linking to a 2 hour video and making no specific point? Come on. I have addressed the points I happened to see in that video, their central premise is wrong, there IS PROOF the steel was weakening due to the fires.
The very thing that Griffin points to as a feature of a fire caused collapse we can see in photos of the World Trade Center. Griffin writes, “in fire-induced collapses—if we had any examples of such—the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes.” But contrary to what Griffin claims, there were indeed signs of bending or sagging. Witnesses reported it and photos document it. Griffin is simply wrong.
WE CAN SEE THE EFFECTS IF THE FIRE as they took their toll on the structures! WE CAN SEE the load bearing columns getting progressively worse as time went on. That is what I tried to explain in the very first video I uploaded to YouTube which should have put an end to your ignorant BS several years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGAoRrBoPRM&list=PLfrlsC1yJ2dSIYYEW5LRZx-m25GW9xAps
The very same area that we can see in a photo here: https://sites.google.com/site/representativepress/east-face-of-wtc2-9-21-am
then you can see that the bowing has progressed in a photo here: https://sites.google.com/site/representativepress/east-face-of-wtc2-9-53-am
Then you can see that very same bowed in area where it reaches the point of total failure in this video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQmaGCxHxj8
We can see the early stages of the bowing in the two pictures linked above and then we can see how that bowed in area reaches the point of total failure in the video linked above.
Right from the start this evidence was being suppressed, as I said in the very first video I uploaded to Youtube, “truthers” were banning me from “truther” forums: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGAoRrBoPRM&list=PLfrlsC1yJ2dSIYYEW5LRZx-m25GW9xAps
Why not take the time to respond to me about specific points? I have been trying to point out that the very two assumptions of the truthers are wrong. (make sure you look at Sherman’s Neckties, link below)
The first two assumptions of the 9/11 conspiracy are false.
1. Contrary to what they assumed, fires CAN weaken steel. Eric Hufschmid thought he was being clever when he looked up the MELTING point of steel not realizing that the steel didn’t have to melt for it to weaken.
2. Contrary to what they assumed, there were signs of bowing and sagging in the towers well before the collapse of the towers.
Fires HAVE caused steel framed buildings to collapse. The Kader toy factory fire is an example. The thing you need to understand is that people like Eric Hufschmid are just ignorant and that they didn’t know what they were talking about when the declared “fires can’t do that.” And as I showed you, firemen know what fires can do to steel framed buildings as the Firehouse Magazine from Sept. 1998 explained. Hufschmid was just spreading ignorance as the historic example of Sherman’s Neckties shows http://youtu.be/Drsgs6-3Qlg
Fires pose a collapse threat to steel framed buildings, that means that when there is a fire there is a potential collapse threat, it doesn’t mean the building will ALWAYS collapse but that if COULD collapse. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors.”
“Floor assemblies deflected as much as three feet in some places” so there was a potential for collapse. Fires pose a risk of collapse, we can see a few floors did collapse inside WTC FIVE for example.http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/10/wtc5.html
And NIST has a FAQ where they explain “These other buildings, including Philadelphia’s One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9).”http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
The thing is the conditions were there in the towers and WTC7 for the weakened structure, due to the fires, to result in collapse. Are you arguing that fires can’t cause a steel structure to be weakened? The Kader toy factory fire resulted in a collapse. The fireman who wrote the Sept. 1998 article in Firehouse Magazine understood that fires CAN pose a “serious collapse threat”: “Class 1 (fire-resistive) buildings typical of high-rise construction usually are designated as having three- or four-hour fire resistance ratings. In the past, that was taken to mean that they would never be a serious collapse threat. While this is usually the case in the completed structures, it is not a guarantee, particularly in the steel-framed high-rise that relies on some type of spray-on or membrane fireproofing to protect the steel. The 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia proved that these can be severe dangers under the wrong set of circumstances.”
And as I have shown, the weakening in the towers resulted in inward bowing of exterior load bearing columns. Eric Hufschmid thought he was being clever when he looked up the MELTING point of steel not realizing that the steel didn’t have to melt for it to weaken. Hufschmid’s ignorance is so wide spread that a site about the melting point of steel had to add this: “Addendum (8/26/2011): I answered this question many years ago and it has been referenced in many different web sites and reports. There has been one misrepresentation that has come from that. Many sites refer to the difference in the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel as proof that the World Trade Center could not have fallen from the aircraft fires. What those authors fail to note is that while steel melts at around 1,370°C (2500°F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel.”http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html
You really don’t understand how convoluted your theory is? Crashing the planes into the towers was the terrorist act. It is so unbelievably retarded to think anyone wouldn’t think that action wasn’t a dramatic terrorist act and made the point. No one would have thought that wasn’t something that had to be addressed, Bush was ALREADY making an issue of the attack when it was “only” planes crashing into the towers (yes BEFORE they collapsed.) What they hell would be the point of “making the towers collapse” which supposedly “wouldn’t collapse?” You really think “secret agents” would think it would make sense to rig the buildings in order to “fake” a fire-induced collapse about an hour later? As if the planes crashing into the towers was enough?!??? The buildings collapsed because the structures failed due to the fires. The big time truthers have stated that fire-induced collapses would have signs, well they did the problem is the “truthers” have suppressed the fact that there were signs of fire induced collapse.