Originally posted by baumusc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcaz6N75mjM
32:40 - Inferno in the elevator shafts.
39:40 - very little fireproofing found on steel in the rubble.30:22 estimates that 1/3 of fuel burns outside of building in fireball... the rest burns in 8 minutes.
Calculations can be done to figure that out, and all estimates have the fuel gone in less than 10
30:40 why did the fireproofing get knocked off at impact, rather than during collapse? It's an assumption made that I contend is an assumption based on zero observation.
32:40 he was in an elevator that was in the impact region and does not travel to the lobby
33:20 despite the sharp angle of the plane it still ... blah blah The animation they use for that one is not an accurate depiction of the impact seen in the video
33:35 he climbed down 78 flights of stairs. that is the evidence of 32:40. It is misleading to say that the elevators shafts were on fire in the lobby because a guy in an elevator that only went as low as the 78th floor skylobby saw an inferno. fire in that spot was expected because that tower was hit at the 78th floor to the 84th floor. those elevators that he was in only go from 78 to the restaurant up at 108.
33:40 "a big huge explosion, then I turned and saw a huge ball of fire come out... then collapse"
34:25 suddenly a puff of smoke out of the east side. The video assumes some kind of collapse, because.... because they are ignoring all other explanations.
35:00 pancake collapse has been discredited... that is a bullshit statement.
35:20 that fire is not from the time after the first collapse. They have edited early fire into it to deceive.
35:40 the antenna moves first, which tells them the core columns failed first.... You obviously didn't watch the video with any kind of scrutiny. NIST does not even make this claim, because it's wrong.
39:45 they use the term "thin layer of fireproofing sprayed on" which is deceptive. It was 4 layers of spray, one of which was in place to prevent the other layers from being knocked off
Originally posted by
the entire structure of the South Tower, the spray was an asbestos-free successor to the original product consisting of mineral wool and binder. These formulations were applied to core columns, the outside face of the exterior walls and columns, the long-span steel joists (trusses) that supported the concrete floors, and trench headers for the underfloor raceway system.
Click here to enlarge image
The third type of spray, a lightweight gypsum plaster with vermiculite aggregate, was used on the inside face of the exterior walls and columns and on the seats supporting the long-span joists. This material contained no asbestos.
The fourth formulation was a "hard coat" consisting of 80-percent chrysotile asbestos set in a matrix of Portland cement. This was sprayed over the mineral fiber fireproofing in locations where it was thought that the more friable fireproofing material could suffer from vibration or air erosion. As such, this "hard coat" was used in the high-speed elevator shafts between the concourse level and the 44th- and 78th-floor sky lobbies in both towers, where it was thought that air currents from the "piston effect" of the elevators could damage the fireproofing.40:00 this is a BS statement. Steel is rated by underwriting laboratories.
Originally posted by UL executive
“The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.” - Kevin Ryan
An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.
In a letter dated Thursday (11/11, complete text below), UL executive Kevin Ryan called on Frank Gayle, director of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell, to “do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.”
Kevin Ryan is Site Manager at Environmental Health Laboratories (EHL) in South Bend, Indiana. This is a division of UL, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, the steel’s performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company.
While Ryan’s letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories, it suggests incipient disagreements between UL and NIST about the true cause of the WTC collapses.You don't even realize when the video was made (2002) or that it is a truther that posted it to show discrepancies.
Originally posted by video OP
FEMA lead investigator Corley says WTC1 CORE initiation at 35:40 - unlike the NIST sagging truss theory - yet fails to explain exactly what caused the core failure
Get a grip here, debunkers. You are not using science... you are leaving out facts.... you are arguing points that have been discredited long ago. You think I am crazy for scrutinizing these statements that are based in fantasy. You don't even check the validity of claims you make. Lying and omitting facts is great for making you feel good about being decieved, but it does nothing for your credibility.
