I've been reading "102 Minutes" ..

[hack89]

by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn - great read on what happened inside the WTCs before they collapsed. The courage and grace under pressure of some of the survivors is amazing.

One thing caught my eye - on page 66 it talks about the fireproofing for the steel structure. Despite a never used before fireproofing material (a spray on mixture of mineral fibers and adhesive) it appears that NO TEST were ever done to see if the stuff as applied in the WTC actually worked! In 1999 the NY Port Authority ordered that the fireproofing be tripled in thickness from one half inch to one and a half inch but work proceeded slowly because it could only be done as clients moved out of their spaces as the ceiling and floors needed to be ripped up.

Also interesting is that the fire code that the WTC was built to only required that the steel columns resist fire for 3 hours while the floors had to resist fire for two hours!

[musette_sf]

1. Same information is also presented as fact

in the book "City In The Sky". A very good book from the sociological and historical standpoint. But I suspect these two books perpetrate some misinformation re: fireproofing and the ability of the buildings to resist fire.

Both books are published by Times Books. NYT has huge investment in the "official" story.

I would enjoy both of these books for their sociological and historical import, but I would not get my facts on the buildings' fire-worthiness from either. Also consider that many sources say that the fires were not that great nor that enduring nor that hot.

Welcome to DU!!!:hi:

[hack89]

2. There was plenty of heat to weaken the steel..

Read this excellent report by the Canadian research council on the role of fire resistance in the WTC http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/nrcc42466/nrcc42466.pdf

According to this web site for forensic fire investigators http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html#1.3

steel loses 50% of its structural strength and sags at 550°C (1022°F) while smoldering combustion in a regular house fire can reach 600°C (1112°F)

This Canadian site http://www.cwc.ca/design/fire/ says
"Steel, for instance, quickly loses its strength when heated and its yield point decreases significantly as it absorbs heat, endangering the stability of the structure (Graph 1). An unprotected, conventional steel joist system will fail in less than 10 minutes under standard laboratory fire exposure test methods"

[musette_sf]

3. following your comments in thread on explosives

in this forum... it looks to me like you want to defend the "official" story for some reason. Don't have time right now to refute your theories in this thread, but suffice it to say that the following thread has an excellent debate on this topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x34357

Times Books also has a vested interest in protecting the "official" story. It frankly was kind of creepy to see the virtually identical descriptions of the alleged building/fireproofing "defects" in "City In The Sky" and "102 Minutes". One would think that Times Books wants to make sure that the same (mis?)information is disseminated, over and over again.

On edit: I searched your posts. They are virtually all in the September 11 forum, and they are virtually all defenses of the "official" story. So at this point, I don't wish to engage with you on this any further. I thought you wanted to discuss "102 Minutes", which I am interested in reading, but I see that your apparent agenda is to attempt to debunk any theory save the "official story".

Fortunately, my memory of the (mis?)information in "City In The Sky" spurred me to (1) check out if there were any connecting threads between the two books, and (2) check out if your posts tended to be all of a piece. Answer to both checks was affirmative.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[musette_sf]

5. Okay. So you really didn't want to discuss "102 Minutes". (nt)

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gbwarming]

9. If you think they're disrutpors use the alert button please. nt

[hack89]

10. Are you saying...

that just disagreeing with any aspect of any CT is disruptive? There are some of us that believe that unquestioning belief in the (shall we say) "more creative" theories concerning 9/11 can be used by the far right to discredit all questions concerning 9/11. In my posts in this thread I was simply questioning the wide spread belief that the heat generated by the WTC fires was not hot enough to weaken the steel supports and eventually lead to the collapse of the towers. For presenting hard fact I am a "disrupter"? Why doesn't someone present some alternate facts instead of personally attacking me? This is a discussion board is it not?

[musette_sf]

11. I presented hard facts

that you post virtually all your DU posts to the September 11 forum, and virtually all your posts support your unquestioning belief in the "official" story.

The very fact that you label any theory that diverges from the "official" story as "CT" is, in the opinion of some, a personal attack.

I also presented hard facts that two books on 9/11/01, from the same publisher, Times Books, presented virtually identical accounts of the fireproofing or lack of same, as additional support to the "official" story.

I then directed you to another thread (incidentially, where you keep presenting your defense of the "official" story) in which many posts contained research and links to information which is in conflict with the "official" story.

When you stop using "CT" to describe information or opinion that does not support the "official" story, I might buy your story about wanting to discuss this. But as it stands right now, it could appear to some that you are not here to discuss, to question, or to learn.

Or we could just start calling people who have an unquestioning belief in the "official" story, "BLT" - Big Lie Theorist.

[hack89]

12. Well, granted I don't meet the high standard you set

when it comes to dealing with divergent points of view, but if my facts (in this and other posts) are wrong then why don't you present opposing facts instead of personally attacking me? Why, for example, can't we turn this thread into a discussion on the effect of fires on steel and the possible implications for the collapse of the WTC?

[musette_sf]

13. So are you willing to drop the "CT" insults

and have a discussion, instead of calling anyone who disagrees with the "official" story a "CT"?

[WoodrowFan]

7. I've heard a lot of good things about that book

and it sounds like it would go well with the film "9/11: A Documentary" by Jules and Gedeon Naudet.

http://www.frenchculture.org/tv/programs/naudet911.html