this is from the nist report, and altough it claims the high temperatures were indeed present troughout the towers they present evidence that contradict their statements: "observation of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. of more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250-C: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 98, floor truss connector. only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such analysis, and thier temperatures did not reach 250-C. using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the sample had reached temperatures above 600-C "[page 90/140]
Can you quote their statement that claims "high temperatures were indeed present t[h]roughout the towers?" On what page?
i stand corrected: i meant to say that the report contains evidence contradicting thier claims. one of the reports describing the fires deceptively implies that 1000-C where sustained and that they were in the towers core.
I've been a pilot for 15 years. The fact that the NTSB recording shows Flight 77 at a 4600 ft/minute rate of descent along with the Pentagon video showing a plane flying into the building at a more or less level flight seem to contradict each other. Curious? Also, Can anyone please explain why the one of the most guarded facilities in America, the Pentagon, doesn't have good video of their front lawn?
What is the page on which it is claimed that there were sustained 1000 C temperatures in the core? The only 1000 C temperatures I find mentioned in the report are temperatures that were reached in the simulations of the fires. Such temperatures are reached in the upper layer of air in the floor spaces, and only during in the first 15-20 minutes of the simulated fires. The fire simulations for WTC 1 are discussed on pages 127-130 of the final NIST report. The graphs displayed there indicate clearly that the regions of highest temperatures were not in the core, but instead were in the floor spaces, and they also show that the fire evolved mostly by moving through the floor spaces. I'll quote a paragraph regarding the conclusions drawn about the simulation results with regard to temperature: This doesn't seem deceptive to me in and of itself.
first report [p28/78] "aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of the upper layer were at about 500-C and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperatures reached 1000-C. the aircraft fragments had broken trough the core walls on the 94th trough the 97th floors and temperatures in the upper layers were similar to those in the tenant spaces". this contradicts its own study as u can see below the core temperatures never got past 300-C: and of course also the analysis of the floor section : "a floor section was modeled to investigate failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. the floor section was heated to 700-C [with a linear thermal gradient trough the slab thickness from 700-C to 300-C at the top of the surface of the slab] over a period of 30min".[...][p98/148] why conduct an experiment to prove failure and consequent collapse using temperatures that where not found to be reached. "nits determined that there was no evidence that any of the sample had reached temperatures above 600-C". [p90/140] it sure gives the impression temperature were at a constant 1000-C on the upper layers, distinguishing from lower temps in the other upper layers near the fire...that's why i said deceptively implied.
"the jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growrth. only 60% of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstation was consumed. the near ceiling temperatures varied between 800-C and 1100-C".[p125-6/175-6]
Of all the websites purporting conspiracy this one comes the closest in terms of using scientific analysis to counter government's data. Pretty interesting. Watch the flight 77 video on top