would have broken the concrete, thereby losing most almost all of the weight they carry and aility to influence the mass of the much greater sections to which they were connected. It should also not be dismissed as a consequence of engineering and the economics of having enough mass to overcome an airplane collision, which it seems many do.

Hey, I admit that what I've stated has some caveats, and I won't touch what could be responsible physically beyond what any commoner might witness. I surely won't delve into the political motives, though they are the most obvious. But I have poured over reports and studies about this aspect (not the propaganda of youtube video) and still think my first impressions, so uncommon as to strain my experiential sense, haven't changed. I've learned little of why it could have happened the way that it did beyond mere suggestion and what might be very conflicted engineering papers and studies. The appearance of this situation is unnaturally dull and there is literally no excuse for secrecy in this sense of the situation to disallow polish to at least a generally more reflective surface. At it's heart, that's all the engineering is about here: the surface. Dick Cheney or some angry commoner from Detroit could have flown those planes and the questions related to the actual physical events leading to the fall of the buildings would still remain.

Take this for what you will. Like Fukushima, the event is gone, and the time of reactive and mitigative engagement is past. We're dealing with consequences. Evidence was obviously manipulated and sorely lacking of anything but imagination. I'll admit, also, that another's imagination at that point is no better than mine. The 'anneal' thing to me is totally unimpressive and without specific actual example from the event that can't be explained by normal manufacturing and/or construction process failures which are included within safe design parameters. I've encountered the same 'anneal' idea before, and I generally pose the same question here. Can it possibly explain why the undamaged upper section of the corner-hit tower went virually straight and not manifest a much greater angular fall? Even annealed, the diagonally-opposing columns had more strength than what appears after the collision to be no columns at all.

construction and destruction of the WTC towers: Overview 28.Dec.2015 15:48

—

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEYUwLQJzAs

as hinted by shaker in his ^^above 28.Dec.2015 13:14 comment, YouTube should not casually be "relied" upon...
All viewers should utilize YT judiciously and with the express purpose and endeavor of doing their own reading, reference-checking and self education on any topic.
(This is plain common sense, of course)

despite YouTube's spurious overall nature (even outside the topic of 9/11), not all of it is "propaganda" and there are many excellent educational presentations — including the one linked above-below.

it is a 35-minute excerpt from Massimo Mazzucco's longer documentary film 'September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor'.
( full film here —>  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2013/10/425299.shtml )


This excerpt from the film discusses in detail the actual construction and design configuration of the main WTC tower buildings, along with NIST and other expert analyses of the 11 September collapses —

Key points raised, clarified and explained include:

- Were the Twin Towers 'robust' or 'fragile' buildings?

- Structural redundancy of 3× (core columns) to 5× (perimeter columns) the weight the towers were meant to support

- What caused the initial collapse of the top section of the buildings?

- What caused the complete collapse of the lower building sections?

- "...you don't need to melt the steel columns, you just need to start weakening them." (Popular Mechanics)

- "Widely dislodged" fireproofing as a necessary condition for the buildings' collapse (NIST report)

- 1,500+ degree temperature data in NIST's "truss sagging" fire event computer model denied to outside review access, while NIST's final reports conclude that ordinary-temperature, few-hundred-degree-maximum 'office fires' were what caused all 3 skyscraper collapses.
From NIST's main WTC towers NCSTAR 1 report, Page 90:
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 C (480 F)."
"Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis and the temperatures did not reach 250 C (480 F)."
And from the NIST report Page 235:
"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure."

- "Softening" of structural steel begins at around 600 C (1,100 F)

- At least 16 survivors are known to have descended through the burning area devastated by aircraft impact, without being burned alive

- Exterior FLIR infrared thermographic imagery from NIST of the burning North and South Towers shows that temperatures do not exceed 100 C (212 F)

- Trusses "sagged + pulled inward" theory is not vetted by mechanical/weight analysis (of the two far stronger exterior+core column structural entities on / against which they "pulled"), makes no physical sense

- "Probable collapse sequence" theory of NIST (cf. Page 82) "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable."
Inevitable?(!) What is the intended meaning and usage here, in a purported scientific/engineering investigative analysis report of "inevitable" ?

- Actual collapse of the lower 80,000 tons of structural steel in the Towers was "not analyzed" by NIST (as repeatedly stated by them)

- Newton's Third Law of Motion (central physics principle of modern science and engineering) is ignored;
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction i.e. the mass of the 'upper section' was not nearly enough to "initiate" total collapse of the far greater mass, lower section structural steel in the Towers
Richard Angle, P.E.: "This is high school physics... and our whole society, is being led to believe that these fundamental laws of physics — hard science — don't apply anymore."

- Law of Momentum Conservation (another central physics principle of modern science and engineering) is ignored;
This is primarily visible in the velocity, almost equivalent to free fall (acceleration of Gravity), with which all 3 of the WTC skyscrapers collapsed.
i.e. Plowing through 80,000+ tons of structural steel, which should (if the "crushing" hypothesis is to be believed?) not only provide ample physical resistance but also greatly slow down or halt the upper "crusher" building section's velocity.
Removal of this type of resistance to momentum, in high-rise demolitions is accomplished through explosives/demolition engineering i.e. controlled demolition.

- "Pulling inward" of trusses, observed in exterior video of the Towers could ? possibly have been due to the core columns beginning to collapse as they were demolished first, thus pulling the trusses inward and exterior columns with them. Highly plausible explanation for controlled demolition of the yet-unexplained-by-NIST-and-others robust core column collapses.


( As hinted above, the information and references cited within the documentary are edification for the viewer to fact-check and follow up on themselves )


see also this article with 25 key points of the NIST WTC study analyzed:

9/11: The End Of The Road For NIST
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/11/428499.shtml


You DON'T have to melt steel to "anneal" it. 29.Dec.2015 02:51

blues

Yeah, we do actually get that.

Steel is actually an alloy of iron and carbon. It is always composed as crystals. You don't have to completely melt it to anneal it. Getting it hot enough to anneal it means to get the crystal structure to get less flexible, but harder and more brittle. Basic metallurgy.

Nothing to do with actual melting. Kerosene simply does not burn hot enough to melt it.

Buzz words don't make the real picture.

blues 29.Dec.2015 10:50

shaker

The point of annealing is to open up the grain structure in this type of material, not melt. I personally don't like to use the word 'crystals' to speak about anything but the atomic structure. 'Grain' is the orientational groupings of the material as it cools from unoriented and individual molecular crystal structures which is a general chaotic mass when fluid. The steel in those building may actually had been through a number of anneal sequences in manufacturing its shape and before it entered use.

Look at an electro-galvanized fencepost sometime. Those 'spangles' one sees on the surface that appear as a jigsaw puzzle of randomly-bordered reflective surfaces is the series of grain structures I'm speaking of. If one melted steel, allowed it to cool slowly, ground and etched the surface, the grain structure of the melt would appear to be similar to those spangles of the zinc/cadmium alloy on the surface of that fencepost. Just random geometric shapes.

In general, as a metal cools to solid, the solidity begins at random points throughout the melt. Cooling then progresses from that point, the atomic crystals of one cooling point will orient in the same direction as the original point and that molecular orientation will continue until it meets the orientation of a different cooling point, forming a 'grain boundary'. These boundaries are important in the terms of mechanical properties of the piece. Grain boundaries are generally the weakest areas of the material. While one might think that the geometric shape of the part itself gives that part its desired strength, which is correct, also these shapes are purposely manufactured to have a grain orientation and fairly specific grain size to advantage.

When material is rolled from ingot and literally pressed into finished shape, those grain boundaries will elongate and orient in the direction of rolling. Think of drawing a circle on a piece of clay, then flatten that clay with a roller or even your hand and look at the shape of the drawn circle. If simply flattened evenly, the circle will enlarge. If rolled, it will become an elipse. Again, the grain boundaries in the material are the weakest point, especially in relation to the material breaking. There's a definite purpose to that grain orientation. Too much grain boundary, and the material consists of too many weak points. At that that point, the grain boundaries lose continuity and is 'brittle'. Leaving the crystals in an less oriented mass, the part loses strength in a particular direction. Structural shapes are formed to resist forces in a particular direction, in most cases in a longitudinal direction. You won't find pipe or tubing with the annular grain orientation, but in the direction of its length to resist annular breakage from internal pressure.

If one looks at the analysis of the mechancial properties of a specific melt of steel, one category is % of elongation. What this is specifically referring to is the amount of grain refinement present. As seen, rolling or forging or operations of that sort change the shape and impart orientation to the grain boundary. Often, the shape will require more than one rolling pass (you don't want to reduce a 12" square ingot to 1/2 x 2 bar in one pass). Annealing enlarges and reorients the grain, returning to less grain boundary exposure so the material can remain within the expected properties. That said, one has to introduce, too, the mass of the object itself and the time at which it is exposed to that heat. Was the heat enough and for long enough duration that it soaked through to the larger sections of the material? That is my basic question regarding the effects of anneal upon the structural members of the towers and building 7.

Look, this is just quick and dirty and a few pictures or drawings would go a long way to understanding what I'm describing. I didn't approach at all the chemical effects of these processes. Also one has to be aware that different alloys will somewhat act differently in process. Some alloys are specifically formulated to control grain size, or its heat-treat schedule particular organized around grain boundaries. A material such as tungsten is actually weaker in its annealed state (it has a globular structure on cooling, and the worked structure will less boundary exposure in at least one direction), so most that I've encountered in industry will will be an alloy of some sort rather than pure.

When Steel is Heated 29.Dec.2015 16:52

Tracy Mapes

...it loses it's temper.

The cooling process is what determines the temper.

There was no quick cooling process exerted upon the steel in the Twin Towers.

That means that the Metal or Steel would be more likely to bend as apposed to breaking or shattering.

The vertical steel columns would have bent and possibly broken at the point of heating, but in no way would

have compromised the integrity of the lower structure.

It was only consummated by an implosion.

shaker: " I didn't approach at all the chemical effects of these processes. " 29.Dec.2015 17:47

—

shaker (and all), thanks for the interesting discussion RE: 'annealing'.


Point out, though: (professional troll) Mike Novack is the one who brought up the distraction word, "anneal".
(He also, as linked ^^^ above, has a history of commenting on these PDX IMC 9/11 threads with 100% irrelevant and uninformed remarks... and then vanishes after having posted early on-thread)


Fatigue in a steel frame skyscraper is not typically associated with the robust main structure, but with areas of stress concentration — e.g. welds, or things welded, bolted onto the main member. The main-member structural steel ('girders' etc.) in buildings is generally mild steel with bolted connections, and therefore not very susceptible to fatigue. The main structural members even in an older steel high rise building don't require much maintenance.

Furthermore, all structural steels used in steel-frame buildings are chemically composed, forged, normalized (rather than 'annealed'), and-or rolled/welded to highly specific standards, according to member size, strengths (within the designed structure) and end use.

Even so, for the three WTC towers to have collapsed entirely into their own footprints in 10 seconds or less as they did on 11 September 2001 is absolutely impossible according to basic physics and engineering laws.

There would have been a crumpled pile of steel structure remaining, and/or it would have taken several minutes/hours(days?) to occur; too much mass of gigantic structural steel members in the lower parts of those buildings.

i.e. "fatigue", "melting" (or whatever the "jet fuel fire temperatures" were alleged to have produced) isn't AT ALL what was necessary to cause the steel-frame skyscraper collapses observed in New York City on 11 September 2001.
( and collapses which have never been observed, before or after that day, due to 'office fires', 'jet fuel fires' OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF FIRE. )

See again this post — >  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/12/431300.shtml#445097

Unless, of course controlled demolition engineering technology(ies) were utilized to _remove_ the resistance of these tens-of-thousands of tons of structural steel members in the buildings. For rapid, symmetrical collapse.


— > **What happened to the WTC steel-frame skyscrapers on 11 September 2001 was not primarily metallurgic in nature.**

( nor is it, primarily or overall, the purview of a blacksmith or — **no offense whatsoever, shaker and thanks for your informative contributions on tangential topics** — metalworker.
This is why the 2-minute-meme-7-million-views-vidclip by the Georgia shill is so absurd. "Jet fuel melt steel" is not even the primary issue of what occurred with the 3 skyscrapers in NYC on 11 September 2001.... but Disinformationalists love to point out that phrase/meme, as their 'jumping off point — hence the Georgia blacksmith steps in... )


i.e. the "melting" or "malleability", "strength of steel in comparison to heat of fires" ETC. ETC. ETC. is a completely irrelevant topic (especially after the official report conclusions/data of NIST) because :

From a structural engineering perspective, it is well known (from NIST's own investigative reports) that the temperatures reached in the building fires after the aircraft impacts were **___ not nearly high enough ___** even to weaken the structural steel members.

Temperatures weren't NEARLY high enough in the 11 September 2001 WTC fires, to cause ANY substantial structural weakening
(let alone what would permit 10-seconds-or-less, into-own-footprint symmetrical collapse)

Furthermore, WTC Building 7 was not struck by an aircraft. Yet it collapsed in the exact same manner and with same velocity/acceleration as did the two larger towers.

NIST's unavoidable conclusion in the 3 collapse incidents (even that of Building 7, which took them eight years to produce) was that 'office fires' were the cause.


Again, as noted in ^^^comment above, no changes in steel-frame skyscraper structural engineering, fire safety or building codes have been altered, worldwide, as a result of this official internationally-regarded laboratory's conclusion about the skyscraper collapses in New York City on 11 September 2001.

This is the central problem which needs addressing, review and discussion.

anyway from now on ditch the metallurgy and heed the physics-engineering

Ernest P on 9/11 30.Dec.2015 23:57

Tracy Mapes

.