Critiques of claims made by several prominent and semi-prominent 9/11 debunkers
-Joseph Nobles/boloboffin of AE911Truth.INFO-
Joseph Nobles’ claims about “free fall” shown to be false.
Mr. Nobles attempts to refute NASA engineer Dwain Deet’s website 7problemswithbuilding7. I show his claims to be false and misleading.
My critique of Mr. Nobles’ “The Big Three: Parts 1, 2 and 3.”
Mr. Nobles claims that other skyscraper fires are not comparable to the Twin Towers and Building 7. I show this assertion to be false.
My take on Mr. Nobles’ claims about thermal conductivity and the eutectic steel.
Mr. Nobles responds to my many refutations of his claims. I respond back here, here, and here.
Joseph Nobles criticizes AE911Truth and Tom Sullivan's credentials. Darcy Wearing and John-Michael Talboo respond.
My thoughts on Joseph Nobles' criticisms of the BuildingWhat? site.
Nobles claims that that the explosion in the 'Seven’s Exploding' video is fake. John-Michael Talboo shows otherwise.
-Mark "Gravy" Roberts-
My extensive critique of Mark Roberts’ video “WTC Not a Demolition.”
Honest mistakes are apparently “big news” to Mark Roberts.
Mark Roberts: 9/11 "Debunker" or just Dishonest?
Mark Roberts debates with Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth on Hardfire.
Scootle Royale and John-Michael Talboo address Mark Roberts’ assertion that the red/gray chips are primer paint.
Mark Roberts claims that “no one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe."
He oughta know better: Mark Roberts and the iron spherules.
Email debates, and more about Mark Roberts.
-NASA engineer Ryan Mackey-
Jim Hoffman critiques Ryan Mackey’s essay “On Debunking 9/11 Debunking.”
Mackey insists that the initial tilt of the upper section of the North Tower explains the lack of deceleration in the North Tower. Scootle Royale and I explain why he is incorrect.
Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti questions Ryan Mackey about claims he made during their Hardfire debate.
-Protec employee Brent Blanchard-
Jim Hoffman replies to Blanchard’s paper “A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT”
Blanchard constantly claims that parts of explosives such as det cord should have been found in the debris. However, a phone conversation with Dr. Steven Jones suggests otherwise.
Former Controlled Demolition Inc. explosives loader Tom Sullivan on Blanchard’s claims about finding parts of explosives in the debris.
Andrea Dreger on Blanchard’s claims about molten metal at Ground Zero. Pg. 145
-Mike Williams of 911myths.com-
John-Michael Talboo examines Mike Williams’ claims about intercepts and the NORAD stand-down.
Forum poster Beached critiques numerous claims made by Mike Williams.*Note: I do not agree with everything on this page.
Mike Williams takes on Pakistan's ISI link to the 9/11 funding. Here’s the other side of the argument. More on this subject here.
-Physical chemist Dr. Frank Greening-
Dr. Greening makes a lazy attempt at refuting the Active Thermitic Material paper. Dr. Steven Jones responds.
Dr. Greening hypothesizes that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the WTC buildings. Mechanical engineer Gordon Ross addresses these claims.
Dr. Frank Legge addresses Dr. Greening’s criticisms of David Chandler’s analysis of WTC 1’s collapse.
David Chandler responds to Dr. Greening’s letter regarding Newton’s 3rd Law and falling buildings.
Andrea Dreger on Dr. Greening’s article “Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster.” Pg. 113
Dr. Greening’s theories about what caused the sulfidation of WTC steel are put to the test by civil engineer Jonathan Cole.
-Explosives expert Ron Craig-
Ron Craig debates with Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Former explosives loader Tom Sullivan on Ron Craig’s claims about explosives causing damage to other buildings.
-Mathematician Dave Thomas-
Analysis of Dave Thomas’ debate with Richard Gage, including comments by mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti.
Further analysis of the claims made by Dave Thomas during his debate with Richard Gage.
Tony Szamboti comments on Dave Thomas’ physics model of the WTC collapse.
-Pat Curely and James B. of Screw Loose Change-
Pat Curley debates with 9/11 truth activist Jon Gold.
Pat Curley attempts to debunk the "rebunkers." John-Michael Talboo responds.
After 16 months of debunking Screw Loose Change, James B. comments on the Debunking the Debunkers blog to discuss pretty girls.
Pat Curley: the king of scientific peer-review.
Pat Curley attempts to cast doubt on the results of the Active Thermitic Material paper. John-Michael Talboo demonstrates why he is wrong.
Pat Curley claims that Steven Jones makes a strawman argument, but only exposes his own failed logic and poor research.
James B. claims that “trutherism is a mythology, not a science.” I show why he is completely wrong.
Pat Curley attempts to discredit Sibel Edmonds. John-Michael Talboo exposes his errors.
Pat Curley misrepresents the firefighter testimony and then accuses 9/11 truthers of doing the same thing.
Pat Curley attempts to use the firefighter testimony to prove WTC7 was engulfed in flames. John-Michael Talboo shows why he is wrong.
James B. and Pat Curley attempt to discredit the film Zeitgeist and 9/11 truth through association to a killer. Scootle Royal and I show why these claims are baseless.
-Dr. Zdenek Bazant-
Structural engineer Anders Björkman’s discussion of Bazant’s paper "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York."
Chemical engineer James Gourley’s discussion of Bazant’s paper “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions.”
-Physicist Manuel Garcia-
Jim Hoffman critiques Manuel Garcia’s articles on 9/11. Part 1. Part 2. Part 3.
Dr. David Griscom addresses Dr. Manuel’s CounterPunch articles on the WTC collapses.
Francisco González comments on Garcia's Sept. 12, 2007 article in CounterPunch.
Dr. Crockett Grabbe on Dr. Garcia’s WTC arguments.
Kevin Ryan shows that Manuel Garcia sees physics that don’t exist.
-Dr. Keith Seffen-
Dr. Crockett Grabbe’s discussion of Dr. Seffen’s paper "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis."
-Joseph Welch-
Stewart Bradley responds to Joseph Welch's "15 questions 9/11 ‘truthers’ now need to answer."
Youtube debunkers
---------------------------
-Ryan Owens/RKOwens4-
Ryan Owens’ debunking videos refuted by my “9/11 Un-debunked” series. Version 1. Version 2.
My open letter to Ryan Owens.
My comments on Mr. Owens’ response to my open letter.
John-Michael Talboo shows Ryan Owens that controlled demolition is possible.
Ryan Owens debates with Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Stewart Bradley.
Ryan Owens accuses me of taking money for my 9/11 videos. I inform him that he is incorrect.
Jason Bermas addresses Ryan Owens’ claims about the temperatures in the Ground Zero debris.
Mr. Owens makes numerous assertions about WTC7’s collapse. I show his claims to be wrong.
The US State Department uses one of Ryan Owens’ videos as “debunking” of 9/11 controlled demolition theories.
-AlienEntity-
John-Michael Talboo refutes AlienEntity’s video “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: Lies and Distortions,” then debates with him on the subject.
AlienEntity claims his measurements corroborate NIST’s results. I show why he’s wrong.
-Dan Stevens/dsglop-
Dan Stevens appears in Nathan Moulten’s film “Activist.”
Dan Stevens attempts to answer Charlie Sheen’s 20 Questions to Obama. I show why his answers are nonsense.
-K.T. Penn/loosechangeexposed-
My refutation of many of K.T. Penn’s claims.
The many absurd beliefs of K.T. Penn.
-deRoyLight-
Stewart Bradley addresses deRoy's video "Defusing Nanothermite: Integrity."
-dprjones-
Stewart Bradley addresses dprjones' video "Advice and a challenge for 9/11 'truthers'"
Showing posts with label Joseph Nobles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joseph Nobles. Show all posts
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Monday, September 27, 2010
What We Believe According to JREFers
So I've just taken a look over at ae911truth.info to see if Mr. Joseph Nobles has been up to anything recently. His latest addition to his site concerns a post by someone on the JREF forum on a thread titled "Why do you still believe that a collapse due to fire wouldn't be possible?". I was ready to write a quick response to this, but looking through the thread I quickly saw that someone had already responded to it. Poster "Sivan Kurzberg" posted this excellent response, which I've reposted here with some of my own comments in red, some links:
1 - Steel does lose strength at high temperatures.
Where was it ever claimed otherwise? You need to prove those temperatures though. Absolutely. And NIST has not done this.
2 - The fire protection were removed from the truss on the floors where the impact occurred.
This is speculation that's never proven. Exactly how much was removed and exactly how? Exactly how much was needed to remain to keep the building up longer than an hour or until it was completely evacuated? What's more, fireproofing is only good for up to 2-3 hours. Other skyscrapers have burned over 5 hours and have not collapsed.
3 - It is not necessary to remove all fire protection to make the structure susceptible to fire.
See number 2
4 - The failure of a structural element can cause the failure of others.
Sure, but will it bring on sudden rapid global collapse of the entire structure? It may, but we have no examples of this outside of controlled demolition.
5 - Progressive collapse does exist.
Sure. But not sudden rapid global collapse complete in a matter of seconds like what was witnessed three times on 9/11. The only real progressive collapse caused by fire was everything one would expect: localized, asymmetric, and nowhere near free fall rate.
This thread is not about evidence of controlled demolition nor NIST findings. It's about arguments that support the claim the towers (WTC 1 and 2) couldn't have collapsed due to fire.
It's still unprecedented and unproven. This is the problem. I couldn't agree more.
Sivan Kurzberg also mentioned something that debunkers have yet to do:
"What the debunkers will never be able to show is the sudden global collapse of an entire high-rise complete in a matter of seconds. Especially of a building only on fire for about an hour."
Looking through the thread more, I was surprised to see that poster "Patriots4Truth" posted several of my videos from my "9/11 Un-debunked" series in response to debunker claims. Poster "Grizzly Bear" had some thoughts on my videos. Once again, I've reposted that here with my comments in red with some links:
A quick comment while I'm on break...
Fires Insufficient To Cause Collapse
Mister citizen assumes the only fuel available for the fires was the jet fuel. It's a repeat of the "no steel over 600oF" claim which itself is based on a bastardization of the NIST report's conclusion. Given his premise is incorrect, his video is of little to no relevance. I do not assume that jet fuel was the only source of fuel, and I never will. The point of my video was to show that the amount of fuel in each of the Towers was smaller than debunkers had portrayed in the past. This is supposed to be a crucial difference between the fires in the Towers and other skyscraper fires. Clearly jet fuel would have created higher temperatures than office material.
Buildings Built To Withstand Airplane Strikes
Quote:
When the WTC towers were built there was extensive controversy over their safety in emergencies. The NYC Fire Department protested, as did a host of other agencies and professional associations. The buildings were constructed in bulk and height far in excess of what municipal construction and zoning codes allowed. However, the Port Authority, a quasi-governmental agency with exceptional powers inherited from the regime of Robert Moses, was specifically exempt from compliance with municipal codes. The real estate, construction and finance industries were powerful supporters of the project.
Aside, I add that in 30 some years of examining buildings in New York, I have found none, zero, which are fully compliant with municipal building codes. It is a terrible, little reported scandal of the city in which it is considered to be bad business to fully comply with codes.
Also, pertinent to the video's specific claim: the effect of fires following such an impact were not considered. This ignores the several pre-9/11 sources which indicate the fires were taken into account. All Dr. Shyam Sunder had to say about this was that "Whether the fuel was taken into account or not is an open question."
Speed Of The Collapse Was Too Fast
Why the speed issue is always brought up is beyond me... Once the collapse initiated it was collapsing regardless of whether it took 10 or 30 seconds... Mr citizen obviously cites the commission report, which for whatever reason truthers to this day still hold the absurd belief it was intended to be a engineering report as opposed to a bipartisan investigation concerning what lead to the attacks happening, not determining how or why the towers failed. This is pointless rambling. I only cited the Commission Report to make clear that the official investigators were the first to make claims of "10 seconds." The speed issue is very important, and it has been shown the the fall rates of the Towers were at the very least consistent with controlled demolition.
The First Steel Framed High-Rise Fire Collapses
"First time in history" is a bowl of laughs... To claim this requires an absolute bastardization and ignorance of steel material properties and general design case studies. His opinions being based on such faulty premises renders his video irrelevant. Exactly how is my video irrelevant? Debunkers find it unacceptable to compare other high-rise skyscraper fires to the Towers and Building 7, but comparing them to badly built toy factories and elementary schools is just fine. The only steel structures debunkers apparently do think are comparable are structures that have collapsed from fire, with none of them being steel skyscrapers.
Throughout the thread some JREFers brought up Building 5's partial collapse from fire, which they seem to think supports the "fire can cause collapse" theory.
Here's the reality.
WTC Collapse
This was a regurgitation of all the videos in your list preceding it. None of which had any reasonable argument made against them.
WTC 7's Collapse Is Still A Mystery
This comment was pretty stupid, considering only "on-tenth" or so of WTC 1 & 2 each were burning.
Makes me genuinely curious if he's ever seen a building up close while it was on fire. However, as I've already shown, Building 5 was almost fully engulfed and performed much better.
He also believes the smoke emanating from WTC 7 was not from WTC 7... similar to the DRG/Jones claim that the smoke instead came from WTC 5... Which is what I do claim. He completely ignores the photos which show the exact same thing happened to WTC1.
Apparently his "mystery" is part of his faulty premise... and this video is also not relevant to any degree. It is relevant because debunkers still cry claims of "25% scooped out!" or "there were fuel tanks in the building!" As long as debunkers keep making these claims, I see it as very relevant.
South Tower Should Have Toppled
Absolutely fail, the towers were not solid trees. And I never claimed them to be. What I do claim is that at least three times as much weight was acting on one side of the building, but instead of toppling it lost its moment of inertia and disintegrated.
patriots4truth, these videos are little more than psuedoscience and regurgitation. I would be interested if you can offer your own argument instead of offering a regurgitation of 2006 from unqualified individuals. Thank you. These arguments clearly are groundless, and JREFers themselves have been shown to be nothing but psuedoskeptics.
Hopefully, this will put what the Truth Movement believes in better perspective for the debunkers.
Related Info:
The neverending incredulity of JREFers
JREF Forum posts: "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic"
Gordon Ross is pretty sure he exists.
1 - Steel does lose strength at high temperatures.
Where was it ever claimed otherwise? You need to prove those temperatures though. Absolutely. And NIST has not done this.
2 - The fire protection were removed from the truss on the floors where the impact occurred.
This is speculation that's never proven. Exactly how much was removed and exactly how? Exactly how much was needed to remain to keep the building up longer than an hour or until it was completely evacuated? What's more, fireproofing is only good for up to 2-3 hours. Other skyscrapers have burned over 5 hours and have not collapsed.
3 - It is not necessary to remove all fire protection to make the structure susceptible to fire.
See number 2
4 - The failure of a structural element can cause the failure of others.
Sure, but will it bring on sudden rapid global collapse of the entire structure? It may, but we have no examples of this outside of controlled demolition.
5 - Progressive collapse does exist.
Sure. But not sudden rapid global collapse complete in a matter of seconds like what was witnessed three times on 9/11. The only real progressive collapse caused by fire was everything one would expect: localized, asymmetric, and nowhere near free fall rate.
This thread is not about evidence of controlled demolition nor NIST findings. It's about arguments that support the claim the towers (WTC 1 and 2) couldn't have collapsed due to fire.
It's still unprecedented and unproven. This is the problem. I couldn't agree more.
Sivan Kurzberg also mentioned something that debunkers have yet to do:
"What the debunkers will never be able to show is the sudden global collapse of an entire high-rise complete in a matter of seconds. Especially of a building only on fire for about an hour."
Looking through the thread more, I was surprised to see that poster "Patriots4Truth" posted several of my videos from my "9/11 Un-debunked" series in response to debunker claims. Poster "Grizzly Bear" had some thoughts on my videos. Once again, I've reposted that here with my comments in red with some links:
A quick comment while I'm on break...
Fires Insufficient To Cause Collapse
Mister citizen assumes the only fuel available for the fires was the jet fuel. It's a repeat of the "no steel over 600oF" claim which itself is based on a bastardization of the NIST report's conclusion. Given his premise is incorrect, his video is of little to no relevance. I do not assume that jet fuel was the only source of fuel, and I never will. The point of my video was to show that the amount of fuel in each of the Towers was smaller than debunkers had portrayed in the past. This is supposed to be a crucial difference between the fires in the Towers and other skyscraper fires. Clearly jet fuel would have created higher temperatures than office material.
Buildings Built To Withstand Airplane Strikes
Quote:
When the WTC towers were built there was extensive controversy over their safety in emergencies. The NYC Fire Department protested, as did a host of other agencies and professional associations. The buildings were constructed in bulk and height far in excess of what municipal construction and zoning codes allowed. However, the Port Authority, a quasi-governmental agency with exceptional powers inherited from the regime of Robert Moses, was specifically exempt from compliance with municipal codes. The real estate, construction and finance industries were powerful supporters of the project.
Aside, I add that in 30 some years of examining buildings in New York, I have found none, zero, which are fully compliant with municipal building codes. It is a terrible, little reported scandal of the city in which it is considered to be bad business to fully comply with codes.
Also, pertinent to the video's specific claim: the effect of fires following such an impact were not considered. This ignores the several pre-9/11 sources which indicate the fires were taken into account. All Dr. Shyam Sunder had to say about this was that "Whether the fuel was taken into account or not is an open question."
Speed Of The Collapse Was Too Fast
Why the speed issue is always brought up is beyond me... Once the collapse initiated it was collapsing regardless of whether it took 10 or 30 seconds... Mr citizen obviously cites the commission report, which for whatever reason truthers to this day still hold the absurd belief it was intended to be a engineering report as opposed to a bipartisan investigation concerning what lead to the attacks happening, not determining how or why the towers failed. This is pointless rambling. I only cited the Commission Report to make clear that the official investigators were the first to make claims of "10 seconds." The speed issue is very important, and it has been shown the the fall rates of the Towers were at the very least consistent with controlled demolition.
The First Steel Framed High-Rise Fire Collapses
"First time in history" is a bowl of laughs... To claim this requires an absolute bastardization and ignorance of steel material properties and general design case studies. His opinions being based on such faulty premises renders his video irrelevant. Exactly how is my video irrelevant? Debunkers find it unacceptable to compare other high-rise skyscraper fires to the Towers and Building 7, but comparing them to badly built toy factories and elementary schools is just fine. The only steel structures debunkers apparently do think are comparable are structures that have collapsed from fire, with none of them being steel skyscrapers.
Throughout the thread some JREFers brought up Building 5's partial collapse from fire, which they seem to think supports the "fire can cause collapse" theory.
Here's the reality.
WTC Collapse
This was a regurgitation of all the videos in your list preceding it. None of which had any reasonable argument made against them.
WTC 7's Collapse Is Still A Mystery
This comment was pretty stupid, considering only "on-tenth" or so of WTC 1 & 2 each were burning.
Makes me genuinely curious if he's ever seen a building up close while it was on fire. However, as I've already shown, Building 5 was almost fully engulfed and performed much better.
He also believes the smoke emanating from WTC 7 was not from WTC 7... similar to the DRG/Jones claim that the smoke instead came from WTC 5... Which is what I do claim. He completely ignores the photos which show the exact same thing happened to WTC1.
Apparently his "mystery" is part of his faulty premise... and this video is also not relevant to any degree. It is relevant because debunkers still cry claims of "25% scooped out!" or "there were fuel tanks in the building!" As long as debunkers keep making these claims, I see it as very relevant.
South Tower Should Have Toppled
Absolutely fail, the towers were not solid trees. And I never claimed them to be. What I do claim is that at least three times as much weight was acting on one side of the building, but instead of toppling it lost its moment of inertia and disintegrated.
patriots4truth, these videos are little more than psuedoscience and regurgitation. I would be interested if you can offer your own argument instead of offering a regurgitation of 2006 from unqualified individuals. Thank you. These arguments clearly are groundless, and JREFers themselves have been shown to be nothing but psuedoskeptics.
Hopefully, this will put what the Truth Movement believes in better perspective for the debunkers.
Related Info:
The neverending incredulity of JREFers
JREF Forum posts: "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic"
Gordon Ross is pretty sure he exists.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Building What? is up...
And according to Joseph Nobles, there's a lie on every page. I have just recently looked through the website myself, and while I admittedly have some differences with it, Mr. Nobles seems to think that almost everything on the site is either false or misleading. Mr. Nobles' responses to the evidence pages at Building What? are, as we will see, very misleading and false.
Free Fall Collapse
Mr. Nobles claims that NIST actually explained what caused the period of free fall in Building 7's collapse.
It has been demonstrated several times why this explanation is complete nonsense. NIST merely implies that the alleged buckling of the floors caused the free fall, without offering any sort of analysis into exactly how the buckling caused it in the first place. Basically, we are being told that "NIST said 8 floors buckled, and it fell in free fall for 8 stories, so the buckling must have caused the free fall." That is a lot like saying "2 is a number. 1 is a number. Therefore, 2=1."
Dr. Shyam Sunder himself admitted that free fall means an object has "no structural components below it." And yet now NIST is telling us that buckled columns led to free fall. Buckled supports is a long way from "no supports."
NIST Collapse Model
According to Mr. Nobles, NIST's computer models accurately simulate the collapse of the building.
If Mr. Nobles had bothered to pay attention to the video posted on that page, he would have seen that both models--the one with and without structural damage--are very different from the actual collapse.
Even assuming that the "curtain wall" would have added some stiffness, the models still show the building collapsing in a different manner in terms of direction and rate. Neither of NIST's simulations even show the entire collapse, so how can it be possibly determined if they are accurate or not?
Again, this matter could be easily resolved if NIST were to release their modeling data for review.
Sulfidated Steel
This topic is especially interesting, as I recently addressed this issue raised by Mr. Nobles in great detail. He offers his own sentiments about how sulfur evaporates at 445°C.
Given the fact that it has been determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag containing iron, oxygen, and sulfur, it would seem to indicate that the sulfur was chemically mixed into whatever sulidified the steel, rather than just evaporating in the air. Mr. Nobles once again avoids the issue of there being no plausible natural explanation for the sulfur in the building, as evidenced by his omission of the next part of this page, which reads:
"The fact that sulfur evaporates at a low temperature, 445° C, along with the very low levels of elemental sulfur in office buildings appears to preclude the possibility that the eutectic could have formed as a result of a slow sulfidation process in the debris pile.”
Explosive Residues
This section is quite remarkable, as Mr. Nobles offers a now very old explanation for the red/gray chips.
This has been refuted SEVERAL times.
I would be very interested if someone could find me a can of exploding primer paint. I asked my local Home Depot if they had any, but they said they didn't. Guess they must have been out of stock.
Regardless, Mr. Nobles features this comparison picture as evidence.
I came up with a good analogy for this.
Notice that his picture shows paint from the WTC was heated to over 650°C. The chips Dr. Jones found ignite at around 430°C.
Eyewitnesses
According to Mr. Nobles, even if there were witnesses to explosions, it doesn't matter because there are apparently no explosions in any of the collapse videos.
First of all, the actual "sounds of explosions" are not necessary to warrant an investigation into if they were used.
But the fact is, sound evidence for explosions has been found.
Foreknowledge
Mr. Nobles then criticizes the page on the foreknowledge of Building 7's collapse.
As Graeme MacQueen points out in the abstract of his essay, Waiting for Seven:
"The majority of FDNY members did not rationally conclude, on the basis of direct perception of damage to the building, that it was in danger of collapse; they accepted that it would collapse on the basis of what they were told."
And this assertion is backed up by not only the information in his essay, but other sources as well.
Destruction of Evidence
Mr. Nobles lastly claims that there was nothing suspicious about the rapid clean-up of the WTC debris.
I'm sorry if the removal of the debris doesn't bother you Mr. Nobles, but it bothered others, including people who don't think the buildings were demolished.
Minute 7:18
Mr. Nobles closes with saying that the videos of Building 7's collapse featured on Building What? don't feature the penthouse collapse or audio. Well, the collapse of column 79 and the penthouse is problematic enough itself, and here's a video that does feature audio of the collapse, and it doesn't exactly sound quiet.
Related Info:
NFL's Mark Stepnoski & Tony Szamboti: Buildingwhat? Round 2
Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself
Breaking News: Hell Freezes Over!
Geraldo Should Be Impressed by 1300 Architects and Engineers
Shirley they can't be serious!
Attacks against Geraldo and Napolitano expose establishment desperation and demolish left-right nonsense
Free Fall Collapse
Mr. Nobles claims that NIST actually explained what caused the period of free fall in Building 7's collapse.
It has been demonstrated several times why this explanation is complete nonsense. NIST merely implies that the alleged buckling of the floors caused the free fall, without offering any sort of analysis into exactly how the buckling caused it in the first place. Basically, we are being told that "NIST said 8 floors buckled, and it fell in free fall for 8 stories, so the buckling must have caused the free fall." That is a lot like saying "2 is a number. 1 is a number. Therefore, 2=1."
Dr. Shyam Sunder himself admitted that free fall means an object has "no structural components below it." And yet now NIST is telling us that buckled columns led to free fall. Buckled supports is a long way from "no supports."
NIST Collapse Model
According to Mr. Nobles, NIST's computer models accurately simulate the collapse of the building.
If Mr. Nobles had bothered to pay attention to the video posted on that page, he would have seen that both models--the one with and without structural damage--are very different from the actual collapse.
Even assuming that the "curtain wall" would have added some stiffness, the models still show the building collapsing in a different manner in terms of direction and rate. Neither of NIST's simulations even show the entire collapse, so how can it be possibly determined if they are accurate or not?
Again, this matter could be easily resolved if NIST were to release their modeling data for review.
Sulfidated Steel
This topic is especially interesting, as I recently addressed this issue raised by Mr. Nobles in great detail. He offers his own sentiments about how sulfur evaporates at 445°C.
Given the fact that it has been determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag containing iron, oxygen, and sulfur, it would seem to indicate that the sulfur was chemically mixed into whatever sulidified the steel, rather than just evaporating in the air. Mr. Nobles once again avoids the issue of there being no plausible natural explanation for the sulfur in the building, as evidenced by his omission of the next part of this page, which reads:
"The fact that sulfur evaporates at a low temperature, 445° C, along with the very low levels of elemental sulfur in office buildings appears to preclude the possibility that the eutectic could have formed as a result of a slow sulfidation process in the debris pile.”
Explosive Residues
This section is quite remarkable, as Mr. Nobles offers a now very old explanation for the red/gray chips.
This has been refuted SEVERAL times.
I would be very interested if someone could find me a can of exploding primer paint. I asked my local Home Depot if they had any, but they said they didn't. Guess they must have been out of stock.
Regardless, Mr. Nobles features this comparison picture as evidence.
I came up with a good analogy for this.
Notice that his picture shows paint from the WTC was heated to over 650°C. The chips Dr. Jones found ignite at around 430°C.
Eyewitnesses
According to Mr. Nobles, even if there were witnesses to explosions, it doesn't matter because there are apparently no explosions in any of the collapse videos.
First of all, the actual "sounds of explosions" are not necessary to warrant an investigation into if they were used.
But the fact is, sound evidence for explosions has been found.
Foreknowledge
Mr. Nobles then criticizes the page on the foreknowledge of Building 7's collapse.
As Graeme MacQueen points out in the abstract of his essay, Waiting for Seven:
"The majority of FDNY members did not rationally conclude, on the basis of direct perception of damage to the building, that it was in danger of collapse; they accepted that it would collapse on the basis of what they were told."
And this assertion is backed up by not only the information in his essay, but other sources as well.
Destruction of Evidence
Mr. Nobles lastly claims that there was nothing suspicious about the rapid clean-up of the WTC debris.
I'm sorry if the removal of the debris doesn't bother you Mr. Nobles, but it bothered others, including people who don't think the buildings were demolished.
Minute 7:18
Mr. Nobles closes with saying that the videos of Building 7's collapse featured on Building What? don't feature the penthouse collapse or audio. Well, the collapse of column 79 and the penthouse is problematic enough itself, and here's a video that does feature audio of the collapse, and it doesn't exactly sound quiet.
Related Info:
NFL's Mark Stepnoski & Tony Szamboti: Buildingwhat? Round 2
Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself
Breaking News: Hell Freezes Over!
Geraldo Should Be Impressed by 1300 Architects and Engineers
Shirley they can't be serious!
Attacks against Geraldo and Napolitano expose establishment desperation and demolish left-right nonsense
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Actually, no Mr. Nobles...
I think it's time to correct you on a few issues.
A couple of weeks ago Mr. Joseph Nobles posted a response to my debunking of his posts on the thermal conductivity of the WTC steel and the corroded steel samples. And on Tuesday, he posted a request to me that I correct myself.
I'll be doing some correcting, but not of me.
Mr. Nobles claims that Kevin Ryan cherrypicked information in his critique of NIST's WTC 7 report.
A couple of weeks ago Mr. Joseph Nobles posted a response to my debunking of his posts on the thermal conductivity of the WTC steel and the corroded steel samples. And on Tuesday, he posted a request to me that I correct myself.
I'll be doing some correcting, but not of me.
Mr. Nobles claims that Kevin Ryan cherrypicked information in his critique of NIST's WTC 7 report.
Well obviously this upset me quite a bit. How dare Kevin Ryan cherrypick his info and trick me like that. Fortunately, I managed to get a message from Kevin Ryan about this issue. Here is what he wrote:
"If the question here is referring to my "Bush Science Reaches Its Peak" article on the WTC 7 report, and I think it is, then note that I did not say that NIST didn't "include a factor of thermal conductivity" in its model. You only have to read the article to see that the NIST manipulation I referred to had the set the thermal conductivity to zero, which is quite different than omitting it altogether. The fact that NIST set the thermal conductivity to zero in that instance is very clear and supported by the references given in my paper. As an analogy, if someone sets your thermostat to zero, that doesn't mean there is no temperature in your home, correct? Even if they set it to zero Kelvin (absolute zero), temperature would still be a factor (quite a substantial factor for you actually)."
So yes Mr. Nobles, NIST did include thermal conductivity as a factor. But because they set the conductivity to zero or near zero, they might as well have not included it at all.
Further distortions in the NIST report on thermal conductivity are also noted by Jim Hoffman in his critique of the NIST's report on the Twin Towers.
"NIST apparently ignored thermal conduction within its model of the steel structure. Since steel is a good conductor of heat, and the steel in the Twin Towers' structures was well connected, their massive steel structures would have drawn heat away from the parts that were exposed to fire. The Report describes a model of "The Fire-Structure Interface", and describes the computation of heat transfer between the air and the steel structure, but it does not mention the conduction of heat along spans of the steel structure.(p 131-2/181-2) The suspicion that NIST simply ignored the conduction of heat within the steel is corroborated by the Report's disclosure that they used heat transfer tests on isolated steel elements to calibrate their model.(p 134/184)"
As for the corroded steel, Mr. Nobles barely offered any reasonable response at all.
That's the problem Mr. Nobles. You claim that it was corroded after the collapse. But as I already pointed out, the people who actually examined the steel stated that it is "possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."
Mr. Nobles continually makes the argument that since whatever corroded the steel only approached 1000°C, it could not have been thermate, since thermate burns much hotter. What Mr. Nobles doesn't realize is that thermate can be formulated to burn at varying temperatures based on the quantity of the elements in it. A calculation for how the eutectic mixture could have approached 1000°C has been worked out by Jerry Lobdill in discussing the molten metal flowing out of WTC 2:
"Now consider the problem of the molten metal flowing from the 82nd floor of WTC 2. Some have suggested that this metal was the eutectic mixture of Fe and S. Let’s discuss that possibility. We assume that the steel that is cut from the columns is essentially pure Fe. It is melted and mixes with the thermate reaction products and then flows away by gravity. As the mixture cools, if the original molten mix was at S less than 31.4%, Fe begins to crystallize out. This increases the S% in the remaining mix. As the cooling continues, the S% increases until it reaches 31.4%, and this remaining molten eutectic mixture solidifies at 994 C (or 988 C, depending on which measurement you believe). So unless the original S% was 31.4%, the molten mass is crystallizing out solidified Fe as it flows downhill and cools. When, in the cooling process, the molten mass reaches the eutectic composition, it also reaches the eutectic temperature. At that temperature the remaining liquid gives up its latent heat of fusion and crystallizes as a microscopically heterogeneous solid with a (macroscopically) 31.4% S, 68.6% Fe composition. Once all the material has solidified the entire mass resumes cooling. We thus have a plausible explanation of why the material flowing from WTC 2 was orange-hot liquid (~1000 C)."
There are clearly many variations of thermite, thermate, and other incendiaries that can be formulated to reach higher and lower temperatures, as pointed out by Dr. Steven Jones.
"Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate."
At the end of Mr. Nobles' response he offers a very obvious non-response to my other points.
First of all, yes, I did have to point out to you that the steel came from Building 7. Your first post on the topic mentioned nothing about Jonathan Barnetts's statement.
I responded to this post (a response that I know you read), and quoted Jonathan Barnett as saying that:
"They didn't use this particular type of steel in Towers 1 or Towers 2, so that's why we know its pedigree."
And in your post written after mine, you then included his quote.
You can call the fact that I had to point this information out to you as an "incredible assertion," but it's the truth.
Mr. Nobles is apparently unimpressed by Jonathan Cole's experiment, but others aren't, and that includes debunkers.
"I'm out of town most of the time of late so I have not been doing much 911 research these days. However, I did have a look at the video. I must say that I'm very impressed with Mr. Cole's experiment - nice job! It certainly looks convincing with regard to how the experiment was carried out and I'm very happy to see someone test something I suggested a few years ago.
I am prepared to admit that my initial proposal as to how steel was sulfided during the 911 events needs to be modified. Certainly it looks like diesel fuel, gypsum, concrete and aluminum alone are not going to do it ....."
-Dr. Frank Greening
Dr. Greening has suggested other natural causes of the sulfidation, but he acknowledges that his previous theories have been refuted.
This is the point I keep trying to get across to Mr. Nobles. If nothing natural inside the building could have corroded the steel, then obviously something unnatural must have been placed inside the building to cause it. Debunkers have presented several explanations for the corrosion of the steel. Well, the explanations have been put to the test. The experiment has been done. The burden of proof is now on the debunkers to show that something natural could have melted and corroded the steel.
Well, I corrected the errors Mr. Nobles, just like you wanted. But of course, it turned out I wasn't the one needing correcting.
Side note: Special thanks to John-Michael Talboo and all his contacts for their help.
Update:
Joseph Nobles has responded to the above (sort of). He still insists that NIST adequately included thermal conductivity in their reports. I still see evidence of fraud in the reports, but this matter could be completely resolved if NIST would release their modeling data for review. And he ignored my sections on the eutectic steel, except for his claim that I didn't correct him about where the steel came from. Decide for yourself:
Mr. Nobles' response ends with the following:
Ignore me all you want Mr. Nobles. It does seem to be the debunker way these days.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Debunking Joseph Nobles: Thermal Conductivity and Corroded Steel
Joseph Nobles' newest additions to his site--FEMA Steel and Wick The Heat Away-- attempt to address some of the issues of how the steel in the WTC was affected by heat. As we will see, Mr. Nobles' assertions are, once again, either false or misleading.
Wick The Heat Away
One of the primary faults of NIST's reports on the WTC is that they did not include the factor of thermal conductivity in their modeling. Mr. Nobles, however, has a different opinion on this.
Right. Because they say nothing about steel conducting and transferring heat throughout the building, obviously it's in the report.
Amazing that thermal conductivity would be so important, but at the same time NIST offers no detail about it in their report. They would do it for concrete, but not the steel.
Actually, someone already has put numbers to this assertion. Kevin Ryan, in his critique of the NIST report on WTC 7, wrote that:
"Structural steel has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/m/K, which means that any heat applied is easily wicked away. But if that value were set to zero, or near zero, any heat applied would allow the temperature to rise dramatically at the point of application."
Here is what NIST's report on WTC 7 had to say about their fire simulations of WTC 7.
"The major fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 in WTC 7 were simulated using the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), version 4, in a manner similar to the simulations conducted for WTC 1 and WTC 2 (NIST NCSTAR 1-5F)."
NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1, page 4.
And what did NIST say about their fire simulations of the Twin Towers?
"The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used." NCSTAR 1-5F, page 20
"The interior walls [including insulated steel columns] were assumed to have the properties of gypsum board [0.5 W/m/K]." NCSTAR 1-5F, page 52
"Although the floor slab actually consisted of a metal deck topped with a concrete slab...the thermal properties of the entire floor slab were assumed to be that of concrete [1.0 W/m/K]." NCSTAR 1-5F, page 52
It is apparent that NIST went out of their way to include no thermal conductivity at all in their modeling.
Now let us turn to Mr. Nobles' section on the corroded steel from WTC 7.
The Pieces of Steel
Mr. Nobles presents what he considers to be conclusive proof that the steel was not attacked by thermate.
What Mr. Nobles seems to forget is that 1000°C is far hotter than the temperatures that NIST claims were in WTC 7. NIST states nowhere in their report that any of the steel in WTC 7 had been heated to 1000°C. Their most extreme claim is that the steel had been heated up to 675°C. And NIST has no evidence that any steel in the WTC had been heated up to 700-800°C.
As to why the steel was only heated to 1000°C, I cannot say for sure. But it's important to remember that, although thermate burns at temperatures much hotter than 1000°C, the steel would not necessarily have been heated to the exact temperature of whatever corroded it. For example, the NIST report on WTC 7 claims that the fires in the building were as hot as 2012°F, but that the steel only reached temperatures as hot as 1250°F (675°C). It is possible that the thermate that melted the piece of steel cooled somewhat as it reacted. But the main point is this: If nothing natural inside the building could have corroded the steel, then something unnatural must have been planted inside the building. This is the subject of the next part of Mr. Nobles' page.
Where Did The Sulfur Come From?
Like other defenders of the official story, Mr. Nobles offers several possible sources for the sulfur found in the WTC 7 steel, including rubbers, plastics, water, and gypsum wallboard. Wallboard has been cited most often by debunkers due to the fact that sulfur-based drywall was the third most used ingredient in the construction of the WTC complex. But as others have pointed out, calcium is also in drywall, and the sulfur and calcium are tightly bound into calcium sulfate. Because the piece of steel was found to be intergranularly melted, it means that the sulfur chemically entered into the steel. But calcium was found nowhere in the steel. Also, because it is calcium sulfate and not pure elemental sulfur, it could not have reacted in such a way that it would actually corrode the steel. Mr. Nobles closes this section with the following:
Unfortunately Mr. Nobles, these sources HAVE been ruled out.
In the last two parts of Mr. Nobles' page on the corroded steel, he acknowledges that the piece actually did come from WTC 7 (something that I in fact pointed out to him). But he claims that this piece has no real importance to NIST in their investigation. And contrary to what Mr. Nobles claims, the investigators did suggest it was "possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."
Mr. Nobles' final statement is quite astounding.
In other words...
Wick The Heat Away
One of the primary faults of NIST's reports on the WTC is that they did not include the factor of thermal conductivity in their modeling. Mr. Nobles, however, has a different opinion on this.
Right. Because they say nothing about steel conducting and transferring heat throughout the building, obviously it's in the report.
Amazing that thermal conductivity would be so important, but at the same time NIST offers no detail about it in their report. They would do it for concrete, but not the steel.
Actually, someone already has put numbers to this assertion. Kevin Ryan, in his critique of the NIST report on WTC 7, wrote that:
"Structural steel has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/m/K, which means that any heat applied is easily wicked away. But if that value were set to zero, or near zero, any heat applied would allow the temperature to rise dramatically at the point of application."
Here is what NIST's report on WTC 7 had to say about their fire simulations of WTC 7.
"The major fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 in WTC 7 were simulated using the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), version 4, in a manner similar to the simulations conducted for WTC 1 and WTC 2 (NIST NCSTAR 1-5F)."
NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1, page 4.
And what did NIST say about their fire simulations of the Twin Towers?
"The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used." NCSTAR 1-5F, page 20
"The interior walls [including insulated steel columns] were assumed to have the properties of gypsum board [0.5 W/m/K]." NCSTAR 1-5F, page 52
"Although the floor slab actually consisted of a metal deck topped with a concrete slab...the thermal properties of the entire floor slab were assumed to be that of concrete [1.0 W/m/K]." NCSTAR 1-5F, page 52
It is apparent that NIST went out of their way to include no thermal conductivity at all in their modeling.
Now let us turn to Mr. Nobles' section on the corroded steel from WTC 7.
The Pieces of Steel
Mr. Nobles presents what he considers to be conclusive proof that the steel was not attacked by thermate.
What Mr. Nobles seems to forget is that 1000°C is far hotter than the temperatures that NIST claims were in WTC 7. NIST states nowhere in their report that any of the steel in WTC 7 had been heated to 1000°C. Their most extreme claim is that the steel had been heated up to 675°C. And NIST has no evidence that any steel in the WTC had been heated up to 700-800°C.
As to why the steel was only heated to 1000°C, I cannot say for sure. But it's important to remember that, although thermate burns at temperatures much hotter than 1000°C, the steel would not necessarily have been heated to the exact temperature of whatever corroded it. For example, the NIST report on WTC 7 claims that the fires in the building were as hot as 2012°F, but that the steel only reached temperatures as hot as 1250°F (675°C). It is possible that the thermate that melted the piece of steel cooled somewhat as it reacted. But the main point is this: If nothing natural inside the building could have corroded the steel, then something unnatural must have been planted inside the building. This is the subject of the next part of Mr. Nobles' page.
Where Did The Sulfur Come From?
Like other defenders of the official story, Mr. Nobles offers several possible sources for the sulfur found in the WTC 7 steel, including rubbers, plastics, water, and gypsum wallboard. Wallboard has been cited most often by debunkers due to the fact that sulfur-based drywall was the third most used ingredient in the construction of the WTC complex. But as others have pointed out, calcium is also in drywall, and the sulfur and calcium are tightly bound into calcium sulfate. Because the piece of steel was found to be intergranularly melted, it means that the sulfur chemically entered into the steel. But calcium was found nowhere in the steel. Also, because it is calcium sulfate and not pure elemental sulfur, it could not have reacted in such a way that it would actually corrode the steel. Mr. Nobles closes this section with the following:
Unfortunately Mr. Nobles, these sources HAVE been ruled out.
In the last two parts of Mr. Nobles' page on the corroded steel, he acknowledges that the piece actually did come from WTC 7 (something that I in fact pointed out to him). But he claims that this piece has no real importance to NIST in their investigation. And contrary to what Mr. Nobles claims, the investigators did suggest it was "possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."
Mr. Nobles' final statement is quite astounding.
In other words...
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Hello Joseph Nobles
Mr. Nobles just recently addressed my latest post about his website. Yet again, he doesn't seem to think I'm addressing all that I should.
As we will see, Mr. Nobles has a talent for addressing one point out of a huge argument and acting as if it is the central point to the whole argument. Thus, he holds great promise in the debunking community.
He apparently thinks I don't have good reasons to distrust NIST.
Well, given the fact that I very clearly demonstrated that NIST falsified the data in their report about the lack of shear studs in WTC 7 (a point which, by the way, was supposed to be a reason that other steel skyscrapers had not collapsed from fire) and that NIST failed to factor in any thermal conductivity in their models, I'd say I have very good reason to distrust NIST. Given the fact that NIST obviously didn't factor in these parameters in their models, I'm not surprised that the NIST models found a "design flaw" in Building 7. I guess it also doesn't bother Mr. Nobles that NIST's report states that column 79 failed and accelerated at an extremely fast rate in 1/5 of a second, a virtual impossibility.
Mr. Nobles acts as if I don't address NIST's report as much as I obviously did. But perhaps that is why he didn't even provide a link to my original post.
I am well aware of the ARUP study. But, as you made clear in your original post Mr. Nobles, it is not impossible for steel buildings to collapse from fire, whatever their construction. But in any case, we are just talking about one building out of several buildings that all had more severe fires than the Twin Towers and Building 7.
Mr. Nobles, you constantly claim I ignore important points. And yet you don't address the points I do bring up in great detail. If you want to just take NIST at their word, then fine. But please try to point out anything that I get wrong, or else this will get quite repetitive. In other words, (as others on this blog have said) put up or shut up.
As we will see, Mr. Nobles has a talent for addressing one point out of a huge argument and acting as if it is the central point to the whole argument. Thus, he holds great promise in the debunking community.
He apparently thinks I don't have good reasons to distrust NIST.
Well, given the fact that I very clearly demonstrated that NIST falsified the data in their report about the lack of shear studs in WTC 7 (a point which, by the way, was supposed to be a reason that other steel skyscrapers had not collapsed from fire) and that NIST failed to factor in any thermal conductivity in their models, I'd say I have very good reason to distrust NIST. Given the fact that NIST obviously didn't factor in these parameters in their models, I'm not surprised that the NIST models found a "design flaw" in Building 7. I guess it also doesn't bother Mr. Nobles that NIST's report states that column 79 failed and accelerated at an extremely fast rate in 1/5 of a second, a virtual impossibility.
Mr. Nobles acts as if I don't address NIST's report as much as I obviously did. But perhaps that is why he didn't even provide a link to my original post.
I am well aware of the ARUP study. But, as you made clear in your original post Mr. Nobles, it is not impossible for steel buildings to collapse from fire, whatever their construction. But in any case, we are just talking about one building out of several buildings that all had more severe fires than the Twin Towers and Building 7.
Mr. Nobles, you constantly claim I ignore important points. And yet you don't address the points I do bring up in great detail. If you want to just take NIST at their word, then fine. But please try to point out anything that I get wrong, or else this will get quite repetitive. In other words, (as others on this blog have said) put up or shut up.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Debunking Joseph Nobles: Other Buildings
Mr. Nobles’ latest addition to his website is a page attempting to show how other skyscraper fires are not comparable to the Twin Towers and Building 7. He focuses on the skyscraper fires featured in the AE911Truth power point. Because Mr. Nobles uses similar arguments for more than one of the listed buildings, for this post I will list an argument, state which buildings it applies to, followed by my response.
A quick note: I will be citing NIST several times in this response to refute many of Mr. Nobles’ arguments. Some may criticize me, saying things like “but if you disagree with NIST, why do you cite them?” I cite them because there are parts of their investigation that do seem to be backed up by empirical data and common sense. And this is supposed to be the official explanation for what happened to those buildings, so if anyone disagrees with NIST, they should complain to NIST and not me. I will also be pointing out several things that NIST does get wrong. But if anyone thinks they’re right, then explain why I’m wrong.
-No structural damage: East Tower, First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, Mandarin Oriental
Response: This detail can be seen as least significant, as NIST mostly blames the collapse of the Twin Towers on fire and entirely blames the collapse of WTC 7 on fire. Although it can be argued that the plane impacts greatly damaged the buildings, NIST seems to have exaggerated the amount of damage the buildings actually took. And given the fact that the initial tilts of both Towers were not in the direction of where most of the structural damage was, the loads the buildings had to take as they collapsed would not have been a major factor.
-Lower floors were not on fire: East Tower, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza
Response: This argument obviously applies more to Building 7 than the Twin Towers, as the fires were on the upper floors of Towers. While there were fires on the lower floors of WTC 7, the question is if these fires were severe enough to cause collapse in the first place. More on this will be discussed below.
-Fires were fought by firefighters and/or sprinklers: East Tower, First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza, Mandarin Oriental
Response: To some, the severity of the fires has been based on how much they were being fought. This, however, did not appear to be an important factor to NIST. NIST, in reference to the First Interstate Bank Building, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza, and WTC 5, stated that:
“[I]n each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and fire fighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.”
Many debunkers have suggested that the partial collapse of WTC 5 supports the theory that fire could have brought down Building 7. In fact, if anything, it does just the opposite.
Debunkers also point to the firefighters' testimony. That is addressed here and here.
-Fire was always in “one place”: East Tower, First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza
Response: Again, NIST doesn’t seem to feel the floor locations of the fires were a huge point of dissimilarity to fires in other buildings, stating that:
“The differences in the fires were not meaningful for the following reasons. By the time that WTC 7 collapsed, the fires in WTC 7 had advanced well beyond the likely points of origin on multiple floors (i.e., south and west faces) and originating points of fire origin had no bearing on the fire conditions when the building collapsed (i.e., in the northeast quadrant).”
It is often claimed by debunkers that these photos show that Building 7 was almost totally engulfed with fire.
But as others have pointed out, the large amount of smoke on Building 7’s south face was most likely caused by a negative low air pressure, which caused smoke from the burning WTC complex to cling to Building 7. Multiple photographs show that the same thing happened to WTC 1.
NIST itself states that there were 10 fires in Building 7, with only 6 of them being out of control. Also, although the Mandarin Oriental did not burn as long as Building 7, the building was completely engulfed in flames, which meant it would have had an extremely low amount of thermal conductivity. Dr. Vytenis Babrauskas, an expert on fire temperatures, has written that:
“It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with an object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.”
Although steel has somewhat lower heat conductivity than that of other metals, compared to non-metallic materials its conductivity is extremely high. If a fire does not consume the entire structure, the structure will conduct the heat away from the main source of the fire. This would not have applied to the Mandarin Oriental, as its entire structure was almost totally engulfed by massive flames. NIST did not even include thermal conductivity as a factor in the collapse of WTC 7.
In any case, NIST accepts that fires in other buildings were, at the very least, just as severe as the fires in WTC 7, stating in their FAQ page on Building 7 that:
“There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1981), One New York Plaza (1970), and WTC 5 (2001).”
And even in their report, they state that:
“NIST therefore concluded that the fires in First Interstate Bank and One Meridian Plaza were at least as severe, and probably more severe, than the fires in WTC 7.” (Page 341)
It should also be pointed out that the characteristics of the fires in other buildings were quite different than the fires in the WTC. In the other building fires listed, the fires produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.
Ultimately, while blaming the fires in WTC 7 on the collapse, NIST claims that the significant difference between Building 7 and other building fires has more to do with the differences in design than the severity of the fires. This is discussed below.
-Different design and construction: East Tower, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza, Mandarin Oriental
Response: Admittedly, these buildings were designed and built quite differently than the Twin Towers and Building 7. However, this does not necessarily mean that they were stronger buildings. In particular, the East Tower and the Mandarin Oriental had the hollowness that the 9/11 Commission deceptively attempted to attribute to the Twin Towers. One of the main differences between the Towers and Building 7 and these other buildings is that many of these buildings had a concrete structure. But again, this does not necessarily mean the buildings were better. As 911research.wtc7.net points out:
•Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.
•Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.
NIST discusses the differences in design of WTC 7 and other building fires. One of the most crucial differences they claimed was the fact that Building 7 had no shear studs. According to NIST, shear studs would have provided lateral restraint to the girders in WTC 7. In discussing the differences between Building 7 and three other buildings-- the First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, and the Cardington Test Building-- NIST stated that:
“Non-composite girders in WTC 7 rather than composite girders (presence or absence of shear studs) in the other three buildings.” (Page 341, August 2008)
At first, this argument seems justifiable. The three buildings listed by NIST all had shear studs and none of them collapsed. Building 7 had no shear studs and it did collapse. It sounds like a good correlation. However, in NIST’s Final Report released in November of 2008, this passage was altered. It now states:
“Non-composite girders in WTC 7 rather than composite girders (presence or absence of shear studs) in two of the other three buildings.” (Page 341, November 2008)
So, NIST now admits that one of the three listed buildings also did not have shear studs, but it did not collapse. This greatly decreases the credibility of NIST’s arguments.
But there are even more problems with NIST’s shear stud argument. In 2004-- before NIST had developed a theory around the idea of girder failures-- it stated that shear studs did connect girders to the floor slabs. In its 2004 Interim Report on WTC 7, NIST stated:
“Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 inches in diameter by 5 inches long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders.” (Interim Report on WTC 7, L-6-7)
As this passage points out, many of the core girders in WTC 7 did not have shear studs. But the critical girder NIST claims failed-- the one connecting column 44 to column 79-- was not a core girder. It was in the building’s eastern region. Therefore, according to NIST’s Interim Report, this girder would have been anchored to the floor slab with shear studs. And because NIST stated that the studs were placed from one to two feet apart, and the girder was 45 feet long, there would have been at least 22 shear studs connecting the girder to the floor. However, NIST rewrote this passage for their Final Report, now stating that:
“Most of the beams were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 inches in diameter by 5 inches long, spaced 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for the girders.” (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, page 15)
It appears, therefore, that NIST, having developed a theory that would seem plausible only if the girders were not connected to the floors with shear studs, simply made those studs vanish. Any significant differences in the design of WTC 7 and other fire engulfed buildings that NIST and Mr. Nobles claim would seem to exist because of NIST’s falsifying of data.
The Towers And These Buildings
Mr. Nobles makes an amazing statement.
This statement is quite rich, considering that debunkers have tried to compare the WTC to things like high schools and badly constructed toy factories. To debunkers, if it’s made of steel and collapses from fire, it’s comparable to the WTC. This is complete nonsense. Even if there were some differences in design, if we can’t compare the WTC skyscraper fires with other skyscraper fires, then what can we compare them to?
Mr. Nobles offers three arguments for why the Towers were doomed to fail (my comments in red, some links).
The fires were never fought by any means in either building. The task of simply arriving at the floors proved to be too much for first responders to accomplish before the towers had fallen. Perhaps, but given the fact that neither of the Towers burned for even two hours, it is questionable how significant this would have been.
The fires were started over several floors simultaneously. Office buildings are designed to resist a slow-moving fire in one location. Fires were started in the WTC Towers simultaneously over several floors and over immense areas of these floors. And the floors, by the way, were the size of city blocks. Pictures show these fires burning entire lengths of the building in places. While this may have been true for the North Tower, the fires in the South Tower appeared to be going out shortly before its collapse. The fires did not even spread to the other side of the South Tower.
Strong fires tend to spread.
The fires were ignited with jet fuel as an accelerant. A large portion of jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireball on impact, but hundreds of gallons were left to help feed the fires in their first few minutes. In fact, the amount of fuel that remained in the Towers would have fit into a mid size U-Haul truck. The pictures you might have seen of weak or non-existent fires in these buildings were taken in the first few moments, when the fireball had robbed the fires of much oxygen. Again, very few flames were visible in the minutes before the South Tower’s collapse. The heat energy remained, however, and as oxygen returned through the immense holes left by the airplanes, the fires found plenty of jet fuel to reignite and start the massive office fires that resulted. But unfortunately, NIST has no evidence for high temperatures in either building.
World Trade Center 7′s (Alleged) Unrecognized Design Flaw
To show that WTC 7 was also doomed to fail, Mr. Nobles refers to a series of computer simulations NIST did of WTC 7.
Of course. When all else fails, use a computer model! NIST’s assertion that the failure of column 79 would have led to the total collapse of the whole building isn’t backed up by any independent verification. NIST has never released their modeling data, so it’s not open to peer review. As I have already shown, NIST has clearly distorted the data in their report. What’s more, NIST’s data shows that column 79 collapsed and accelerated at an extremely fast rate within only a fifth of a second, even though it was still supported by more than 30 floors of restraints. This would have been virtually impossible. The only evidence we have that column 79 was an “unrecognized design flaw” comes from NIST. Does that sound credible?
Mr. Nobles believes there is no comparison between the WTC and other building fires. This is obviously ridiculous. When one looks at things in perspective, it becomes obvious that the Twin Towers and Building 7 should never have collapsed because of the fires in them.
A quick note: I will be citing NIST several times in this response to refute many of Mr. Nobles’ arguments. Some may criticize me, saying things like “but if you disagree with NIST, why do you cite them?” I cite them because there are parts of their investigation that do seem to be backed up by empirical data and common sense. And this is supposed to be the official explanation for what happened to those buildings, so if anyone disagrees with NIST, they should complain to NIST and not me. I will also be pointing out several things that NIST does get wrong. But if anyone thinks they’re right, then explain why I’m wrong.
-No structural damage: East Tower, First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, Mandarin Oriental
Response: This detail can be seen as least significant, as NIST mostly blames the collapse of the Twin Towers on fire and entirely blames the collapse of WTC 7 on fire. Although it can be argued that the plane impacts greatly damaged the buildings, NIST seems to have exaggerated the amount of damage the buildings actually took. And given the fact that the initial tilts of both Towers were not in the direction of where most of the structural damage was, the loads the buildings had to take as they collapsed would not have been a major factor.
-Lower floors were not on fire: East Tower, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza
Response: This argument obviously applies more to Building 7 than the Twin Towers, as the fires were on the upper floors of Towers. While there were fires on the lower floors of WTC 7, the question is if these fires were severe enough to cause collapse in the first place. More on this will be discussed below.
-Fires were fought by firefighters and/or sprinklers: East Tower, First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza, Mandarin Oriental
Response: To some, the severity of the fires has been based on how much they were being fought. This, however, did not appear to be an important factor to NIST. NIST, in reference to the First Interstate Bank Building, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza, and WTC 5, stated that:
“[I]n each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and fire fighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.”
Many debunkers have suggested that the partial collapse of WTC 5 supports the theory that fire could have brought down Building 7. In fact, if anything, it does just the opposite.
Debunkers also point to the firefighters' testimony. That is addressed here and here.
-Fire was always in “one place”: East Tower, First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza
Response: Again, NIST doesn’t seem to feel the floor locations of the fires were a huge point of dissimilarity to fires in other buildings, stating that:
“The differences in the fires were not meaningful for the following reasons. By the time that WTC 7 collapsed, the fires in WTC 7 had advanced well beyond the likely points of origin on multiple floors (i.e., south and west faces) and originating points of fire origin had no bearing on the fire conditions when the building collapsed (i.e., in the northeast quadrant).”
It is often claimed by debunkers that these photos show that Building 7 was almost totally engulfed with fire.
But as others have pointed out, the large amount of smoke on Building 7’s south face was most likely caused by a negative low air pressure, which caused smoke from the burning WTC complex to cling to Building 7. Multiple photographs show that the same thing happened to WTC 1.
NIST itself states that there were 10 fires in Building 7, with only 6 of them being out of control. Also, although the Mandarin Oriental did not burn as long as Building 7, the building was completely engulfed in flames, which meant it would have had an extremely low amount of thermal conductivity. Dr. Vytenis Babrauskas, an expert on fire temperatures, has written that:
“It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with an object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.”
Although steel has somewhat lower heat conductivity than that of other metals, compared to non-metallic materials its conductivity is extremely high. If a fire does not consume the entire structure, the structure will conduct the heat away from the main source of the fire. This would not have applied to the Mandarin Oriental, as its entire structure was almost totally engulfed by massive flames. NIST did not even include thermal conductivity as a factor in the collapse of WTC 7.
In any case, NIST accepts that fires in other buildings were, at the very least, just as severe as the fires in WTC 7, stating in their FAQ page on Building 7 that:
“There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1981), One New York Plaza (1970), and WTC 5 (2001).”
And even in their report, they state that:
“NIST therefore concluded that the fires in First Interstate Bank and One Meridian Plaza were at least as severe, and probably more severe, than the fires in WTC 7.” (Page 341)
It should also be pointed out that the characteristics of the fires in other buildings were quite different than the fires in the WTC. In the other building fires listed, the fires produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.
Ultimately, while blaming the fires in WTC 7 on the collapse, NIST claims that the significant difference between Building 7 and other building fires has more to do with the differences in design than the severity of the fires. This is discussed below.
-Different design and construction: East Tower, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza, Mandarin Oriental
Response: Admittedly, these buildings were designed and built quite differently than the Twin Towers and Building 7. However, this does not necessarily mean that they were stronger buildings. In particular, the East Tower and the Mandarin Oriental had the hollowness that the 9/11 Commission deceptively attempted to attribute to the Twin Towers. One of the main differences between the Towers and Building 7 and these other buildings is that many of these buildings had a concrete structure. But again, this does not necessarily mean the buildings were better. As 911research.wtc7.net points out:
•Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.
•Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.
NIST discusses the differences in design of WTC 7 and other building fires. One of the most crucial differences they claimed was the fact that Building 7 had no shear studs. According to NIST, shear studs would have provided lateral restraint to the girders in WTC 7. In discussing the differences between Building 7 and three other buildings-- the First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, and the Cardington Test Building-- NIST stated that:
“Non-composite girders in WTC 7 rather than composite girders (presence or absence of shear studs) in the other three buildings.” (Page 341, August 2008)
At first, this argument seems justifiable. The three buildings listed by NIST all had shear studs and none of them collapsed. Building 7 had no shear studs and it did collapse. It sounds like a good correlation. However, in NIST’s Final Report released in November of 2008, this passage was altered. It now states:
“Non-composite girders in WTC 7 rather than composite girders (presence or absence of shear studs) in two of the other three buildings.” (Page 341, November 2008)
So, NIST now admits that one of the three listed buildings also did not have shear studs, but it did not collapse. This greatly decreases the credibility of NIST’s arguments.
But there are even more problems with NIST’s shear stud argument. In 2004-- before NIST had developed a theory around the idea of girder failures-- it stated that shear studs did connect girders to the floor slabs. In its 2004 Interim Report on WTC 7, NIST stated:
“Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 inches in diameter by 5 inches long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders.” (Interim Report on WTC 7, L-6-7)
As this passage points out, many of the core girders in WTC 7 did not have shear studs. But the critical girder NIST claims failed-- the one connecting column 44 to column 79-- was not a core girder. It was in the building’s eastern region. Therefore, according to NIST’s Interim Report, this girder would have been anchored to the floor slab with shear studs. And because NIST stated that the studs were placed from one to two feet apart, and the girder was 45 feet long, there would have been at least 22 shear studs connecting the girder to the floor. However, NIST rewrote this passage for their Final Report, now stating that:
“Most of the beams were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 inches in diameter by 5 inches long, spaced 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for the girders.” (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, page 15)
It appears, therefore, that NIST, having developed a theory that would seem plausible only if the girders were not connected to the floors with shear studs, simply made those studs vanish. Any significant differences in the design of WTC 7 and other fire engulfed buildings that NIST and Mr. Nobles claim would seem to exist because of NIST’s falsifying of data.
The Towers And These Buildings
Mr. Nobles makes an amazing statement.
This statement is quite rich, considering that debunkers have tried to compare the WTC to things like high schools and badly constructed toy factories. To debunkers, if it’s made of steel and collapses from fire, it’s comparable to the WTC. This is complete nonsense. Even if there were some differences in design, if we can’t compare the WTC skyscraper fires with other skyscraper fires, then what can we compare them to?
Mr. Nobles offers three arguments for why the Towers were doomed to fail (my comments in red, some links).
The fires were never fought by any means in either building. The task of simply arriving at the floors proved to be too much for first responders to accomplish before the towers had fallen. Perhaps, but given the fact that neither of the Towers burned for even two hours, it is questionable how significant this would have been.
The fires were started over several floors simultaneously. Office buildings are designed to resist a slow-moving fire in one location. Fires were started in the WTC Towers simultaneously over several floors and over immense areas of these floors. And the floors, by the way, were the size of city blocks. Pictures show these fires burning entire lengths of the building in places. While this may have been true for the North Tower, the fires in the South Tower appeared to be going out shortly before its collapse. The fires did not even spread to the other side of the South Tower.
Strong fires tend to spread.
The fires were ignited with jet fuel as an accelerant. A large portion of jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireball on impact, but hundreds of gallons were left to help feed the fires in their first few minutes. In fact, the amount of fuel that remained in the Towers would have fit into a mid size U-Haul truck. The pictures you might have seen of weak or non-existent fires in these buildings were taken in the first few moments, when the fireball had robbed the fires of much oxygen. Again, very few flames were visible in the minutes before the South Tower’s collapse. The heat energy remained, however, and as oxygen returned through the immense holes left by the airplanes, the fires found plenty of jet fuel to reignite and start the massive office fires that resulted. But unfortunately, NIST has no evidence for high temperatures in either building.
World Trade Center 7′s (Alleged) Unrecognized Design Flaw
To show that WTC 7 was also doomed to fail, Mr. Nobles refers to a series of computer simulations NIST did of WTC 7.
Of course. When all else fails, use a computer model! NIST’s assertion that the failure of column 79 would have led to the total collapse of the whole building isn’t backed up by any independent verification. NIST has never released their modeling data, so it’s not open to peer review. As I have already shown, NIST has clearly distorted the data in their report. What’s more, NIST’s data shows that column 79 collapsed and accelerated at an extremely fast rate within only a fifth of a second, even though it was still supported by more than 30 floors of restraints. This would have been virtually impossible. The only evidence we have that column 79 was an “unrecognized design flaw” comes from NIST. Does that sound credible?
Mr. Nobles believes there is no comparison between the WTC and other building fires. This is obviously ridiculous. When one looks at things in perspective, it becomes obvious that the Twin Towers and Building 7 should never have collapsed because of the fires in them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
