Fireproofing in the WTC

[FourScore]

This graph shows the exact floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers during the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. Another interesting coincidence.

[LARED]

1. Got a link? nt

[salvorhardin]

3. I've got a link

There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time. Exactly what work was done during that time?

In some sections of the NIST WTC report, the exact floors upgraded are listed. Other sections of the report suggest even more floors were upgraded, a total of 18 floors in WTC 1 and 13 floors in WTC 2, but the additional floors involved are not specified.<1>

WTC tower floors upgraded for fireproofing and floors of impact, fires and failure on 9/11 (click for full size)

This relationship is unmistakable for WTC 1. Some investigators have pointed out that a number of floors failed simultaneously in this tower, in accordion-like fashion, before the rest of the building began to 'collapse'. These floors seem to match up almost exactly with the floors that were upgraded. See the film clip below, and the following Powerpoint sequence created by Gregory Urich.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse...

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/Wtc1SeriesNW.ppt

Two blueprints for the 1999, 2000 construction upgrades to WTC 2, provided by a supporter, indicated that the work was done at almost exactly the point of impact and failure in that tower. That is, the southeast quadrant of WTC 2 was the focus of the work, at least on the 78th floor (the blueprints provided were for floors 77 and 78 only). It was the southeast quadrant of WTC 2, at and just above floor 78, where flight 175 hit.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272

Here's the larger version of the graphic:


You know what else has a remarkable correlation to the floors that were upgraded? The floors that were hit by jumbo jets at 500mph!

[nebula]

6. Fireproofing renovations

I wonder if they took place between 1993 and 2000?

That's when Marvin Bush was a director of security for the WTC.
Wouldn't be surprised.

[AZCat]

7. I'm sure they extended over a longer period than that.

It would not be surprising if extensive renovations did occur during that period, although Marvin Bush wasn't Director of Security. It's been discussed before here.

[JackRiddler]

8. Marvin Bush not a "director of security for the WTC."

That would imply a member of the Bush family was working for a living!

Marvin was on the board of directors (and his cousin Wirt Walker was a principal) in Securacom/Stratesec, which had contracts at the WTC totalling $8 million over several years and ending in fiscal 2000. These included drawing up a plan for the key-card system installed after 1993. This would have been a small proportion of overall WTC contracts for security, and overall security until July 2001 would have been under the owner, the Port Authority of NY/NJ, which has its own police department. Marvin's company would have had access to sensitive information but so would a lot of other contracters.

[AZCat]

10. I'm sorry, Jack.

I know you've been working diligently to correct this mistake, but I think it's going to keep cropping up forever. Thanks for doing it, though.

[Sweet Pea]

23. Same Same

Tis yet another piece of evidence that the Troofers have absolutely no compunction to listen to the facts of a case. They just keep repeating the same old dis proven canards, day in, day out, to hell with what is actually the case.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Props. n/t

[LARED]

11. Thanks, I noticed it was submitted by Kevin Ryan - nt

[salvorhardin]

2. Self-delete (misposted) n/t

[sabbat hunter]

4. the fireproofing

was knocked off by the planes impacting and going into the towers. whether it was original or upgraded.

[nebula]

5. Sure it was

and the floors upgraded with fireproofing just happened to be the same ones
within the impact zone.

just another astonishing coincidence in a long line of them--like when you win
the lottery twice in a row. well hey, it could happen to anybody! lol.

[sabbat hunter]

9. well let me ask you this

do you think 2 large fuel filled passenger planes hit the WTC?

[Kingshakabobo]

12. Hey! Maybe the fireproofing was actually thermate?

Hmmmmmmm???????




/end truther

[nebula]

13. Did any planes hit the WTC?

1) That is questionable.

2) if planes did hit the WTC, they would not have caused the buildings to collapse.
it would be like (partially) chopping off the top part of a tree and expecting the whole tree to collapse into itself. it is physically impossible.

3) did any plane strike building 7?

4) the OCT talking points are old and tiresome.

[AZCat]

15. Regarding your point #2...

Your analogy is flawed. The WTC towers were not like trees (at least not in that way). The towers were significantly weaker relatively than a tree is, and for good reason. Trees must resist far greater wind loading due to their greater apparent cross-section, and since they are much smaller than the towers they are much more capable of supporting a comparable volume (see previous discussions on scaling issues with structures).

[nebula]

16. I wouldn't say that

steel is a lot stronger than wood.

[AZCat]

17. Sure it is.

But we're not comparing similarly sized structures. Remember that when you're scaling from one size to another area goes up by the square of the scale but volume (and therefore mass) goes up by the cube. This is the same reason that an ant can lift several times its body weight but would not be able to do the same if it were somehow scaled up to human size.

[nebula]

18. "Trees must resist far greater wind loading"

That statement is pretty silly. It implies the towers were built with little or no resistance to lateral forces, when it fact they were designed to resist hurricane-force winds and even earthquakes.

[AZCat]

19. But we're looking at relative forces...

in addition to absolute ones. The canopy of a tree causes far greater relative wind loads than the face of the WTC towers.

[nebula]

20. Don't forget

-- the trunk of a tree is much wider at the base then at the top, while the towers have the same exposure to lateral wind forces all the way from top to bottom. the canopy of most trees does not begin until a certain point, about mid-way up the tree. in other words, there is no canopy until the tree begins to branch out. up until that point, only the bare and round trunk is exposed, which is the 'aerodynamic' part of the tree due to its bareness and roundness.

[AZCat]

21. Yes, but that makes a greater moment at the base of the tree.

Since the significant part of the apparent cross-section is so far from the base, it means that the force of the wind causes that much more of a moment at the base (remember moment is force times moment arm). The tree trunk at the bottom is I suppose aerodynamic when compared to the towers at the bottom but it is my contention that the towers have smaller relative (whatever that means in this context) forces from wind than the tree. I'm not sure how to model the wind shear for a tree canopy so I don't know how to mathematically describe the difference.

[Sweet Pea]

24. I can't believe

that someone is *actually* comparing, from an engineering and structural perspective, the 1,000+ foot tall WTC to a tree.

This is a joke, right? We've blown right past ridiculous and landed four-square on idiotic when this sort of discussion takes place.

[whopis01]

26. Clearly the solution is that from now on we should live and work in trees.

Think about it...

They are far stronger then skyscrapers.*

They are more wind resistant.*

They are invulnerable to terrorist attacks.*

They are more environmentally friendly than skyscrapers.

Large planes cannot possible be flown accurately enough to hit a tree.*



(*: All of these have been learned from reading the DU 9/11 forum)

[nebula]

27. The laws of physics

apply to buildings as well as trees.

go peddle your pseudo-science elsewhere.

[Sweet Pea]

29. Sure they do!

But comparing a tree to the WTC is like comparing a donut to a spare tire. They have the same basic shape, but THERE the similarities END! The "laws of physics" apply to both, but both would react in vastly different ways to gravity, speed, momentum, thermodynamics, whatever. Same with a tree and the WTC. To equate the same and argue that one would react identical to another is absolute hogwash.

BUT....go right ahead! The Troofers need more "science" like that to get their point across!

[nebula]

30. Strawman much?

"To equate the same and argue that one would react identical to another is absolute hogwash."

No one is saying that.

It doesn't matter if we are talking about a tree or a building or a light pole. The laws of gravity and physics apply. That is, an object CANNOT crush or destroy another object that is much heavier, denser, and larger than itself. If you disagree, then you need to provide examples of how that can be possible.

[AZCat]

33. Part of the problem with your claim...

that "an object cannot crush or destroy another object that is much heavier, denser, and larger than itself" is that it doesn't really apply. We cannot model the two parts of the tower as monolithic if we want to understand the dynamics of the collapse.

[Sweet Pea]

35. Not MY Strawman!

I'm not the one equating a tree to the World Trade center.

That be you :)

Strawman, goeth heal thyself!

[nebula]

37. When are you going to explain a this?

How is it possible for A to reach the ground as fast as B, or at all?

[sabbat hunter]

40. well first off

A did NOT reach the ground at free fall speed. go check your numbers and the data. The towers did not fall at free fall speed. This is something that has been debunked numerous times here on DU. Go do a bit of research.

Second, most of the volume of the towers was air, which provides some resistance but not as much as a solid object.

Third, once the first columns began to fail, the remaining ones could not support the load and failed immediately, thus a fairly rapid collapse (but not at free fall speed)

[nebula]

41. Check your facts.

You're a funny guy.

In the official report, NIST states the buildings came down in freefall.

NIST FAQ Sheet

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[AZCat]

44. The problem arises from discussing technical subjects...

in vague terms. The best thing to do is express the duration of the actual fall relative to the expected duration of free fall in a vacuum of an object from a similar height.

[nebula]

43. That's interesting.

"The towers did not fall at free fall speed. This is something that has been debunked numerous times here on DU."

So the OCT has debunked the NIST report?

[Sweet Pea]

45. Its already been explained

Go refresh yourself with the static vs dynamic load discussion.

[nebula]

49. I have

It still doesn't explain how A falls to the ground as fast B, or how it does at all.

[rAVES]

66. And dont forget The impact of jetliners ;)

[sabbat hunter]

25. answers

1) so what did the people on the ground see hitting the second tower?
2) the WTC was mostly empty space ie air as opposed to a tree which is solid all the way thru. So your comparison is invalid.
3) no plane hit WTC 7 but it suffered major damage and had fires that caused further damage. Fires that were allowed to burn out of control. as for the comment " we only need a couple of lines to knock it down" in the WTC, that was for only that small section of fire, the fire was raging across multiple floors
4) the CT talking points of no planes is boring at best.

[nebula]

31. How could a plane hit the South tower

and come out through the other side, with its nose intact?




LOL.

Dan Rather: '...the plane pierced the building and came out the other side.'
www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0DRvPmyKvs

[nebula]

32. What did they see?

'1) so what did the people on the ground see hitting the second tower?'

You tell me.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqD4lXC5aMY


They couldn't have seen anything hitting the 2nd tower, because there is no plane!

[sabbat hunter]

34. so they are

all in on the conspiracy? victims of mass hypnosis?

[nebula]

36. Who are these nameless, faceless witnesses

that you so fondly speak of? do they have an identity?

[Sweet Pea]

38. Hmmm....

It appears now that the Troofers are claiming there are no eyewitnesses to the events of Sept 11 because names and faces cannot be produced.

It gets wackier and wackier! This is great stuff! I just can't WAIT to see what they'll come up with next!

No eyewitnesses. lmfao

[sabbat hunter]

39. One of them

was a friend of mine, who was attending NYU at the time and was down in the WTC area at the time.

There are countless witnesses who have spoken up publically that they saw a plane hit the second tower.

Are they all in on the conspiracy?

[nebula]

42. Is your witness verifiable?

or do we have to take your word on it?

[sabbat hunter]

46. if you mean

does he come on DU, no he does not. In fact he has limited if no internet access right now due to financial issues.

But what is the difference, even if he did come on here you probably wouldn't believe him any how.

[WI Independent]

47. "Verifiable" seems to mean...

a fuzzy over-compressed video or jpg image the best I can tell... Got one of those? :)

[SDuderstadt]

48. It's really stupid to claim there are no eyewitnesses to 9/11

Debunk this or quit wasting our time.


http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw%3Aeyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

[Laurier]

52. Nebula says: "there is no plane!" Reality disagrees.

Reality disagrees with you, nebula.

[Laurier]

51. Oh, the "nose came out the other side" lunacy.

Yikes.

Nebula: How could a plane hit the South tower and come out through the other side, with its nose intact?

Short answer: It didn't.

Nebula: LOL.

Short answer: This is not a laughing matter.

[nebula]

53. What do you call this?

[Bolo Boffin]

54. That would be smoke and debris. n/t

[nebula]

55. Good one.

Bwahahahahahaha.


Try again.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. You have evidence that it is not smoke and debris? n/t

[nebula]

57. You have evidence that it is?

The part circled in black, that is.




The cone-shaped 'object' is a poorly faked editing job, otherwise known as a CGI airplane.

[Laurier]

58. "a CGI airplane"?? Oh my.

First you suggested that it was the nose of the airplane that struck the tower (it's not) and now you claim that it is a "poorly faked editing job, otherwise known as a CGI airplane" (it's not).

Perhaps you can get your story straight and present it here with something resembling facts and evidence, and try again.

[nebula]

60. It's right in front of your eyes.

How many times do I have to post it?


Fact: this image was broadcast on all the major networks.

It's called firsthand evidence: the kind of which you and the OCT can't seem to ignore and run from fast enough.

[Bolo Boffin]

62. What you've circled is the leading edge

of this explosion.



Look at the general shape of that part of the explosion. Smoke and debris. It's amazing what you can see when you find a less distorted picture.

[nebula]

63. Interesting theory

Leading edge of the explosion? That might be a stretch, but I won't rule it out.

Let's see if I can find a clearer copy. I'll put it up when i get a chance.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. Just today I saw that described as

...the aerosolized fuel bursting out of the other side before ignition. Along with debris, etc.

[Laurier]

64. It is not at all what you continue to pretend it is.

*sigh*

And it is still not clear whether you are claiming it is the nose of the airplane that hit the building or if you are claiming that it is something else. Can you please clarify what exactly it is that you are claiming, in light of your inconsistent and contradictory posts above?

[Bolo Boffin]

61. So you don't think it's the nose of a real plane either.

Both of us, then, are aware that the nose of an actual plane couldn't make it through that building intact.

So I say, smoke and debris, since I think it was a real plane.

You say, CGI plane-bad edit job, since you think it was a CGI plane.

Can we find some higher-resolution shots of this, then? As you're aware, the WTC tower exterior consisted of impressive long columns, clearly visible in most pictures. The shot we are looking at right now is so grainy and distorted that these distinctive features of the towers are not evident.

[Laurier]

22. That's glaringly stupid, even for the inept Kevin Ryan.

First of all, conspiracy believers including Kevin Ryan have been claiming for years that the massive fires observed as a result of airplanes crashing into them and starting multi-floor, multi-acre fires were "small", "minor", "oxygen starved", "could be put out with a couple of lines", etc., and have been downplaying them as trivial all along (even though it is blatantly obvious and has always been blatantly obvious that the fires were frigging huge and larger than any that the FDNY had ever had to attempt to deal with, and even leaving aside the impossibility of fighting them at such great heights in the circumstances).

Now, suddenly, the new conspiracy claim is that, oh, yeah, the fires were massive, huge, incredible, BUT only because someone surreptitiously planted tons of thermate in amongst the fireproofing during the upgrades in order to "create a fiery presentation" in the buildings?

Second, Ryan's chart and his *ahem* paper, is grossly deceitful because he ignores 20 of the 31 upgraded floors and pretends that there were only 11, in order to pretend that there is some correlation between the upgraded floors and the impacts and fires.

Third, Ryan's *ahem* paper indicates that in WTC2, there was no correlation between the fireproofing upgrade floors and the fire floors, but does indicate a correlation between the impact floors and the area where the collapse initiated. And yet he has the audacity to claim that the upgraded fireproofing floors are "almost exactly" the point of impact and failure?

The entire *cough* paper is beyond stupid, even for Kevin Ryan, from whom nobody really expects much more than that.


Edited to add quotes to a spot I missed.

[nebula]

28. Is shrill name-calling and slander

all one can ever hope for from the OCT? Apparently, yes.

[Laurier]

50. Please identify this "shrill name calling and slander" that you allude to.

Good luck. You're going to need it.

[Laurier]

59. Still awaiting your evidence of "shrill name calling and slander", nebula.

Any time you're ready, fire at will.