[asedra] Ed Asner on 9/11 - Building 7

[K. A. Pital]

Even that theory falls down flat, of course, Dubya would have had a perfectly adequate smoking gun if the hijackers had been stopped before they could kill anyone.

A prevented terrorist act would not be nearly enough to instigate two wars - one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq - within a timespan of just a few years. The 1993 averted WTC terror act didn't cause America to go on an imperialist rampage. The 2001 act did.

Actually, I've always thought it possible that this was what Bush was trying to do, only he wanted to wait until the very last minute for added dramatic effect and left the security services with too little margin for error. A taste for cheap theatrics and a cavalier attitude to human life do seem to be common Republican traits, but then on the other hand I don't think Dubya or his cabinet were capable of being that subtle.

I don't think Bush could have manufactured that, but to say that he had a lack of smart people in his security apparatus and, most commonly, given the nature of rogue operations intelligence agencies are able to pull off, it does not necessarily have to include George W. Bush personally.

And this is another reason why 9/11 conspiracies are so stupid - they are hellbent on presenting Bush as an evil mastermind completely aware of the whole thing. Which is... not really fitting. Bush is not a mastermind. He is an imperialist lunatic, like many in his administration, but his intellectual capacities deserve much to be desired.

[Zaune]

A prevented terrorist act would not be nearly enough to instigate two wars - one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq - within a timespan of just a few years. The 1993 averted WTC terror act didn't cause America to go on an imperialist rampage. The 2001 act did.

That would depend on how narrowly it was averted, I suppose; it probably would have been enough to justify Afghanistan, and the rationale for Iraq wasn't fooling anyone anyway.

[Terralthra]

I believe when LogiComix says a plane "evaporated," he's referring to flight 93. And there's definitely no documented wreckage of that flight. The plane just vanished!

[Flagg]

A prevented terrorist act would not be nearly enough to instigate two wars - one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq - within a timespan of just a few years. The 1993 averted WTC terror act didn't cause America to go on an imperialist rampage. The 2001 act did.

That would depend on how narrowly it was averted, I suppose; it probably would have been enough to justify Afghanistan, and the rationale for Iraq wasn't fooling anyone anyway.

The USS Cole was enough to justify Afghanistan, but Clinton didn't want to saddle Bush with a war before his term started, and Bush didn't care about Al Qaeda. Hell, even after 9/11 Bush barely gave a fuck about Afghanistan, pulling the focus away less than 2 years into the war to attack Iraq.

[K. A. Pital]

That would depend on how narrowly it was averted, I suppose; it probably would have been enough to justify Afghanistan, and the rationale for Iraq wasn't fooling anyone anyway.

As I see it (and from e.g. Plame's recollections), the atmosphere of fear foistered by the terrorist acts actually helped to make fearmongering about Iraq accepted absolutely uncritically.

I believe when LogiComix says a plane "evaporated," he's referring to flight 93

I believe so too and I told him to stop with the bullfuckery.

[weemadando]

A prevented terrorist act would not be nearly enough to instigate two wars - one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq - within a timespan of just a few years. The 1993 averted WTC terror act didn't cause America to go on an imperialist rampage. The 2001 act did.

That would depend on how narrowly it was averted, I suppose; it probably would have been enough to justify Afghanistan, and the rationale for Iraq wasn't fooling anyone anyway.

The USS Cole was enough to justify Afghanistan, but Clinton didn't want to saddle Bush with a war before his term started, and Bush didn't care about Al Qaeda. Hell, even after 9/11 Bush barely gave a fuck about Afghanistan, pulling the focus away less than 2 years into the war to attack Iraq.

Don't you mean less than six months in, when they [allegedly] hamstrung Operation Anaconda by starting to divert key resources to their pet project?

[Sea Skimmer]

Ah!

But not if you use magical mystery paint on super duper thermite, available in the same store where Jack bought his beans...

Super thermite is real FYI, but it'd blow out windows all the same since making it like that explicitly involves turning it into a high explosive.

[Sky Captain]

Are thermite even used in regular building demolition purposes? If not then there would be little experience with it and no reason for potential conspirators to use an untested method (that would add another potential point of failure) to bring down the WTC.

[Aufbruch]

Are thermite even used in regular building demolition purposes? If not then there would be little experience with it and no reason for potential conspirators to use an untested method (that would add another potential point of failure) to bring down the WTC.

No. Never. It's some heavy duty shit, make no mistake, but there's really no reason to use it instead of meticulously placed "conventional" explosives.

Anyway, tooting the same horn twice somewhat, here, but the whole thermite thing is disemboweled, bled, and left in the sun to die here: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

They've _never_ attempted a rebuttal to this page. Ever. They do what they always do when they realize they can't win: Accuse the evidence (and more often than not, the messenger) of being a government disinformation/illuminati stooge/cover up job, and do their best to ignore the fact that they were ever presented with such information.

I'm playing link-whore a bit more than I like to, but I thought I'd add this , too:


Recent BBC thing where they took a bunch of young 9/11 truther die hards on a road trip to see the real sights and meet the real people and the real experts. They managed to change Charlie Veitch's mind, of all people. Only 2 of the group remained stubborn about it.

[Executor32]

Now Charlie's a government shill, though, according to libertarians conspiracy theorists idiots.

Here's a nice comment that about sums up the entire comments section of that article:

Charlie Veitch is a disinfo agent. NO ONE seriously studying the evidence will defend the official conspiracy theory hat 19 young Muslims directed by a man with dialysis in a cave on one day fooled every US intell agency and NORAD.

He needs to answer many questions based on his “study”, e.g., how did jet fuel account for molten metal at the base of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 three months after 911?

Charlie Veitch needs to be rejected for the whore that he has proven himself to be.

[Aufbruch]

Now Charlie's a government shill, though, according to libertarians conspiracy theorists idiots.

Here's a nice comment that about sums up the entire comments section of that article:

Charlie Veitch is a disinfo agent. NO ONE seriously studying the evidence will defend the official conspiracy theory hat 19 young Muslims directed by a man with dialysis in a cave on one day fooled every US intell agency and NORAD.

He needs to answer many questions based on his “study”, e.g., how did jet fuel account for molten metal at the base of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 three months after 911?

Charlie Veitch needs to be rejected for the whore that he has proven himself to be.

He's been replaced with a Reptilian Android Sith Clone!

Honestly, how predictable the Twoofers are makes the job of debunkers so boring nowadays--you'd think we could at least arrive at some kind of professional relationship, akin to Ralph E. Wolf and Sam Sheepdog from Looney Tunes--but no, it's Hambone.

Same old sermons, same "ignore the fact that you just lost the debate and switch topics ASAP, continue to do so until opponent falls asleep" tactics...

[Surlethe]

how did jet fuel account for molten metal at the base of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 three months after 911?

I always love this question. "How could there be excess heat after two giant buildings fell down?"

[weemadando]

how did jet fuel account for molten metal at the base of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 three months after 911?

I always love this question. "How could there be excess heat after two giant buildings fell down?"

Shit, no one tell these guys that we used to melt down all sorts of scrap and old (OLD) computers etc to recover valuable metals.

And we used to do with with a 44 gallon drum we'd cut in half and firewood.

Imagine what I could accomplish with jet fuel.

[Isolder74]

how did jet fuel account for molten metal at the base of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 three months after 911?

I always love this question. "How could there be excess heat after two giant buildings fell down?"

Shit, no one tell these guys that we used to melt down all sorts of scrap and old (OLD) computers etc to recover valuable metals.

And we used to do with with a 44 gallon drum we'd cut in half and firewood.

Imagine what I could accomplish with jet fuel.

The thing about any structure is that they are only as strong as the weakest link. This is why a truss span is one of the worst things to have in a fire. It's made of nothing but weakest links locked together. The entire idea of the design is to meet with a specific load value while using a little material as possible.



If you look at the truss itself you can see that it's main structure is a series of interconnecting triangles. Those triangles only work as long as every piece of the web remains connected and intact. If anything happens to any part of that web the stresses on the rest with considerably weaken the span's carrying strength. Something else to note is that they are also allowing the use of a much smaller main beam to support the majority of the load. The interconnecting web also means that every part of the span is smaller then a solid beam holding the same weight and will weaken and deform faster then that solid beam ever would.

Then there is getting into the way the truss is connected to the ends of the walls. That point of failure is 4 small bolts only connected to the top beam. The rest of the truss is unconnected to the side of the floor.

The static structure is ridged for sure, but it's entire integrity is based none of the pieces EVER getting out of place. Whenever metal is heated it expands as is true of any solid. How fast this happens is dependent on how quickly the material can heat up. The smaller a piece of metal is the more quickly it will take on heat and rise in temperature. In a fire there are multiple problems for this. First you will never get an even heating of the system. Some places will be hotter then others, cool, get hotter again as the fire shifts and moves about while it burns. This means areas will expand, contract, and expand again in unpredictable ways. Second, those thinner sections are going to deform and expand at different rates distorting the structure in ways hard to predict adding extra stresses to the span. Third, any major increase in the span from fire induced expansion will add massive force to the one spot on the truss span that is never intended to take any kind of horizontal loads, the connecting bolts on the ends. Once those shear in any way the span is doomed and WILL FALL.

This is why the fire in the McCormick Center was so telling and should have been a wake up call for EVERY structural engineer in the world. If such a mundane and simple fire can cause a roof like that to fail so quickly then there is a need to look into other methods of spanning such open spaces. The first chilling detail of that fire and the roof is how the span, because it wasn't expected to need it WASN"T fire proofed, there were no fire suppression system install in the space as it was assumed that any fire in such a large open space would be easy to fight and so they wouldn't be needed. It was also intended to be an open area without any type of permanent occupation, convention centers will spend much of their life empty, stuff being moved in, or stuff being moved out.

Sadly, in the case of the truss span it was assumed that the lack of fire suppression was the problem rather then any deficiency in the truss design itself. Once again the WTC shows that if those things are compromised then nothing will save a steel truss span from failing in a fire. Even a span of solid beams will not last forever under the conditions of 9/11. Such a span would only have lasted longer just giving a benefit of more time to get anyone in the building out. I can see no engineering principle or design that would have kept the towers with their open floor plan from not collapsing from the combination of horrible events that the WTC was subject to that terrible day. The fact that they held after the massive damage from the impact of the planes speaks volumes in and of itself. The then held for much longer then the undamaged roof of the McCormick Center did with massively increased stresses that building wasn't subject to.

This video I find interesting(the rest of the videos in the series are good too) and I want to focus on just the building he shows failing in the clip. Go to 1:30 if you just want to look at that part.



Also to claim that the demonstration in this video does not apply isn't going to work because in the demonstration they are testing what would happen to the strongest part of the truss system would behave. Sadly, even if they'd placed a scale, or full size, section of the WTC truss floor they'd would still have rejected this test.



Controlled Demolition of the WTC is dead. Deal with it.

[asedra]

'Not only was WTC 7 damaged by debris, and on fire for hours, it also had a 5,000 gallon diesel fuel tank on fire inside it.'

Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines -or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors- could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which was not observed. And the structural damage sustained from the debris of WTC 1s collapse had little effect in compromising the integrity of WTC 7. The debris caused some damage to the southwest region of the building -severing seven exterior columns- but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires ignited by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the buildings collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. Furthermore, the debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. This is all from NISTs final report, NCSTAR 1A.

and, like the main towers, it had an unusual structural design, in its case the basement of the building had to span a very large existing transformer substation, which reduced the ability of its structure to handle damage. In fact its collapse can be shown to be related to the area of this substation and the location of the main damage.

There is no evidence that the electric substation contributed to the collapse or fires in WTC 7. The electrical substation continued working until 4:33 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. Alarms at the substation were monitored, and there were no signals except for one event early in the day. No smoke was ever observed emanating from the substation. Special elements of the building's construction—namely trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs, which were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—also did not play a significant role in the collapse.

Another fundamental wrong basis of the idiot controlled claims is of course, a building wont fall in its own footprint without controlled demolition, which is absurdly untrue and proven by hundreds of building collapses from totally uncontrolled wartime damage, but facts have nothing to do with this.

Buildings do not collapse through the path of greatest resistance. And unless all of its supporting columns experienced sudden and global failure, this uniform collapse at free fall speed is a complete phenomena. NISTs working hypothesis for how WTC 7 tower collapsed was an arcane domino effect, initiated by the displacement of a not particularly important column, a displacement which was driven by thermal expansion of adjacent floor beams. We need to understand is just how far columns 79 would have to be pushed for it to walk off its seat. NIST reported that column at girder 79 was 11 inchs wide (the seat, that is) and therefore, the girder would have to be pushed at least half of that distance, or 5.5 inchs, to walk off its seat. 5.5 inchs was needed to move the vertical web of the girder, and therefore, the center of mass of the girder, off the seat. Thermal expansion is a function of temperature, therefore, we need to know what temperature NIST said the beams reached, then we can estimate how much it expanded. This was a tricky question for NIST, because at temperatures of 600 degrees celsius, steel will loose strength and stiffness and therefore won't be able to expand into the girder. At the same time, if the temperatures weren't high enough, there wouldn't be enough expansion of the floor beams. This is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. What NIST eventually settled on was that the beam temperatures reached 400 degrees celsius on the northeast corridor of floor 12. NIST computer modelling had all the steel heating to extreme temperatures and all the bolts and other connections breaking within a matter of 2 seconds. This is an example of how NIST computer modelling was not realistic. Once the temperature distribution needed for its theory was settled, NIST found a way to suggest that differential thermal expansion was possible (at least in the computer): They simply didn't heat the floor slab in their model! This is what most scientists would call fraud. But NISTs theory has more problems than that. Given their temperature scenario, the amount of expansion by the beam would not even satisfy the amount of expansion that NIST said was required. They provided an example of the equation scientists use to calculate thermal expansion. When the correct values were put into the equation, the maximum expansion would be only 3.3 inchs. And as we already know from NIST, 3.3 inchs would not be enough to cause the girder to walk off its seat: 5.5 inchs is the minimum distance needed for NISTs very improbable scenario to even begin.
There is an unrealistically large chain of improbable events that would have to happen to dislodge column 79 from its position, and yet another unrealistically large chain of improbable events that would have to happen for its failure to culminate in tower 7s destruction. The official story is refuted even by their own biased research and investigation. I think its high time you use that vaunted occams razor of yours to slit your wrists with.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I'm sorry, but in all your talk of temperatures needing to dislodge girders a certain amount of inches, no where do you mention the weight of the loads that the girders were supporting at the time of their collapse. Somehow I doubt Truther calculations take that into account.

Skeptical Inquirer had a recent issue devoted mainly to 9/11 conspiracy theories, including a great article which covers some of the claims touched on in the thread. While the entire issue is not available online, said article is.

Also, learn how to use the quote function properly.


EDIT: Checked and added link to SI article.

[asedra]

'Skeptical Inquirer had a recent issue devoted mainly to 9/11 conspiracy theories, including a great article which covers some of the claims touched on in the thread. While the entire issue is not available online, said article is.'

Is that all you can do? Shift the burden of proving the official story to somewhere else? That defeats the purpose of having this thread. Bring forward the particular evidence which disputes the claims I've made, otherwise, don't bother.

Also, learn how to use the quote function properly.'

Thanks, but I don't take advice from parasites.

[Lord Zentei]

Many of the points are covered in the article you just dismissed and others are covered elsewhere in this thread.

And you still haven't figured out how to use the quote tags. Here's how to do it: you need to put [/quote] at the end of the section you're quoting.

[asedra]

Many of the points are covered in the article you just dismissed and others are covered elsewhere in this thread.

And you still haven't figured out how to use the quote tags. Here's how to do it: you need to put at the end of the section you're quoting.

Hmmph. Very well. I will read the worthless article.

[PeZook]

I will allow the necro. I don't feel it's warranted to split this off into an entire different thread. Nonetheless, Asedra, learn to use the quote function properly,and don't make a habit of necroing threads. Since that annoys me.

DP, I also want you to provide excerpts relevant to Asedra's arguments not just post a link and expect your opponent to read everything.

[madd0ct0r]

oooh ooh oohh playtime!

let's actually do those calculations asedra is waffling about. Sadly, the Eurocodes in my current possession don't include the fire engineering one, so we'll have to do this from first principles:
also - why is asedra talking in inches and degrees Celsius?

thermal expansion coeffcient of steel : 11-13 x10^-6 per degree change, call it 12 for the sake of argument.

assume beam starts at 20 degreees C.
Need to get to 140mm (not entirely sure why Asedra decided it'd fail at halfway exactly, but we'll come back to that)
what temperature was quoted? 400? 600?
I'll assume 400 averaged out along the beams length for now:

so, for a steel beam to expand 140mm over the range from 20 to 400 degrees C it must be 30.7m long. How close am I ?
30701.75 = 140 / ( 12x10-6 * (400 -20) )

Now, assuming the bearing is square (they usually are) shall we look at how the bearing area reduces as the temperature increases? (here's a hint, it's linear).
Shall we also look at how the center of bearing moves away from the center line of the col?
Shall we consider the extra bending moment this will generate inside the column? (in the middle if it's pinned at both ends like a good little steel beam)
Shall we consider the extra deflection that will occur due to this extra bending moment?
Shall we consider the SECONDARY extra bending moment created by this deflection?
You know, this extra bending moment exress itself in even more deflection... Shall we continue?

Give me a load and the column specifications and I can calc that for you. Secondary moments (we don't normally go further then that) are a bitch.


As for the differential heating thing... are you stupid? Do you really expect a steel girder under the slab and the slab itself to heat up at the same rate?
Concrete doesn't conduct heat well, and at high temperatures is starts to go back through the endothermic reaction we use to make it, releasing water vapour in the process. That's why we coat exposed steel beams with 20mm of it to get another 2 hours fire resistance.
I mean, for fucks sake, we have to take sunshine heating into account on bridge decks because the topside heats up so much faster then the underside there's a risk of topside expansion cracking the underside. And that's the slow warming up you get from sun, not a goddam fire.

[asedra]

so, for a steel beam to expand 140mm over the range from 20 to 400 degrees C it must be 30.7m long. How close am I ?

Actually, it was nearly half the figure you quoted, 53 feet long, not 100.6 feet. Oops. NIST themselves said the beams would experience a maximum linear expansion of… (0.000014 /  C ) x (400  C – 25  C ) x (636 in) = 3.3 inches ...not the 5.5 inches that was clarified for the girder to walk-off its seat. They gave the equation but left it blank. Guess now we know why.

As for the differential heating thing... are you stupid? Do you really expect a steel girder under the slab and the slab itself to heat up at the same rate?

Steel and concrete expand at almost exactly the same ratio when heated (the linear co-efficient of steel is 11-13, whereas for concrete its 12), which is why they work so well together during building fires, one acts as a heat sink for the other, thus no differential heating or expansion. That should have been obvious. Thermal conductivity is less important than expansion in this particular example.

Also, do you have anything to say in defense of the erroneous statements made by Sea Skimmer on free fall collapse, falling debris, diesel fuel, and the con ed substation?

P.S: I use celcius because I'm not an american... Inchs because I'm sticking with the exact figures NIST uses, plus I'm more familiar with inchs (wink wink).

[Sea Skimmer]

Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7.

Sure but they do contribute to the building being not completely dead typical like truther raving idiots insist. That was the point. Truthers lie like crazy before they even begin suggesting alternative theories. That's usually how the conspiracies theories nonsense goes, try to cast doubt on stuff and then hope everyone will swallow down the first load of bullshit they see instead.

And the structural damage sustained from the debris of WTC 1s collapse had little effect in compromising the integrity of WTC 7. The debris caused some damage to the southwest region of the building -severing seven exterior columns- but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires ignited by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the buildings collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. Furthermore, the debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. This is all from NISTs final report, NCSTAR 1A.

Actually, they simply don't know how much damage the building really took because we don't have photos nor reliable eyewitness accounts of all areas likely to have been impacted.

There is no evidence that the electric substation contributed to the collapse or fires in WTC 7.

No but once more, not a normal building, and it could easily have contributed to easing its ability to fall down on top of its self once the collapse began.

Buildings do not collapse through the path of greatest resistance. And unless all of its supporting columns experienced sudden and global failure, this uniform collapse at free fall speed is a complete phenomena.

You might recall a rather large area of the building was on fire, and when vertical girders buckle over a considerable height a pancaking effect is exactly what you'd expect. What force would exist to knock the building on its side? Gravity pulls down, and down only, and the collapse should only accelerate as the collapsing load increases in mass and gains energy. That is the path of least resistance, any other direction requires a massive force to deflect the force of gravity. The building would only fall over on its side if the failure occurred across a angled cross section of the building that would act as a pivot point that was meanwhile strong enough not to crush. That might be able to happen in some fire cases, it didn't happen here. As for complete phenomena... yeah I think you can say that about the entire day. No many other cases of millions of tons buildings falling down after being hit by 125 ton missiles to look at you know.

NISTs working hypothesis for how WTC 7 tower collapsed was an arcane domino effect, initiated by the displacement of a not particularly important column, a displacement which was driven by thermal expansion of adjacent floor beams.

Most steel buildings are designed so no one column is that important, but they also don't design them to burn with zero fire fighting for unlimited periods. In fact one of the major points the NIST report made was that the building's fire resistance was never evaluated as a complete unit. Each piece was evaluated independently so the whole thing may have been flawed from the get go. It also may simply have been built wrong, which is entirely possible given say, the example of the the I-35W bridge collapse, caused by key structural plates being half the required thickness. Is this likely, no, is it more likely then any conspiracies theories, fuck yes.

We need to understand is just how far columns 79 would have to be pushed for it to walk off its seat. NIST reported that column at girder 79 was 11 inchs wide (the seat, that is) and therefore, the girder would have to be pushed at least half of that distance, or 5.5 inchs, to walk off its seat. 5.5 inchs was needed to move the vertical web of the girder, and therefore, the center of mass of the girder, off the seat. Thermal expansion is a function of temperature, therefore, we need to know what temperature NIST said the beams reached, then we can estimate how much it expanded. This was a tricky question for NIST, because at temperatures of 600 degrees celsius, steel will loose strength and stiffness and therefore won't be able to expand into the girder.

Yeah, and it wouldn't need to expand into the girder at that point, at 600 degrees celsius steel will loose most of its strength precisely because its getting soft, and at that point the floors are going to fail anyway as the beams sag.

There is an unrealistically large chain of improbable events that would have to happen to dislodge column 79 from its position, and yet another unrealistically large chain of improbable events that would have to happen for its failure to culminate in tower 7s destruction. The official story is refuted even by their own biased research and investigation. I think its high time you use that vaunted occams razor of yours to slit your wrists with.

You want to reject the report completely, I really don't give a fuck, but lets go with that. Then what happened? I saw those events on live TV myself, a million plus people saw the fucking attacks face to face. That is factual history. The exact details of one buildings collapse don't need to be proven to make this a fact either. Claiming anything else happened, well you'd better offer up a different theory and some evidence to back it up. Truthers always think that if you can somehow cast doubt on a specific explanation it makes any other random far more exotic explanations with zero evidence what so ever more credible. Life doesn't work like that.

[madd0ct0r]

As for the differential heating thing... are you stupid? Do you really expect a steel girder under the slab and the slab itself to heat up at the same rate?

Steel and concrete expand at almost exactly the same ratio when heated (the linear co-efficient of steel is 11-13, whereas for concrete its 12), which is why they work so well together during building fires, one acts as a heat sink for the other, thus no differential heating or expansion. That should have been obvious. Thermal conductivity is less important than expansion in this particular example.

Also, do you have anything to say in defense of the erroneous statements made by Sea Skimmer on free fall collapse, falling debris, diesel fuel, and the con ed substation?

P.S: I use celcius because I'm not an american... Inchs because I'm sticking with the exact figures NIST uses, plus I'm more familiar with inchs (wink wink).

bolding mine. how can i put this? you're wrong.
I am aware of the fact that steel and concrete have the same linear coefficient.
This means they will expand at the same rate FOR THE SAME CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE.
It should have been obvious to anybody with the remotest experience with fire that exposed metal things heat up faster then exposed concrete things. As I said before, and can be easily verified, we coat steel beams in concrete for fire protection because they then heat up slower.
Also, assuming you actually have looked at a cross section of a slab on beam floor, it should be pretty obvious there is a lot more concrete then steel. Even if the two of them conducted heat at the same rate (which they really don't) they wouldn't heat up at the same speed due to one being a lot bigger. like pots on a stove.

Seaskimmers points he's capable of defending himself. I'm interested in stuff we can put numbers to.
So, where did the celcius number come from if you're sticking to exact claims in the report?

[Justforfun000]

I just find it so frustrating as someone who in the past was misled by very similar types of doubters on other issues...not this one in particular. My bullshit detector got much more fine tuned...

I see so many POTENTIALLY well informed, very intelligent, inquiring people that are probably genuine in their challenging of said events events albeit not qualified or educated that much more to sift through the bullshit. It's very maddening because it makes that old saying about half-truths being far more dangerous then outright lies so much more accurate.

I'm not going to wade into the actual argument of this but I've read enough of the debunking of the truthers to be more then satisfied that it's become a cult conspiracy and I can't understand what they hope to gain by it. The followers I don't really fault so much, but the top people putting together videos like Loose Change and such should be damn ASHAMED. They can't plead ignorance or low intelligence. They were able to create an extremely compelling alternate viewpoint of doubt that while may be completely transparent to experts in the field and others with excellent resources and critical thinking skills, convinced multitudes of people that this was some kind of "inside job" and the facts are all off.

The challenge these days isn't being allowed to speak your mind..it's being able to sift through the entire mess and know what's valid and whats bullfuckery.