Slashdot Mirror
NIST Releases Report On WTC 7 Collapse
photonic writes "After three years of study, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) finally released its report on the collapse of World Trade Center building 7. The main conclusion is that the building came down due to fire, not due to debris damage or some conspiracy demolition team. The fire started pretty small after the collapse of WTC 1, but was left to burn several floors out completely. The important finding is that the collapse was triggered by thermal expansion of beams, which could detach asymmetrically loaded girders from the main columns. Some limited pancaking of floors then caused a lack of lateral support and buckling of a single column. This triggered the failure of the entire core of the building, which finally fell down as a single piece. Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here. All documents can be found at NIST's WTC page, which read like a porn magazine for finite element junkies. Simulation movies are also available. And yes, they used Beowulf clusters to do the simulations, some of which lasted for several months."
And yes, they used Beowulf clusters to do the simulations, some of which lasted for several months."
No! You stole my +5 funny!!
Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here.
What site is this, and what has it done with Slashdot
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Zombies obviously did it.
MABASPLOOM!
YOU GOT IT! Thats exactly it!!! I couldn't I notice myself... It is so obvious now that you mention it...
Europe has better engineers than America!
And yes, they used Beowulf clusters to do the simulations
Yes, But did they run linux?
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
Its a reasonable conclusion that a tower would collapse it it caught on fire, but how did the impact debris catch the tower on fire?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
1 minute, but thanks for playing!
Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here.
You must be new here.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
And your point is? It's a common misconception that random events don't or can't look very neat and tidy. One of the common mistakes people make when faking random data is to make it look too random. Meaning they don't have enough places in the data which appear to be non-random.
The way that a skyscraper is designed and built favors it falling more or less straight down rather to one side or the other. The reason being that if it were to topple, as remote a possibility as that is, the building shouldn't be allowed to hit other buildings. Nobody wants a set of dominoes that large.
Let's just get this out of the way first. BULLSHIT!
The rest of the world knows something suspicious went on, but America has their head in the sand.
Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center? The sheer ignorance of the American populace astounds me.
Interesting. Then I am curious as to what temperature would be required to melt and/or buckle the structure of your aluminum foil hat?
...he must be new here.
Do they mean to say that a fire can cause a building to collapse? Next they'll be telling us damage to structures following earthquakes isn't manmade.
Let's just get this out of the way first. BULLSHIT!
The rest of the world knows something suspicious went on, but America has their head in the sand. Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center? The sheer ignorance of the American populace astounds me.
How about if we get this out of the way:
A statement that one building somewhere at sometime didn't collapse under certain conditions is no grounds (in fact it's a logical fallacy) for saying a building couldn't collapse under the same conditions... and worse, it's also no grounds to subsequently stereotype an entire group of people and flame them.
Thank you and have a nice day.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
but you can still publish goatse links here.
Their they're doing there hair.
Everyone knows the CIA hired the mob and anti-Communist Cuban militants to bring it down.
As soon as it is Slashdotted, someone will come along with, "hey, they are blocking access to the report - what are they hiding?"
Why are there so many similarities to the way the buildings fell to a controlled demolition? Because there are only so many ways a building basic physics allows a building collapse, controlled or not?
I am sure it was the gay space aliens under comander Elvis what done it. Oh, and superglue took care of MY pot thank you!
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Good political arguments which you ruin by accepting BS on the collapse.
Both are afected by gravity, which exerts a downward force.
Another big reason large buildings tend to fall straight down is that is the direction gravity is pulling them. Anything much bigger than three or four stories is going to come apart very soon after leaving vertical, and the pieces come straight down.
Anarchists never rule
If someone left a crackpot burning, couldn't that have started the fire in the first place?
Ipso diabolico facto nonsensicalico.
These guys have resources. It could be quite damaging to be caught with a smoldering crackpot.
Ergo, they crash a plane into the building to cover it all up.
Sheeple, the answers are RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, just light them up and breathe deeply.
What else do you have to compare it to? How many buildings have you seen destroyed in some way *other* than controlled demolition?
People say it looked like a controlled demolition, but the central buildings did a lot of damage to the surrounding buildings as well. Perhaps the difference between controlled and uncontrolled isn't how it looks at a macro scale, but how much collateral damage is done by the smaller bit of debris coming off it?
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
The principles of demolitions are pretty similar - you destroy the supports of the building causing it to collapse down on top of itself. The WTC towers suffered a similar failure only the primary cause was a combination of damage, stress and weight of material from above that caused the supports to fail, rather than controlled explosions.
Not really. Just better government.
This story should have had banner ads for tinfoil hats instead of InterSystems Cache Post-Relational database.
They would've sold out in minutes!
I'm a big tall mofo.
Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing [...]
I'm pretty sure you're talking about the Windsor building in Madrid.
I've got news for you, buddy: It actually works against you.
First, the Windsor building had a concrete core and two concrete technical floors. A very different design from that of the Twin Towers.
Second, the steel portions of the building exposed to the fire did in fact get all melty and collapsey. The only reason the building is still standing is because of the features I mentioned above.
http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html
http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
No one ever expected a fire to burn out of control for several hours. There was always an anticipation that fire units would be dispatched and undertake steps to control the fire.
Civilian structures are designed based on the expectation that emergency services will be available. They are not constructed as bunkers, for the most part, as the expenses are simply too high to do that. Nevertheless, NIST made a recommendation to evaluate those buildings that use similar construction methods and suggests several possible cost-effective ways of mitigating the risk of collapse under similar circumstances.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
How many skyscrapers have people seen collapse which are NOT controlled demolitions?
In other words, how many data points do you have on "What does a skyscraper collapsing on its own look like"?
In other other words, how do you know that "falling straight down" is an artifact of controlled demolition, and not an artifact of being a skyscraper?
It needn't be as subtle as seeing patterns where there are none, although we know that happens all the time.
In simple terms, things tend to fall down. Surely, if it were easier to get a building to topple over sideways, a team of terrorists isn't going to go through the trouble of averting what would surely be a larger and more spectacular catastrophe.
People whose experience with construction is limited to building models tend to imagine buildings are much lighter relative to the strength of materials in them then they are.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Let's see...hmm...full tanks of aviation grade fuel.
The 767-200ER, the UA plane which went into one of the towers, has a fuel capacity of 23,980. The flight was a few hundred miles from it origin at Logan International Airport in Boston.
Let's assume that the plan had only 15,000 gallons onboard.
The flash point of jet fuel is 100.4 ÂF (38 ÂC). Many surfaces - including the engines of the plane - would be well above this point.
In addition, there were numerous electrical connections which could have sparked causing the fuel to ignite.
Jet fuel has between 127,000 and 135,000 BTUs per gallon.
Therefore, at the point of impact we had between 1,905,000,000 and 2,025,000,000 BTUs of energy being released in a highly concentrated area (3-5 floors).
Even without the energy generated by the burning of other materials, this is sufficient to inflame the entire area and to cause the required heat damage to the tower.
Jordan
Because gravity pulls straight down? Which way would you expect a building of that size to fall?
Here's a question for you: how many buildings have you seen collapse that were not due to a controlled demolition? How many buildings have you seen collapse due to earthquake? Unless you've seen quite a few of these, then you have no basis for comparison between the controlled and non-controlled demolitions. These buildings are designed to collapse a certain way, regardless of the cause of the collapse. Maybe this is to limit the damage to surrounding areas?
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off
Uh huh. And that steel structure has also been peppered with large hunks of high-energy flying debris? You know, like one of the tallest buildings in the world collapsing right next to it? Oh.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Fahrenheit 9/11, of course!
First read as "NIST Releases Report On Windows 7 Collapse."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
If the WTC 7 did come down because of a government conspiracy (and I'm not saying that it did or didn't!) then it would stand to reason that a federal agency like NIST would draw a conclusion of structural failure rather than deliberate demolition. No big surprises here.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
They brought it down with fire. I know because the report said the building was brought down by fire.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Asking Slashdot readers to stick to science, refrain from discussing conspiracies, AND taking the fun out of a beowulf cluster reference?
This submitter is a black belt troll and you all know it!
Granted, scale models don't tell the whole story.
There have also been a number of major earthquakes that knocked down "smallish" buildings, say, them 3-20 stories. These data points can be combined with scale models to predict how larger building will fare under a given kind of stress.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Slashdot has always been about freedom albeit in the open source world, this has always included debates on what people read and think. How can anyone on this web site stand there and demand to limit to science as if the fact that the only steel buildings in existence to ever fall from fire all did so on 9/11 (which includes WTC Building 7). This is a fact that goes against the science given which has always fueled conspiry theorists and with good reason. We live in a society that is given the freedom to discuss and this forum has until today always given it's user's the right to says anything that is on their minds. Is slashdot changing it's stance?
History was not written only once, it was written and rewritten countless times over long periods of time and came to exist as we know it because discussions continue over time and corrections and rewrites and new information that was ignored or suppressed comes out.
But this only happens because people don't just stand there and accept blindly what is told to them especially when it goes against commen sense.
I hope the person who wrote this has the curtosy to remove the comment or correct it.
Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center? The sheer ignorance of the American populace astounds me.
I hear ya, man. When my Ford Pinto went up in flames, nobody in America would believe it was because the gubment put a bomb in my car!!! Stoopid ign'rant country.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Which way would you expect a building of that size to fall?
Toward Osama bin Laden's massive ego.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"All documents can be found at NIST's WTC page, which read like a porn magazine for finite element junkies"
Guess we should try not to get the pages stuck together huh?
This is pretty simple math; the weight increases with the cube of the scaling factor as you scale up a model, yet the strength of the materials used only increases with the square of the scaling factor since it depends on the area of the cross section of the member.
... BUT: if fire caused the building to collapse, why did the owner of the building himself say, on public television, that they brought the building down intentionally???
Larry Silverstein says they intentionally brought down building 7.
Kinda hard to argue with the owner of the building when he publicly says he did it on purpose! (Note: you might want to take some of the rest of the video with a grain of salt... but the Silverstein part is incontrovertible.)
And major network news reported it falling while it was still standing in plain sight behind them.
I'll deny it, and I'm not "a crazy."
It is compeltely obvious to so many people on so many levels that the building was imploded, and until there is an explanation that can address all of the ignored or glossed over issues, people who have truly looked at this without an agenda and who have a problem with these official theories aren't going to feel differently.
I am not saying I know exactly what happened, and I am not chiding anyone who wants to believe this report...If that settles it for you, then great. I don't think it settles it for anybody who has questions who has looked at the situation with a critical eye, and who can think for themselves.
Anybody who knows anything about engineering and controlled demolition can watch the video of that builidng coming down and know that it didn't collapse from a fire; not like that, no way - and that is ignoring all of the testimony from firemen and other who were there who claim it was imploded.
I would believe that the world mass hallucinated before I would give creedence to some of the bullshit "official explanations" about a lot of the 9/11 events.
Hey, dumbass, there's plenty of refutation on the use of the word 'pulled'.
To 'pull' a building is to attach cables to it and pull it down, not to blow it up. No one in the entire history of mankind has used the word 'pull' to mean 'blow up'. They use it to mean to actually pull something, or to withdraw from it. (Aka, 'pull out', in which you metaphorically attach cables to people and physically pull them out of where they are.)
The actual quote is that gets you truther morons in such a twist is 'And I said y'know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.'
Why you'd demolish a building to stop the lost of firefighter lives is hard to explain. A much more logical assumption is that he was talking about removing the firefighters from it, aka, pulling the attempt to get the fire under control.
But logic has never been you guys strong suit.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
At amplifying my Insanity Waves!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I'm guessing that they made a mistake in the confusion of not having very many facts in the wake of something huge happening. Unless you're suggesting that the entire BBC is in on a conspiracy?
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
How you ever seen a botched controlled demolition of a building? One where, say, only part of the charges actually detonated? (Kind of like, say, a tower that was struck on one side?)
Because then the building doesn't follow down all at once. Only one side of it does, and the other side that had been supported by that side starts to lean towards the now-missing supports that had held it up.
That would be how. There are plenty of videos out there of controlled demolitions that didn't quite go to plan. And none of them look like 9/11.
Now I suppose it's possible that the planes could have rolled a "natural 20" and managed to damage the tower just-so to mimic a correct demolition. But lightning doesn't strike twice.
in how the government knew exactly who was responsible, the minute it happened, and flew them the hell out of the country.
Come on, now. It was plain to anyone who'd been studying the situation that Al Queda the culprit. It's not like that was their first time at bat. The question is whether or not you think the Saudi family/ies that were allowed to leave the country were actally Al Queda members or not, or had a hand in it. Do you REALLY think that if the government had hired the suicide attackers that... some other rich people from Saudi Arabia would have been somehow important to the plot, but that the people doing the "hiring" wouldn't have thought to maybe get them out of the way in advance? Please.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
That still doesn't explain why the owner of the building himself said that they blew it up. Or why the BBC reported its fall 20 minutes before it actually fell.
It's in how the government knew exactly who was responsible, the minute it happened, and flew them the hell out of the country. WE KNOW THIS. Why doesn't anyone focus on it??
Total nonsense. The rest of bin Laden family had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.
Also, the hijackers weren't using assumed names, they appeared on the flight manifests, and they were known. It doesn't take very long to add 2 and 2...
Also, bin Laden's relatives were allowed to leave the country after the national ground stop was lifted and not without being questioned. http://911myths.com/html/family_flights.html
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
The claims about it being controlled demolition misses some points that are important. No controlled demolition has ever been done for a building even the size of WTC7, let alone the main towers. The tallest ever was done by CDI in 1998, when the 439-foot-tall JL Hudson Department Store was brought down. The original WTC7 was 610 feet tall, and of course the main towers were more than twice that. Trying to map that out without being fairly obvious would be difficult at best.
It seems to me, in a bit of a thought experiment, that it makes sense that a skyscraper should come straight down, more or less. They are built around structures that are designed to withstand significant loads due to wind, bending slightly but not that much overall. If structural member breaks, even if it breaks outward, there will likely still be some connectivity to the core, preventing it from moving outward. The additional stress added to local joints would cause them to fail, but in a less outward direction, as some of that energy has already been redirected downward. This continues around the building as the collapse continues. Some of the materials in other parts of the building will tend towards their own outward motion, but be pulled back in by the remaining connection to the core, canceling out some of the momentum in the other direction. Ultimately, everything comes straight down.
I think that makes some sense.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The way that a skyscraper is designed and built favors it falling more or less straight down rather to one side or the other.
Crackpot theories were explicitely banned.
Otherwise, [citation needed]
You can't take the sky from me...
Also, the hijackers weren't using assumed names, they appeared on the flight manifests, and they were known. It doesn't take very long to add 2 and 2...
I just wanted to add this: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Identifying_the_Hijackers
Also, a much more informative link from the same site about the bin Laden family flight: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_family_flight
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Nobody wants a set of dominoes that large.
Speak for yourself...
"It looks like they want to wrap-up this investigation and blame [the collapse] on normal office fires," said Gage during counter-conference.
Normal office fires? What the fuck is that guy smoking? This was not "normal office fires"
Oh, I get it, he's got an /agenda/. It's a crackpot agenda though.
Crackpots are the most annoying of all, because not only are they wrong, but their untested gedankenexperiments are so wrong you don't know where to start pointing out the wrongness.
"No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."
But then this is some reason for Gage to think that the sulfur was part of the mystical "thermite" which contains no sulfur in its composition.
And he calls himself an engineer.
I'll tell ya what the source was. The sulfur was in the steel when it was manufactured. Please go look up AISI steel grades.
http://www.answers.com/topic/aisi-steel-grades
OMG! STEEL HAS SULFUR IN IT! AND PHOSPHOROUS! AND MANGANESE! AND MOLYBDENUM! AND COBALT!
Fucking retards
Making steel is like making brownies. There are recipes for all the grades and they have different elements.
"400 architectural and engineering professionals"
Just because it says PE next to your name it doesn't mean you're smart. It means you passed a test. I know of one engineer that totally bought into the bullshit over on Stormfront.org. Seriously.
Richard Gage is to architects and engineers as Jack Thompson is to attorneys.
Someone should seriously look into taking away his stamp.
--
BMO
Another big reason large buildings tend to fall straight down is that is the direction gravity is pulling them. Anything much bigger than three or four stories is going to come apart very soon after leaving vertical, and the pieces come straight down.
That is simply not true.
You people and your crackpot theories, pfff.
You can't take the sky from me...
That doesn't exactly address my question, does it? If it was a failure, why did the OWNER say that it was done on purpose? ESPECIALLY when that statement could fuck up his insurance compensation?
Sounds like excellent design to me.
An incident occurred that caused the metal frame to fail high up, and the building gracefully collapsed down on itself [rather than collapsing upwards into the sky, or like the death star!]
Other factors:
1) A building isn't a tree. Trees fall over because they don't have empty space to collapse into, the trunk is solid. If the WTC had been a 1000 foot high block of concrete, it wouldn't have collapsed in on itself.
2) Things fall in the direction of gravity when allowed to do so.
When you stop and think about it, it makes far less sense for the building to just collapse to the side than it does to collapse down if the incident happened high up. If half of the base of the WTC had been destroyed (bomb, etc) then the building could have falled to the side.
In addition, a controlled demolition to look like an accident probably would have tried to look random, rather than controlled! Stupid conspiracy theory.
Surely, if it were easier to get a building to topple over sideways, a team of terrorists isn't going to go through the trouble of averting what would surely be a larger and more spectacular catastrophe.
Which is why efforts to keep the damage to a minimum would point to an "inside job" conspiracy rather than a "bunch of guys in some desert cave" conspiracy.
Duh.
You can't take the sky from me...
If YOU have doubts about his statements, then you must not know how the English language works.
Funny, that... Are you aware that the "they" in his statement refers to the FDNY? Are you accusing the FDNY of demolishing WTC7 and then remaining quiet about it for 7 years while "the government" claims it collapsed on its own?
All this after they lost over 300 of their brothers?
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Er, different building standards? The US is barely more than 230 years old as a country. In europe that's not old for a middling farm house, let alone an important structure like a church or the hub of a global market.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I did not post as a troll. I am generally concerned about the use of language "crackpot theories."
Some people STILL consider "Global Warming" a "crackpot theory."
Some consider "Evolution" as a crackpot theory.
Insulting an idea with no logical argument is no less a logical fallacy than the ad hominem attack. You may not agree with people who claim that the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition, but unless you can understand their argument and refute their points on merit, you are no different than the people who believe in intelligent design or that global warming is a myth.
I would submit, there are more facts and science supporting a controlled demolition of the word trade center buildings than there is evidence supporting Intelligent Design.
No, because I don't refuse to consider a controlled demolition as a "crackpot theory" my original post was ranked troll. This doesn't mean I believe it, but there are some serious irregularities in how the buildings came down.
The problem with that theory is that in a controlled demolition you destroy all they key points in a building to come up with an orderly collapse of each floor, and avoid pancaking. A fire simply wouldn't be able to destroy all the key points in a building like demolition would, and you would get pancaking which would dissipate the energy of the collapse. In short, you would still get at least some of the buildings still left standing.
The parent post is probably going to be moderated into oblivion, and I have no doubt my reply will too. However, I urge everyone to look at all the evidence in an unbiased way and come to their own conclusions. The official report on how a steel frame building collapsed due to fire (for the third time in history, the first two being WTC1 and WTC2) is not convincing. The visual evidence suggests controlled demolition. There is physical evidence that is consistent with this. There may indeed have been a "conspiracy" involved here. I am not comfortable with any of the theories that have been put forward, but I certainly do not buy the fantasy in this official report.
Second, the steel portions of the building exposed to the fire did in fact get all melty and collapsey
After being methiodically stripped of all insulation before the fire and after burning for dozens hour hours.
Unlike this building, which had its insulation intact and which burned for only a few hours before collapsing.
Details, details.
You can't take the sky from me...
You'll probably have to wait awhile. The chances of another event involving the heat energy available in the 9/11 event happening in one of only a couple of dozen comparably sized structures means that it probably won't happen again for awhile. After all, it hasn't happened before up until 2001.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Another big reason large buildings tend to fall straight down is that is the direction gravity is pulling them. Anything much bigger than three or four stories is going to come apart very soon after leaving vertical, and the pieces come straight down.
Yeah, you really have to keep in mind just how big these structures are. With the two main towers, there were dozens of floors above the impact point. It's already a phenomenal engineering feat to hold up that amount of weight. Then consider once the frame becomes weakened. Once any point in the structure starts to give, all those floors above start to move, the weak point is going to buckle. Just think about the amount of kinetic energy all that building gains after accelerating only a few feet. There's no way the structure underneath can survive that even if was completely undamaged. Thus why it seemed as though the towers went into free-fall, the amount of downward force being exerted simply tore through everything like it was cray paper, which then itself fell adding to the mass.
The enemies of Democracy are
Quite a few actually, they look like this
Making a building not fall sideways is a complicated task that requires a lot of training and preparation. The thought that you can get three out of three perfect collapses by splashing them with a bit of aviation fuel must have demolition companies shaking in their boots
In particular, why would it happen at nearly free-fall speed, as if every column in the structure failed simultaneously? That's the thing that gets me. I would expect a much slower, more incremental collapse. Guess I have to go read TFR.
Actually, NIST puts the collapse time at 40% slower than free-fall. The reason it seemed so sudden and quick is because we've only ever had video of one side of the building when it finally fell.
Check out the videos on this page: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
That's why firefighters had no fear whatsoever of going in there.
Citation needed.
I don't need any research to tell me that if you fly a large passenger airplane into a building then something really bad going to happen to it.
As far as WTC7, I've seen a whole neighborhood burned down in less than an hour because of one house catching on fire, I'm strangely led to believe that something on a much larger scale could have similar effects.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
The difference being that that building was reinforced concrete stack, which is essentially monolithic.
The discussion is about steel skeleton buildings, which have riveted/welded joints that create natural pivots and fulcrums when stresses become off-centered.
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
As I write on my blog, there's a big group of - for lack of a better name - crackpots who go around claiming the Bush (Jr.) Administration had something to do with the 9/11 events or in the destruction of the two towers. Which is ridiculous for the simple reason I point out: "the (current) Bush Administration doesn't have people smart enough to pull a stunt like that. The current administration's staffing policies have been directed toward political cronyism and connections, even at the expense of even bare competence. From what I've seen, anyone working there that has any self respect or common sense has quit." It's pointless to argue that they have the kind of people smart enough to pull off this sort of thing and keep it secret. If they were that good, they'd have been able to cover up the whole fake "weapons of mass destruction" issue in order to make it look like they really were present in Iraq.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Arguing with truthers is like arguing with creationists. They've already decided, it's a matter of faith. The weird thing is having looked at the structural collapse of the towers, if the official version was controlled demolition and the conspiracy theory was burning jet fuel, from a straight scientific standpoint I'd be inclined to believe the conspiracy. Physically, building catches fire, steel expands, breaks seals makes a lot more sense then Rutger Hauer and why not Whoopy spend a few days planting charges. However, like IDers, truthers decided they can make up various physical laws and ignore others as they go along all the while shouting "science!" (cue: T Dolby). And they get continuously pumped up by right wing trolls who figure quite accurately that they make the left look like a bunch of hairy clowns shouting 'JET FUEL BURNS AT 800 DEGREES MAN' at a fireman's funeral.
The real cover up is that the buildings weren't code to begin with, or rather David Rockefeller etc bent building codes to get them built. And Rudy had all the fuel stored in 7 against the advice of all the professionals. And that the Saucer People, in league with the Bush Administration, used a gravity ray to make the buildings fall faster then gravity and straight down.
Actually if you work some UFOs in I'll sign up. How cool would that be?
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center?
Yes. Next question.
No, the entire BBC don't have to be in on it.
When the black ops section of intelligence agencies make this type of opperations, one of the first thing they do is planing what story to feed the press.
So, apparently BBC got a planned press release 20 min. to early.
Din't you find it strange that they could identify the teorists as fast as they did,
when identifying other victims took months.
That because they already knew who to blame.
What EXACTLY is so "normal" about a multi-hour, multi-floor fire started by burning debris and fed by fuel oil?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
more whitewashing, make sure you never watch the actual footage of that building coming down either, looks pretty symmetrical to me
Sorry to feed the troll, but just for the record: the claim about asymmetry refers to the layout of the floor beams, which is asymmetric around some beams due to the trapeziodal shape of the building.
karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
Most likely, media management was being handled elsewhere and the press release to the BBC was made early. I am guessing the BBC did not get around to a correction and coincidence was indeed involved in the BBC's loss of the live feed (or, perhaps, someone outside the BBC cut the feed).
No one ever expected a fire to burn out of control for several hours.
[citation needed]
On May 4 and 5, 1988, the Los Angeles City Fire Department responded to an extinguished the most challenging and difficult high-rise fire in the City's history. The fire destroyed five floors of the First Interstate Bank Building, which some experts say could mean the loss of the entire structure. It was the high-rise fire that "you can't put out."
It took a total of 383 Department members to do the job. They fought the blaze for 3 hours and 39 minutes
You can't take the sky from me...
So, the implication is that a big conspiracy set up charges to bring down the towers and that this conspiracy is good enough to never be uncovered, but not good enough to make it look unlike a professional demolition?
Also, I was watching it. The only thing that made it look like a professional demo is that the building fell downward. Professional demos have a bunch of blasts in a visible pattern to take out the major supports; the Twin Towers didn't have any of that, it merely fell in the direction of gravity, which doesn't much surprise me.
After being methiodically stripped of all insulation before the fire and after burning for dozens hour hours.
Unlike this building, which had its insulation intact and which burned for only a few hours before collapsing.
Details, details.
I can't tell which building you're referring to, because neither the Windsor building nor WTC7 were "methiodically [sic] stripped of all insulation before the fire".
But I think your last paragraph may be referring to WTC7, in which case "a few hours" is quite wrong. The fires in WTC7 burned, unfought, for roughly 7 hours.
Fireproofing isn't the Holy Grail. It's only there to fend off the heat long enough to let whatever emergency response takes place do its thing before Really Bad Things happen.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Actually, "gravity" is ~9.8 m/s^2. That's an acceleration, not a flat rate, meaning that air resistance notwithstanding, the average rate at which something will accelerate when falling is 9.8 meters a second per second. It absolutely should have taken fewer than 23 seconds to fall.
You may wish to learn a little bit more about gravity here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gravity .
A NY radio station was told beforehand that the building was going to be demolished. The BBC reported the fall of the building 20 minutes before it actually fell.
Sorry, but the actual evidence is very, very compelling. YOU are the one who is rationalizing here.
You know what, Stuart, I like you. You're not like the other people here in this trailer park.
I would like to direct your attention towards Benford's law. The one about the frequency of the first digit in natural data. Not to be confused with Benford's law of controversy, although equally applicable to the situation.
Cynical Idealist
There is no citation needed. Firefighters don't have too much fear of going into a multi-story building because the risk of collapse is not great. That's why firefighters, ummmm, you know, actually went in there as the fire raged. If there was a risk to them they wouldn't have gone in. That's based on years of experience.
No shit?
Yer, because, ummm, you know, the fires can actually spread because the buildings and the fires are at the same, ummm, level. This is clearly not the case here. The fires are several stories up, and the notion that a fire can spread from the top of a tall building to a much shorter building and completely demolish it is a huge, huge, huge stretch of logic.
I'm just asking the questions. Quite clearly, a lot of people really do not want to face trying to answer them logically.
Last I checked, gravity had a tendency to accelerate objects, not make them fall with a constant velocity...
Do you have ANY idea just how much effort is involved in demolition? Sure, it seems easy from the outside, if you know what you are doing, you can bring a house down with a sledgehammer, but it will be noticed. The same with controlled explosives, this is not a case of slapping a bit of TNT to a wall and walking out, if you do that, the explosion just goes outside and the building keeps standing. No, you got drill a hole into the structure. If it is still beam you got to apply a chaped charge that cuts it through. Buildings are constructed to be able to withstand the loss of a couple of support beams, so you need to cut them all. How the hell would you do that without anyone noticing? It would require truck loads of explosives and days of demolition to setup. No, the conspiracy theories fail NOT because it is impossible to consider the idea that someone might want to fake this but because the logisitics just don't work. I read one theory, that the cia was controlling the planes, the idea being that they were refuel planes because the planes had no windows. Right. Because the CIA, a organisation KNOWN to operate civilian aircraft finds it easier to aquire military planes of which there are only a few instead of buying just one of the countless 2nd hand civilian airliners. Look at the way that red department store in china collapsed, that is know to be an accident and it collapses just the way a controlled demolotion building collapses. You seem to have the idea that because you saw some demo docu's you now think that if a building collapses like that, it must have been done like that. It is as another poster said almost impossible to even start to explain how stupid your logic is.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
More to the point, Fire Departments don't even know how to demolish buildings. They don't have demolition experts working for them!
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
"The problem with that theory is that in a controlled demolition you destroy all they key points in a building to come up with an orderly collapse of each floor, and avoid pancaking."
Huh? The point of a controlled demolition is to prevent damage to surrounding structures and allow machinery to clean up the mess quicker and cheaper than dismantling in place. Pancaking occurs in controlled demolitions. If it didn't then you would probably have damage to surrounding buildings...
For starters, the Madrid Tower is far shorter than the WTC buildings and is much more prone to a complete collapse, which is what we're talking about here.
What reason is there to believe this is true?
Collapses in taller buildings will tend to leave at least something intact because of pancaking.
Do you have examples of this? Keep in mind, they should be as similar to the Twin Towers as possible. Personally, I think you're going to have some serious problems finding comparable data points. Good luck...
Secondly, look at the huge intensity of that fire relative to the size of the building itself. It encompassed the entire building:
Right. The Windsor building had a much smaller floor area than the Twin Towers. No surprises here.
That didn't happen in the WTC collapses.
Why do you think it had to?
You can't melt all the steel in a very large building to induce a complete collapse [...]
Ah-ha! I have a question: why did you lie to me about not being a conspiracy theorist?
Only conspiracy theorists parrot this asinine claim that "all the steel" had to melt before the building could collapse. I mean, that statement of yours is ignorant on levels no man should ever reach.
Do you understand why?
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Yes, you're right, holocaust deniers, intelligent design proponents, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists all feel like they've been denied the right to debate their theories.
The thing is, they're lying to themselves. They have lots of debates. I've heard 9/11 conspiracy theories deconstructed and made out to be bullshit lots and lots of times. Holocaust deniers do have conventions (like the one in Iran last year). Intelligent design, which should be laughed out of any adult conversation, has managed to actually be taught in schools and considered in courts of law. All of these people already get way, way, way, way, way more attention than their theories deserve.
These people say the opposite of the truth, not only when spouting their absurd theories, but when explaining why other people won't listen to them. "Oh, they're just sheep, led astray by a huge conspiracy." No, actually, you're a petty fool with a reality deficit. We don't ignore you because we are dummies, we ignore you because we have better judgment than you do and can see thru what you say.
Why are there so many similarities to the way the buildings fell to a controlled demolition?
Both are afected by gravity, which exerts a downward force.
We should expect all "implosion" experts to be sued for their scamming all those building owners into believing that buildings don't fall like that on their own, huh?
It's the end of an entire niche of engineering firms! Oh noes! And in this bad economy too, what a shame.
You can't take the sky from me...
Insecure people need conspiracy theories, they need to make what happened more complicated and devious that it really was. Because if what happened really was this easy;
Prior to 9/11 several people from a third world countries entered the US legally and took flight lessons and then booked flights. Then on 9/11 they legally boarded the aircraft and once the aircraft were airborne took over aircraft, that basically fly themselves, and then pointed them at buildings.
They could never sleep at night and it would make people from the third world smarter that they are.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Yeah because we know that the impact of an airplane flying as fast as it was going had no effect on the structural integrity of the core. I especially loved how they compared two fires burning to that of the WTC, but failed to mention that neither was impacted by anything with the amount of force that the airliner that hit the WTC did. Sounds like it's more a case of the guy was fired for conducting piss poor experimentation with the intent of proving his own theory rather than finding the truth.
"I would submit, there are more facts and science supporting a controlled demolition of the word trade center buildings than there is evidence supporting Intelligent Design."
So, as long is there is one fact supporting controlled demolition, then it isn't a "crackpot theory"? Give me a break.
What physical evidence of a controlled demolition exists that can't be explained in a more likely manner? Do you have any idea how long such a procedure takes? And that the interior is basically gutted? I think someone might have noticed....
Gravity gives an acceleration of 32 ft/sec/sec. That's not a constant velocity. Falling things start off slow, get faster up to a limit which is determined by shape, air resistance etc
Drop a cannon-ball from 741 ft, solve 2*s = f*t^2 for t, you get about 6 seconds. It took longer because it wasn't free-falling.
Your sum is incorrect
Chaos theory isn't in it
NIST may be lying, but what you say is wrong, and irrelevant
Down with categorical imperatives
First, I need to say a few things to inoculate myself from being labeled one way or the other:
1. The concept of a "conspiracy theory" is flawed, and is simply a cop out. There is no such thing as a conspiracy theory. There are just good and bad theories. Labeling an idea a "conspiracy theory" is just a form of jingoism and does nothing to increase the flow of ideas. Labeling something a conspiracy theory is a brilliant tactic to bury an idea as it takes advantage of herd mentality. Judge an idea by its merit and not by its label. Here on Slashdot extremely brilliant and extremely stupid ideas are posited all the time, so why now are we disallowed to discus a certain set of ideas? I thought there was a strong freedom/libertarian mindset here...
2. If you examine history, conspiracies are actually the norm and not an aberration. Look at Rome, or the times of Shakespeare, or Nazi Germany, or the French revolution, etc etc. Look at the behavior of the current administration of the United States and say there haven't been conspiratory behaviors with a straight face. All a conspiracy means is that more than one person plans together to do something secretly. That happens ALL THE TIME, whether criminally or not.
3. As Slashdot readers many of you consider yourselves to be scientifically minded and aware of logical fallacies. Why does this mindset breakdown when it comes to politically charged events? You are labeling people nut cases and tinfoil hat wearers and conspiracy theorists the same way people were labeled communists during the McCarthy era. The ad hominem attacks are relentless.
4. In light of the awareness that several agencies in the US with billions of dollars in funding and specific programs for controlling the flow of information DO exist, wouldn't you think that Slashdot, a hub of meme flow on the internet, would be a specific target of operations? Opinions are manipulated on the net regularly. You only have to look at China with their "wangyou" (internet friends) that are paid 50 cents chinese for each message they post that supports a certain agenda. The manipulation in the US is much more subtle. Teams of PhDs and psychologists know what buttons to press to get a certain response out of a self-admittedly obsessive compulsive crowd of nerds.
5. Building 7 was never hit by an airplane. The owner of the building admitted to it being demolished, then reneged his statement. There are videos of reporters describing building 7's fall while it is still standing in the background. It took SEVEN years for investigators to come up with a reason for the building to fall the way it did. Is it possible that the SEVEN years were spent honing a story plausible enough to convince even the most skeptical people of it's truth?
6. Unless you've visited the site of the building and done your own scientific measurements, everything you know comes from suspect media sources. This relates to point 3 above. I freely admit I don't know the truth of what happened due to this single fact.
In summary: Don't buy into either side of the story. There are plausible explanations for it being due to fire, but there are equally plausible explanations to it being due to malicious intent. Don't follow the herd - a certain subset of humans are purely pragmatic and will do whatever it takes to gain money or power.
PLEASE PLEASE refer to the last 5000 years of history and don't make the mistake of thinking that somehow right now things are different and innocent.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Because gravity pulls straight down? Which way would you expect a building of that size to fall?
I expect it to fall away from its support structure.
Which way would you expect something to fall when "straight down" is already occupied?
You can't take the sky from me...
Interesting. Then I am curious as to what temperature would be required to melt and/or buckle the structure of your aluminum foil hat?
You generally have to wait for the brai... fluids inside to boil off before the aluminum container will melt.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Had the structure in Europe just suffered massive structural damage due to a large jetliner impact? No. The events of 9/11 are unique in the history of structural damage.
32.1ft/s per second.
Well let's see. First there's the fact that we had intelligence information that proved that Bin Laden was involved in the first WTC attack in 93. Second, the fact that Bin Laden was quoted as having said on numerous occasions that he wanted to see the towers fall. Third, a quick examination of the flights all involved in 9/11 revealed the names of people all linked to Bin Laden. A cross examination of those names within the next few hours revealed that they all attended this flight school. Gee, wierd coinkidink, don'tcha think? So the FBI does some digging over the next few days, finds out that a few of the people attending the school don't care about learning how to land, only want to know how to fly the airplane once it is in the air. Doesn't take a genius to figure this one out. Granted, this isn't enough to stand up in court, but it's enough for us to make a (what appeared later to be very accurate) educated guess that Bin Laden was involved, and of course we know where the hell Bin Laden is, because Clinton launched cruise missiles at aspirin plants thinking he was going to hit Al Qaeda instead.
You're suggesting that in the wake of a large disaster that the media outlets are basing their up-to-the-second event information from press releases? Seriously? Do you understand what a press release is?
When serious events of this suddenness happen, news outlets don't report from press releases, they report from what their guys on the ground are telling them. In this case, the bbc obviously got it wrong, probably due to a combination of a stressed news editor with everyone shouting at him, lots of conflicting and confusing information coming in from the ground and the desire to just get some information out there. My money says that someone on the ground mistakenly said that WTC7 had already gone down, and the editor on a snap decision decided to break it before anyone else. Turns out he was wrong.
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
Gravity is 32.1ft/s
Please ask for your school money back.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
It should have taken 23 seconds for WTC7 to freefall. It took less.
Wait... you're saying it fell faster than free fall? This would be the first time in history a controlled demolition managed that.
Now there's a conspiracy theory: George Bush knows how to change gravity!!!
The planes weren't flown into the buildings, they were sucked in by the black hole in the basement!!!
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
Very bad.
Almost unbelievably bad for /.
Get out now. You don't belong here!
Back to dailyKos for you fucknut.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It's a common misconception that random events don't or can't look very neat and tidy. [...] The way that a skyscraper is designed and built favors it falling more or less straight down [...]
It could also be that anyone who has ever watched a Discovery Channel documentary on professional demolition of large buildings has been led to believe that safely and completely collapsing such a building requires weeks of planning and absolutely precise placement and detonation of lots of explosives.
Or you could just thow some kerosene on it.
Thank you, that's one of the best and most balanced comments I have seen here in some time.
I'm guessing that they made a mistake in the confusion of not having very many facts in the wake of something huge happening.
So your theory is that, under stress, BBC reporters posses the power to foretell future events? Wild...
Unless you're suggesting that the entire BBC is in on a conspiracy?
Or that the official sources that the BBC reporter was quoting got their timing wrong whilst feeding their script to news organizations from 24 different timezones.
You know, either something completely logical, or your wild dismissive scenario. Either/or, really.
You can't take the sky from me...
I'm guessing that they made a mistake in the confusion of not having very many facts in the wake of something huge happening.
So your theory is that, under stress, BBC reporters posses the power to foretell future events? Wild...
Unless you're suggesting that the entire BBC is in on a conspiracy?
Or that the official sources that the BBC reporter was quoting got their timing wrong whilst feeding their script to news organizations from 24 different timezones.
You know, either something completely logical, or your wild dismissive scenario. Either/or, really.
You can't take the sky from me...
My money says that someone on the ground mistakenly said that WTC7 had already gone down, and the editor on a snap decision decided to break it before anyone else. Turns out he was wrong.
It was also known for a few hours before the actual collapse that WTC7 was in danger of collapsing. My personal belief is that this information was filtered down to the reporter and was, somewhere along the line, misunderstood.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Jeez. And you think * I * am gullible!
Fact: the upcoming demolition of the building was announced to at least one radio station, which announced in on air -- before the building came down.
Fact: the BBC announced that the building had collapsed -- by name AND number, there was no misunderstanding -- 20 minutes before it actually fell.
If you want to call those "mysterious coincidences", then I do not think I am the one who is doing the rationalizing and indulging in "crackpot theories".
I don't think you do.
Pancaking is what the controlled demolition people deliberately cause ('Implosion' is an incorrect media term) and a fairly common mode of failure during construction. It only takes one floor failing to take everything down below the original failure.
It's primary characteristics are complete destruction of the affected area and falling straight down.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Well, yes they can. Both sides can spout rhetoric and useless information, contributing nothing and inciting more useless posts. Sounds like a troll to me.
It's poetry with a beat behind it! And guns! They're like beatniks with automatic weapons.
Pfffffffffffffffffff. It's controlled and timed pancaking which allows the building to completely collapse. If you allow a tall building to pancake naturally via the top fllors collapsing then the floors below will simply collapse into each other and dissipate the energy. You won't get a complete collapse. Try it any time with a model, some Lego or some Meccano. You won't be able to do it.
Free fall speed was not achieved. If you look at a video of either of the two towers collapsing, you'll see that the debris ejected during the collapse falls faster than the building itself. The debris is in free fall, unless the CIA attached little rocket packs to each and every piece.
I haven't seen a video of WTC 7 collapsing, but I'm sure it'll turn out to be the same.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
You FAIL physics.
Gravity is a force, and imparts acceleration, which on Earth is 32.1 feet per second per second.
You have to use the distance equation: d = (1/2)at^2 + (v0)t + d0. The last two terms are zero in this case. Solve 741 = (1/2)(32.1)(t^2) yields 6.79 seconds.
I can't speak to NIST's credibility, but unlike you, they at least understand high school physics.
Nobody wants a set of dominoes that large.
Wow, you've never met a human male, have you?
The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
Fire doesn't melt steel. If you did metallurgy in college, you would know that above a certain temperature the most stable crystalline structure of steel becomes one which is a lot weaker. If you really care, you can google to find phase diagrams of steel like this one that tell you exactly how steel behaves when you heat it up.
If you didn't do metallurgy in college, then you have no idea what you're talking about.
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
If you start trolling here, at least get your math, your numbers and your units right. First of all, both the report and wikipedia state the height of the building as 610 feet. Second, the gravitational acceleration g (not 'gravity') is given in feet per second *squared*. Last, the formula to calculate the time it takes a distance under constant acceleration is t = sqrt(2*x/a) and not whatever you are using. And real man use SI units.
karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
It looks as though that building fell down because it either became detached from its foundation, or because the foundation wasn't firmly planted in the ground. The above-ground construction of the building doesn't seem to have been the primary cause of the collapse, as the whole thing seemed to remain largely intact before hitting the ground.
I'm not going to say that it's "Apples and Oranges," but that video seems to depict a pretty different scenario.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
You must be new here.
And even that isn't fully accurate due to various wind resistance effects, turning this into a differential equation. In this case, the speed would quickly reach an equilibrium point, or terminal velocity. And exactly what speed that is would be very difficult to calculate. Which is why it took so damn long to model it.
Cynical Idealist
The only video I see is one where someone repeatedly asserts the 'pulled' means 'demolished'.
There are plenty of manuals on controlled demolitions, and they don't get quoted. You know why? Because they do 'pull' buildings. That means to pull over a building using cables hooked to the supports.
You couldn't do that to WTC 7, and it wouldn't have gone down like.
The fun thing about the 9/11 Truthers is that their conspiracies make no sense. They have holographic missiles flying around, explosives in advance, news media with a scripted story that sometimes jump ahead.
Do you want to know how the US government would have actually done 9/11?
They would have installed non-overriddable autopilots on the airplane, either some sort of sleeping gas, or cellphone/radio jammers to keep the people from contacting anyone.
They would have tapped the phones of some of the passengers booked on United 93, recorded some of their voices, and forged phone calls from them. Hard to do in real time, but they were in a hostage situation on a plane, so if anyone you're talking to asks a question you can't answer, well, the call would get 'dropped' or the hijackers would take the phone away or something.
Then they would have flown the actual airplanes into the actual buildings and let whatever happened.
They would have not contacted any media in advance. They would not have replaced any airplanes. They would not have rigged the twin towers buildings to fall. They would not have used this opportunity to take down an unrelated building. They would not have put the planes they stole back into service under a different number. They would not use actual terrorists who can be found alive later. (They wouldn't have made them all Saudis instead of Iraqis.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
It's simpler than that: gravity pulls things straight down. An object might start falling on an arc- but over enough distance, that arc will flatten out.
A skyscraper is a constant battle against gravity. Weaken the structure enough, and it loses, straight down if it has room to do so.
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
All the evidence was carted away. I cannot believe that anyone could have done an impartial study, meaning that there is to much pressure to prove things one way or another, and that belies scientific study.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
They could give people complete and unfettered access to every single piece of information the government has, and they still wouldn't be satisfied. Why? Because they've left out that one database that contains all the information they're looking for. Face it, conspiracy folk will never be satisfied with explanations because they don't want to be wrong. Cognitive dissonance and all that.
Cynical Idealist
Actually, if you read the report, they concluded that debris from WTC 1 and 2 had little to do with the WTC 7 collapse other than initially starting the fires that brought it down.
This is WTC 7 that we are talking about, not towers 1 or 2. It wasn't struck by a plane and didn't have hundreds of gallons of aviation fuel in it. As colfer pointed out, it had some diesel fuel tanks in the basement, but these were found to have not contributed largely to the fire (which was on the upper stories).
The conclusion of the board is that a normal building/office fire starting by falling debris from WTC 1 is what brought the building down. If we are going to be building dense cities with skyscrapers then it is important that a normal fire merely gut the building, not compromise it's structural support. The building techniques used in WTC 7 were not sufficient, and shouldn't be used in the future.
how many people here confuse WTC7 with the main towers.
Well sure. The point was that it's difficult to take seriously anyone's criticism of advanced science topics like materials science and fluid dynamics when it's patently obvious that they have not yet mastered the basic science that precedes them.
Conspiracy theorists tend to use "common sense" which defeats the logic, methods, evidence collection and theories of science. All these detailed schematics, computer simulations, engineers with Harvard and MIT degrees don't make any sense. Any oversimplification of the matter with numbers, facts and figures doesn't have to make *any* sense. If you know what happened, then that is irrefutible. No matter that there are others with conspiracy theories. Yours is always right. Who needs all that engineering stuff? Steven Colbert would call this the "truthiness" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
Can't you see: conspiracy theory is not about logic, its about saving time! If you can jump to conclusions without any research, then you're already saving yourself a lot of time. If your theory isn't precise, then there's going to be a lot of others to "consult" with who will each come up with a better idea. Pick the better one of all, or continue to disagree, setup your websites, Youtube videos and publish books. Make it all look official.
Than again, with all this time spent on alternative theories, you aren't saving time. Everyone has to read your version. There's no conclusive ending. If the government is truly good at concocting a conspiracy, then shouldn't they have made one with only one solution to the question of who, what, when, why and how? If there's so many versions of what could have happened, then they probably aren't doing their jobs????
And then your marketing efforts are wasted. The public is confused with all the messages. This is when the truth is actually the time saver. Thanks NIST!
Maybe that was just the one inaccurate statement made that day. You know because no one else said anything inaccurate amid the chaos. So someone had to meet the quota (1 inaccurate stmt/day...it's a government regulation i think).
you're probably just used to how usually, breaking news is covered completely accurately and they always have the full story right at the start and never report unfounded rumors.
Here it's a little different because the person saying it wasn't a super-accurate news person.
i know that sometimes i have personally said things like 'i'm gonna kill that guy,' and then have to actually kill that guy so as not to be contrary to my words.
and generally 'pull it' does generally refer to demolition: i remember on one occasion, i was having sex and the girl said to 'pull it', so i demolished her using carefully placed explosives which were surreptitiously planted (i get IED's and IUD's confused a lot).
While trying to clean up i mentioned to myself, 'hey it looks like someone blew up a box full of tomato paste and hamburger'. Why would i have said that if i hadn't done it? So later on i did...just to keep the t's crossed and i's dotted mind you.
because i mean, if you can't take a person at his word...what do you have left?
The idea that these buildings were brought down by explosives is patently absurd. Period. However there is a "conspiracy theory" that is, to me at least, plausable and believable. Namely that Bush/Cheney and the other neocons allowed 9/11 to happen by looking the other way, and by not doing enough to stop it.
It is a well known fact, as outlined in the "Project for a New American Century", that Cheney and the other neocons wanted desparately to go into Iraq. It is also a fact that the Patriot Act had been written several years before 9/11, and was sitting in a drawer, waiting to be enacted. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me to think that Cheney would allow America to be attacked in a hugely symbolic but ultimately non-devastating way, as a way of pushing the country into Iraq, and of foisting laws like the Patriot Act on congress.
However, I fear that what I propose here will be lumped in with all of the other crackpot conspiracy theories about demolition teams in the twin towers. There is really no compelling evidence to support what I say. Only a strong suspicion based on what was written in the Project for a New American Century document, and observation of how far the neoconservatives seemed willing to go to enact their policies. America under Cheney and his neocon thugs has been a profoundly unsettling place. I often feel that there is a war being waged right under our noses, against freedom and the ideals of American democracy.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
The only 3 skyscrapers in the world to collapse from fire. WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. Move along nothing to see here.
Exactly, and that's not the only giant logical hole in the conspiracy theories. If you are going to blow up the Towers and/or WTC7 with a controlled demolition, why bother with the unnecessary complication of the hijackings? That just leaves more to go wrong: the hijackers might be overcome by the passengers, or miss their targets. Plus, blowing up the buildings with everyone in them would vastly increase the death toll, which was the plan with the first truck bomb attack in 1993.
The standard JFK conspiracy theories have a similar logical flaw: if it was an inside job and the insiders are going to cover up the autopsy, why bother recruiting some loony loner and count on his marksmanship? Just have your insiders slip something into JFK's morning coffee, sadly announce that he had an unexpected heart attack, and you're done.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Yes. And fall in the same time as a ball dropped from the top of the building, with nothing but air to slow it's descent.
"cray paper"?
I believe you mean "crepe paper", unless therer is something REALLY new in the world of supercomputing.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
"something really bad going to happen"
You should join NIST. No really, they need this level of technical acuity.
Nobody disputes that "something bad" should have and did happen. The question (not that you don't know it) is about exactly what kind of direct and consequential damage would occur, especially to a structure supposedly built to withstand that kind of impact.
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
...the weight increases with the cube of the scaling factor as you scale up a model, yet the strength of the materials used only increases with the square of the scaling factor since it depends on the area of the cross section of the member.
This may be true with respect to shear (which is area dependent) but Section Modulus (for resolving bending moment) is a cubic function and moment of inertia (for deflection) is to the fourth power.
--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?
They described the building both by name (Salomon Brothers) and by number. AND they described its location. Mistake? Sure. Their mistake was the timing.
Funny, though... in the video, as the on-location reporter is describing the demise of the building, you can see it still standing, through the window behind her!
So, yeah, they made a mistake all right. But not the one you mean.
A quick search has not turned up evidence of the radio station I mentioned, so I will provisionally retract that statement. But... how do you explain the firefighters repeatedly telling people to move back, the building is "coming down" and the building is "about to blow up"? This, before any other sign of collapse? Remember... they had been taken out of the building hours before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc7NPn8Ok
Obviously I am not making this stuff up. It is right there on youtube, folks, for those of you who will take the time to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you do not want to take the time, then don't ask me to do it for you.
I think what he is trying to say by "normal office fires" is identifying the temperature and the fuel sources.
You can exclaim "fucking retards" but without thermite, there is nothing on the plane or in an office building that can burn hot enough to cause steel to melt. I believe this is the one factor that needs a plausible explanation. Any attempts to gain a plausible explanation for the steel melted in this way has been met with refusal to answers or denial of the question.
The materials and their state are a matter of historical documentation and it would be a little late to pull references to the liquified steel. It might seem "somewhat" plausible to hear about fatigued or weakened steel, but not this. And frankly, the perfect free-fall of both main towers and the complete lack of lateral motion during the collapse seems REALLY like a professional demolition and would require equally distributed damage across the floors of the building that collapsed. That simply didn't happen. The core columns failed right along with the floors of the buildings. It was nearly perfect. It wasn't quite perfect, though... about 50 stories of some of the second building's core columns remained for a short while before they collapsed... and they too fell perfectly vertically rather than off to the side as one might expect.
The collapse of the buildings were anything but random as one would expect from an unplanned tragedy such as this. In all the sky scraper fires that have ever occurred before or since has never resulted in this level of complete destruction. This is the first and only time in the history of man kind that a building has fallen like this after a crash or fire, and here we have multiple occurrences of the same phenomenon happening in rapid succession. I find it more than a little amazing.
Furthermore, there have been several historical cases of large aircraft slamming into a skyscraper without causing a uniform collapse as seen in not just one but two very large buildings. One account was in the 1940's where a bomber slammed into the Empire State building. There was fire, death, injury and some really big holes, but no collapse and this building wasn't nearly as well constructed as the twin towers.
I can't safely say that I believe anything I've heard or read, but I can safely say that I believe we aren't being allowed to know the truth and without fail there are just too many problems with just about every aspect of every part of the story being told not just about the WTC towers and nearby buildings, but about the Pentagon and the plane that was allegedly crashed by heroic passengers. The explanations being offered don't match the evidence that is publicly available. It's as if they aren't even trying to explain how things happened. And it's not particularly helpful for concerned people who want to understand what happened to be labelled crackpot or unpatriotic.
Finally, I think there's a huge difference between a "conspiracy theory" and "the evidence doesn't support the official claims." So far, I have yet to hear a complete theory of conspiracy outside of the assertion that these events were staged to allow the current administration to pull in more power to its office and to consolidate everything under the department of homeland security.
There's a LOT of missing information and the explanations being offered are a lot less plausible than 'crackpot discussions' we've all heard. And no report so far has even addressed the matter of molten steel. It just doesn't occur in fires and other unplanned building collapses. Not one other example exists outside of buildings demolished professionally.
I can't tell which building you're referring to, because neither the Windsor building nor WTC7 were "methiodically [sic] stripped of all insulation before the fire".
At the fire, the building had almost no spandrels at upper floors. The steel columns had almost no fire resistance covers at upper floors.
Too busy pointing out typos to check for truthiness?
You can't take the sky from me...
1. Stage a false flag attack against NY to obtain wider emergency powers
2. ???
3. profit!
Send your spendthrift head of state this
There's really no point in furthering this discussion until we get past the mental deficiency that allows you to believe that all of the steel in the entire building had to have melted (or even just been touched by fire) in order for the entire structure to collapse.
Why do you believe this must be true?
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Yea, and a skyscraper below you that has not supposedly had it's center column demolished from the ground level tends to decelerate objects.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
The difference being that that building was reinforced concrete stack, which is essentially monolithic.
If you say so...
You can't take the sky from me...
But not the one I mean? Eh? They reported factually inaccurate information. The only other explanation is that they "predicted the future" and managed to look silly and amateurish doing it. Lets be clear, it was an amateur mistake they made by reporting information without first verifying it. Not their finest hour.
Thanks for the chuckle.
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
The way that a skyscraper is designed and built favors it falling more or less straight down rather to one side or the other. The reason being that if it were to topple, as remote a possibility as that is, the building shouldn't be allowed to hit other buildings. Nobody wants a set of dominoes that large.
I can safely say with 100% assurance that that is absolutely not true. I would kill to see a set of dominoes that size.
Your conspiracy requires that someone had decided to take down WTC7 weeks in advance, and, on 9/11, let all those fire fighters die needlessly in that building trying to save it.
Yet the singular quote you're relying on said the fire department decided to 'pull it', which you think means 'demolish' and 'it' is the building, as opposed to pull meaning 'scrub' and 'it' being 'the attempt to save the building'.
In other words, you are accusing the New York Fire Department of knowing in advance and actively participating in a conspiracy to murder their own people in a play-act where they pretended to try to save WTC7 for a while, even though they knew it was coming down.
Oh, oh, I know this one. Those were holograms of dead firefighters, right?
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
About the contents of the building from Wiki:
Not to say I buy into the crazy theorys or anything... but building 7 was always the part that didn't sit right for me.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
One has only to watch an episode or two of American Chopper to see that simply heating steel lets it bend and deform quite easily. No melting required.
And you know, of course, that engines and parts of the plane were found five, six, and even seven blocks away from the point of impact.
Nope, the only conspiracy is how GW and his cohorts shanghaied the event and twisted the aftermath to their own ends...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
"If the plane, made out of titanium, steel and aluminum was vaporized by jet fuel then how were they able to identify 174 passengers through DNA?"
Because aircraft, excepting engine core parts and landing gear struts, are tender, thin, and soft. Note how much structure disappears when they burn on the ground. Turbine wheels (or their fragments, since they spin fast enough to come apart when they hit) are tough, but skin and interior parts are built for lightness.
Humans, OTOH, are basically bags of liquid and take a fair amount of heat to cremate.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Ugh, ok, I'm tired of this, so let me explain to you exactly how the building collapsed from my perspective, watching it across the Hudson a few miles away, and then seeing it up close on the news:
Pancaking, a term which you completely misunderstand, is the event which occurs when you cause the upper floors of a building to collapse suddenly. You question how the fire in the upper floors weakened the lower floors. The answer is that it didn't have to. When the upper floors gave way, they impacted the floors directly beneath them. The kinetic energy that is gained by those floors basically free falling 1 story down is immense, and this cause the floor beneath, also weakened by the fire, to collapse, and so on this process went until it reached low enough that the floor beneath the collapsing floors was undamaged by the impact or fire.
The problem though is two-fold: first of all, those collapsing upper floors sent a huge shockwave of compressing air down the elevator shafts and stairwells, blowing out the windows on the floors below and causing some very minor structural damage. No big deal, but it's what makes people think the lower floors were "blown out". The big thing is that by this point, the upper floors have gained such an incredible amount of momentum from their falling, which is only increasing with their mass, that the lower floors have no hope of "catching" them. I say "catching" because they're not supporting them, they have to stop them from a freefall, and stopping an object in motion, especially an object composed of tons of concrete and steel falling directly downward, requires more structural integrity than any skyscraper has.
This is why the Windsor building is a poor example. This event did not occur. It was the WTC's own height working against it, giving the collapsing segments more and more mass until it was enough energy to break through the structurally sound floors.
People who claim there should have been a core, or or more left of it are people who try to compare this to other events, and often lack an understanding of physics and engineering. ALL of the steel in the WTC towers did not have to melt or be weakened. Only a small portion, in a small area, had to be structurally weakened enough to give way. The rest is simply F=ma
No part of that post constitute flamebait: someone's abusing mod points again!
You can't take the sky from me...
Presuming, of course, that such efforts existed.
"Uncontrolled" collapses of very large buildings are exceedingly rare events, so nobody would really know a priori how the WTC collapses "ought" to have looked. After the fact, the way the floors pancaked doesn't seem at all improbable. As the force of the collapse propagates downward, it meets elements designed to spread a fraction of a single floor's weight onto vertical supports. Since the force of the collapse would be orders of magnitude greater than what these elements were designed to support, it seems probable that they would impede the progress of the collapse to about the same degree that a cloud of smoke would impede a lazily swung sledgehammer.
Of course, this is just after the fact rationalization, but the engineering analysis confirms it the intuition that no special measures would need to be taken in order for the collapse to proceed in a way that superficially resembles a controlled implosion.
This conspiracy theory has the usual problems of conspiracy theories, such as providing what mystery writers call "motive, means and opportunity". Motive is a particularly vexing issue, given that seven buildings were destroyed past recovery and numerous other ones damaged, it's hard to connect the end result to the purported motive. Another commonsense question would be whether a government that could not keep Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Echelon, or warrantless surveillance under wraps could have engaged in what must have been a substantial engineering effort on three busy Manhattan buildings without anybody noticing.
The real appeal of any conspiracy theory is this:it provides an illusion of control. Limited control, that is certain, but the seat of the pants risk evaluation is actually quite astute: if it were some cabal of government officials, you'd actually be less exposed than if twenty men, each armed with a tool costing $1, could kill nearly three thousand people and bring the country to a virtual standstill for weeks.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It could also be that anyone who has ever watched a Discovery Channel documentary on professional demolition of large buildings has been led to believe that safely and completely collapsing such a building requires weeks of planning and absolutely precise placement and detonation of lots of explosives.
Or you could just thow some kerosene on it.
I never understood this weak attempt at a sarcastic rebuttal from you "truthers". It's like you just can't wrap your minds around the fact that one of the goals of a controlled demolition is to not cause billions of dollars in damage to surrounding buildings...
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Larry Silverstein has repeatedly explained exactly what he was talking about when he said 'pulled'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Arguing with officialists is like arguing with creationists. They've already been told, it's a matter of obedience. The weird thing is having looked at the structural collapse of the towers, since the official version is jet fuel and conspiracy theory is demolition, from a straight scientific viewpoint I'd get the facts myself. Physically, building have catched fire, steel have expanded, seals have broken, and that gone on for more than one day and those much older buildings haven't collapsed. But that happened to the WTC. And both came down. Exactly the same. After burning an hour or so.
And then come the 'emotional plea' arguments, that have more to do with creationists than anything else. "Don't you respect the sacrifices of the firemen? Why are you so un-American? How can you BELIEVE the gov't would do something like that?"
Look, I'm the most pro-American chap you'll ever meet. But don't hide behind science. You're doing as you're told, no more, no less.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
So you're saying that examples of buildings falling over due to unintentional and intentional bottom floor support failure ((the Manila collapse video and the controlled demo photo) prove that internal fires across multiple floors don't make buildings collapse vertically? There's no point in arguing with logic like that.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Read this:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
- it points out all the guff in "Loose Change". Checks in with real experts, shows the pictures that Loose Change didn't bother showing (because it doesn't agree with their version of events), and explains everything the 'truthers' try to point out.
Hah, the first 3 integer squares. I loved that book.
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
Like raising a long pipe, or maybe a flag pole... We could call it a "scale model" for building a tower. Safely keeping construction proportional to the model would be impossible beyond a small increase in scale.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Well, that just means as you scale members to take larger loads, it is shear strength that becomes your limiting factor, doesn't it?
Which would explain (in an extremely general and hand waving way) why buildings would tend to fall down rather than over.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The north tower collapsed at 10:28am, flaming debris entering WTC7 and starting multiple fires. WTC7 collapsed at 5:20pm. That's nearly seven hours of uncontrolled fire. There were no serious efforts to fight any of the fires that were found, as there was virtually no water pressure.
The First Interstate fire occurred around 10:25pm, and firefighters were on-scene by 10:40pm, with the fire being declared knocked down at 2:19am. While sprinkler contractors had depressurized and drained the top several floors to connect the new sprinkler system, the rest of the system had plenty of water, and the building's pumps were supplemented by the LAFD's own equipment.
For a little less than four hours, the LAFD firefighters actively battled the flames with adequate water pressure, a far cry from FDNY crews only battling spot fires with little more than fire extinguishers and low-pressure water, with most of it being left to burn out. There's really no comparison here, and that doesn't even get into structural comparisons. Was the First Interstate constructed with a central concrete core, or did it use the steel frame construction used in WTC7?
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth had a press conference to discuss the new NIST WTC7 report.
http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3
I'm afraid you have gotten all this quite in reverse. The science is not backing us the "official" conspiracy theory. The science is clearly on the side of those who wish to expose the truth about 9/11.
Crackpot theories? are you fuckin serious? I suppose this is another "Crackpot theory" too: http://www.carnicom.com/culture3.htm
Ok so you you got a smaller mass ( the higher collapsing flours) falling over a bigger mass (the lower floors - which were also supported by the ground under them). So now my common sense is suppose to accepts that that smaller mass is able to cause the bigger mass the be pulverized without any resistance?
It didn't pulverize the ENTIRE REMAINING BUILDING simultaneously, genius. The falling, growing, and accelerating mass destroyed the remaining building one floor at a time.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
All of those suggestions were contained in the report, and echoed suggestions made in the original report over the main tower collapses. The manner by which WTC7 collapsed was similar to, but had differences from, the main tower collapses.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I don't believe I've said that all the steel needed to melt at all. This is something you're assuming - for some reason.
However, to get a complete collapse of a whole building that large you have to have destabilised large parts of it at various intervals to ensure that it all goes straight down and not a trace of the structure is left. All the floors below the fire have to be destabilised in some fundamental way to ensure this happens. No demolition company has ever turned up on site and said "Oh, we'll burn five storeys in the top half of this fifty storey building and it will all go down". The entire building needs to be accounted for.
You've offered no explanation as to how all the floors, most of which were completely untouched, below the few floors that were affected by fire became so structurally unsound that they were able to collapse in. Unless this happens, you simply don't have enough energy to precipitate a full collapse from the action of a few floors at the top of the building collapsing into those below. You will still get at least some of the building intact.
I don't. I'm asking the question as to what caused all the floors to completely collapse.
Why would you expect the towers to list sideways as they fell? Just because? You are accusing the official story of using that sort of reasoning.
The major structure of the each tower was the outer wall (the towers, not WTC7); the lower part of each wall would tend to prevent any structure above it from collapsing any direction other than into the tower.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
But if you are laughing, you have completely missed a very important point.
They reported some inaccurate information. Fine. WHERE did they get that inaccurate information? That is the issue here. If you think that the fact that they reported that WTC 7 had come down (again... described by name, number, and location) BEFORE it actually happened is a "coincidence", then you must be a very big believer in coincidences. Sorry, but that rather stretches believability past the breaking point.
And I did, by the way, find the source of that "radio announcement" of the building coming down. Two separate on-site witnesses reported a red-cross worker, outside the building, holding a radio that was blaring a countdown just before the building collapsed. Their separeate accounts are remarkably consistent.
Of course, that is not a "radio station" (interesting how stories get distorted)... but at least I was able to find the source. You can also find it on youtube with a quick search.
So, sorry for your disbelief, but some facts are pretty solid:
(1) The BBC reported the building coming down before it did. (What was the source of their information?) This is incontrovertible, since in the video you can SEE the building still standing behind the reporter as she reports that it had collapsed. Some minutes later, it did collapse. The probability of that being coincidence is probably much less than that of you getting struck by lightning in a given year, or killing yourself by slipping in the shower.
(2) Firefighters and red cross workers are on video telling people that the building "is going to come down", and that it is about to "blow up". This, hours after they were removed from the building, and when there was NO external evidence that the building was going to fall. (Remember... before that day skyscrapers had NEVER fallen in this manner, in the history of the world, except for earthquake or demolition. Never. And WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, nor was it even close to the others... closer buildings had little or no damage.)
(3) Outside the building, a countdown was heard on an emergency worker's radio (by MORE THAN ONE eyewitness who reported their stories on video), coinciding with the building's collapse.
If you really think that is all coincidence, then you have a funny view of reality. The laws of probability are practically screaming "no" at you!
So you can chuckle all you want. But if you really are, you are laughing at a joke that is very likely on you.
It could also be that anyone who has ever watched a Discovery Channel documentary on professional demolition of large buildings has been led to believe that safely and completely collapsing such a building requires weeks of planning and absolutely precise placement and detonation of lots of explosives.
Or you could just thow some kerosene on it.
You have a bizarre perception of the bounds of "safely". Also, the "controlled" appearance of the collapses is a illusion due to the enormity of the scale. The towers didn't fall over, but neither did they tumble straight down into two neat piles within the bounds of their own foundations. The debris field spread out of several blocks.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
*I* am not accusing anybody of anything! I wasn't there!
I simply asked a question. If you can't answer it, fine! But don't go around accusing me of accusing others. I did no such thing.
I should also mention that I am hardly "relying" on a "single quote". There is a plethora of good evidence that the building was intentionally destroyed, even after you have discarded the obvious trash. Look it up yourself. It is easy to find.
whoops!
They're using their grammar skills there.
You obviously need to consider what you're talking about because so far you've given us jack shit yourself. Here, let me put it in perspective for you: If you have a human pyramid of 6 people(3 on bottom, 2 in the middle, 1 on top) and you knock over the top person one of the people below it might also "collapse" with them, 2 possibly but probably not if everyone is semi-fit; if you knocked down the middle row they might all fall but since it'd only be a total of 3 people falling and 3 people left supporting, there's still a great chance that there would not be a complete collapse. Now build a human pyramid consisting of 55 people(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) and make the row 3rd from the top collapse. There you have 6 people(1+2+3) falling on 4 people, there will likely be a collapse of the 4 people which will then be 10 people falling on the row of 5, that will likely then collapse making 15 people collapse on a row of 6 and so on until all 55 people are on the ground. Now that is what happens if it's a pyramid, so if it were a straight vertical tower of people, if the 3rd row of people fell, then the 2 rows above them will also fall making the 4th row have to withstand far more momentum.
If you know anything about the people who break bricks in martial arts by putting a little space between each brick so that the momentum of the bricks above them will help break the ones below them, well this is the same concept only the space between the "bricks" was 10+ feet instead of 1/4 inch and a brick(or two) about a third from the top broke before the rest causing the chain reaction without the need for the "hand" to break the ones above it. Sorry bro, I know you want to believe but this was just pure physics and there were no explosions HEARD when it happened. If you can show me an explosive that doesn't make a sound but can bring down buildings like the WTC, I'll be very interested in researching it, otherwise you can go back to your basic physics class and learn because explosions like that can be heard clearly for a few miles.
I was wrong about the "radio station. It was in fact the radio of a red cross worker, outside the building, that was counting down. There are at least two witnesses on video who described the same thing. Find them yourself on YouTube.
I did not say it made sense... although it must be admitted that this government administration has done some astoundingly stupid things.
And the BBC DID report this as I described. You can find the video yourself easily enough! And the building is right there behind the reporter as she reports that it is gone! Now, I did not claim that I have an explanation for this. But saying that it is coincidence is pretty much beyond believability.
If you didn't do metallurgy in college, then you have no idea what you're talking about.
Um... I didn't do metallurgy in college, but I know that lots of other things get soft before they melt (butter, glass, "processed cheese food", plastic, solder, ...) and I know what a blacksmith does (hint: heat up metal to make it softer, then hit it with a hammer).
This was not a stand-alone thing. See my other comments. There are a lot of other facts about this building that are more than just "suspicious".
And it was not just "2 reporters". If you pay attention to what they actually said (describing the building my name, number, AND location), you can see that the probability that this was some kind of mistake is ridiculously low.
Further, emergency workers are on video telling bystanders to run because the building was about to "come down", and that (in so many words) that it was about to "blow up". This, well before it actually fell. You can find the videos yourself easily enough.
Those are just a few among many such "coincidences" that make the fire theory just unbelievable. There are a great many such, which you can verify for yourself if you bother to look. (My guess is that you won't... but that's up to you.) There are far to many to just explain them away as "coincidences". Probability is just plain not on your side, dude.
So whose point are you trying to prove? The arguments portray the building being brought down in a controlled fashion. Which, according to what you just said, meant that teams of people wandered throughout WTC7 weeks beforehand drilling columns, planting explosives, and weakening and/or removing key support structures. All unnoticed and undetected.
A fire, OTOH, is largely an uncontrollable event. I doubt that a demo company would be willing to guarantee that any building brought down by simply lighting a fire would NOT inadvertently damage adjacent structures. Or that said fire and debris would NOT spread elsewhere.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
You can see the building still standing in the background, even while the on-site reporter is telling you that it had collapsed!
This is a matter of public record, and EASY to find! Go look for yourself!
Oh... and the Silverstein comment is also on YouTube. It was on the frigging evening news!
When you call bullshit on somebody, you should be able to back it up! You lost this one.
therefore you're a witch! Burn her(him)!
I love how anyone who doesn't agree with the government's findings are "crackpots". How dare we infer those aluminium pipes were for missile delivery systems for WMDs... oh wait, wrong topic.
Confirmation Bias.
this is my sig, there are many like it, but this one is mine.
"Another big reason large buildings tend to fall straight down is that is the direction gravity is pulling them."
Bullshit - Gravity is just a theory, just like Evolution.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Here's a very interesting webcast of a discussion between structural and chemical specialists about the official NIST report on WTC7:
http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3
Salient points from the webcast:
- the unexplained presence of thermite residue in and extreme temperature of the wreckage of WTC7 (cf. the inability of the diesel fuel to burn hot and long in an oxygen starved environment);
- the failure of NIST to adequately test for thermite in their samples (which were collected haphazardly);
- the inadequate explanation by NIST of the collapse of collapse of WTC7 pillars 79-81;
- the inaccuracy of NIST's theory on how a simultaneous catastrophic pillar failure could result in a freefall collapse.
Useful cheat sheet of the facts about the collapse of WTC7,1&2 (on the right of the page): http://www.ae911truth.org/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...there's not a (+1, Crackpot) Option?
Science would be to publish the code and the data used in the simulation, and let other scientist check and reproduce it!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
God I get sick of this. Same arguments again and again, 7 years now, 7 years and we are still faced with the same psuedo-scientific babble.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to summarise here. Steel does not need to be 'melted' to be weakened well beyond safety margins, and beyond its required design strength. At moderately high temperatures it is weakened significantly. Go look up a materials handbook or two. The buildings collapsed in an entirely ordinary and predictable manner, they did not 'free fall'. Structures such as that are designed to collapse pancake style, like a concertina, they do not ever topple over. Can you imagine the extreme dangers that a toppling building of say 110 stories would pose to say, half of the surrounding CBD? The bomber in the 40s was not a jumbo jet, not even remotely close, there weren't even planes that big built back then. Neither did the planes that existed in those days have the same high strength materials embedded in them as in this case. I believe the NIST report suggests that elements such as the titanium axles used in the engines caused significant structural damage to the building core in certain places.
You *are* peddling a conspiracy theory. Multiple investigations and simulations have drawn the conclusion that the buildings fell down as a result of the observed evidence: Two fucking giant jumbo jets flew into them. Occams razor my friend. And you are here jabbering on repeating the same debunked theories of a small group of complete crackpots in the face of it.
"Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here."
Who exactly decides what a "crackpot" theory is hmmm? This statement is nothing more than intimidation of those who don't buy the ridiculous made up theory of a fire bringing down a steel structured High rise which has never happened before in the history of mankind. Other high rise buildings have burned in an inferno like blaze for DAYS and didn't collapse. NIST 'claimed" that they found no evidence of thermite like materials yet admitted they didn't look for any. NIST 'claimed" that 25 percent of the building had been "scooped" out by falling debris but then had to back off that lie when confronted with photographic evidence to the contrary, yet we're all supposed to sign on to this magic theory like little sheep.
Statements like these are nothing more than prior restraint and if Slashdot were the government we'd all be suing for violation of our free speech rights.
WAKE-UP Slashdot.
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
But my statement was "could"... I was not making predictions. I do know, though, that if it were MY insurance, I would not say something like that on TV.
"Why are there so many similarities to the way the buildings fell to a controlled demolition?
Both are afected by gravity, which exerts a downward force."
Bullshit! Gravity is just a theory, like Evolution.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
2008-3 = 2005.
In all seriousness, why is it it took ~4 years for this study to actually get started? IMHO you got to thank the crackpot conspiracy theorists, if it wasn't for them this whole thing would have never been explained...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
The official Government story is that there was "no loss of life" in or around building 7.
So to which dead firefighters do you refer? The ones witnesses said they had to step over in the lobby? Government says they did not exist.
If a structure doesn't have to be cost-effective or inhabitable, you can build almost anything with concrete. The most prominent example of this phenomenon is the 105-story Ryugyong Hotel in Pyongyang.
Not inhabitable, certainly not cost-effective, but it is over a thousand feet of concrete structure and interesting in a creepy way.
Cue the "In Communist North Korea, concrete builds you!" jokes.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Fair point :)
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
> The science is clearly on the side of those who wish to expose the truth about 9/11.
Except you can't make science up as you go along. Yeah, yeah, I know, someone saw an old man with mutton chops singing 'hunka hunka burning steel ... ' while dancing on the pile. Somebody heard something weird, too. Read their stuff. Makes less sense than the official version.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
Are you asking me to do your homework for you? Just go out to YouTube and find the videos! It should take you all of about 30 seconds to do the search.
Anything which forces me to remove my blinkers-of-denial is bad. UR a conspiracy nut and I'm a good American.
</irony>
Requiem for the American Dream
Yes you will, but this action will run out of energy pretty quickly, and will stop pretty quickly, and won't result in a cascade to the rest of the structure - unless the rest of the structure is completely unsound or has been made unsound in some way.
This is a bogus argument, because the reason why this structure collapses is because a structure of a pyramid of people is unsound from the top to the bottom. It doesn't collapse because of the momentum of a collapse in the top half. If you tried to do this to the pyramid of Giza, bugger all would happen apart from a collapse of the top part of it. Using a pyramid as an example is also bogus, because there is less on the floor above than on the floor below. If you had an inverted pyramid, you might have a point, but you don't.
No, this would not happen at all. It doesn't pick up momentum. It actually loses energy and speed as it goes until it stops. I have never seen an increase in the weight of debris accelerating a collapse beyond the fall of gravity.
You'd have to have one extremely and dangerously unsound structure for this to be feasible and have any bearing, and even then, it would still be difficult because all the debris compacts into each other.
I'm not sure what you think I want to believe, and I'm not interested in any explosions at all. I'm simply talking about how the mechanics of a collapse actually happens.
If you believe these physics are true then feel free to present your findings at a demolition conference somewhere. The industry will slash their costs like there's no fucking tomorrow!
So whose point are you trying to prove?
You're catching on. ;-)
But seriously, the purpose of my original post was merely to suggest an explanation for why lots of people have a hard time accepting the apparent symmetry of the tower collapses being due to chance. (And kudos if you can parse that puppy on the first try.)
Yes, probability is just that. My point was that when considering what might have actually happened, it behooves one to judge which is MORE LIKELY, given the best evidence.
My assertion is that all this being coincidence is probably about as likely as losing Rio de Janeiro tomorrow to an asteroid sent down by bugs... that is to say: not.
I have no doubt the Governator saw mangled steel, that was damaged by the fire (either directly or indirectly). The fact that he, an actor and politician, attempted to convey the point with incorrect technical terminology does not surprise me in the slightest. Neither do I think either an expert or an average person would take the word of a politician on technical issues, so I can't see how his comment would further a conspiracy to convince anyone of anything.
*sigh*
I've head from several people who were there, and reported seeing "a small plane" (presumably propeller driven--ie. a Cesna) crash into the first tower.
I also heard from former pilot who was there, and, 5 minutes after witnessing it, recognized the errant plane in question as a jumbo jet, and even went as far as making an (correct) educated guess that it was likely a Boeing 767.
So... you heard explosions. Are you an explosives expert? Would an explosives expert, who witnessed the destruction of the towers, report hearing explosions? Or would he, instead, identify hearing loud noises, that did not sound anything like explosions to him?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
This is all from a UK grad student's thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÂC...."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm
So you're comparing a house which have absolutely no support materials built to withstand fires to a skyscraper. Geez, do you think that perhaps skyscrapers might be built in a somewhat slightly different manner. That maybe, just maybe, they are much more resilient to fires? The shit that gets modded up on here baffles me.
"A video that was originally on the goddamned 5 o'clock news cannot be faked by conspiracy theorists! It was made by the NEWS organization, and seen live by THE PUBLIC! Fakers would be caught at their fakery within 5 minutes!"
Jeez, guy, you will have to do a lot better than that. Have you even TRIED to look at the actual videos yet? I am betting no.
but do you know what the queers did to the soil of WTC 7?
Eat sleep die
The claims about it being controlled demolition misses some points that are important....
One of the most important (which the video points out) is that a controlled demolition would have required explosives... which make a loud noise. Sufficient explosives to bring down WTC7 would have made a 130db noise, which nobody on the scene heard.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I retract the statement about the "radio station". What actually happened was that witnesses (more than one) outside the building reported that an emergency worker's radio was giving a countdown that coincided to the building's collapse.
If anything, that is even more telling.
And when you watch the film, it's obvious. My first thought on 9/11 was "controlled demolition", but watching the towers fall the second time it was clear that the top potion of the building was in freefall, taking outone story at a time as it fell.
The top portion of the building (above where the plane hit) falls as a unit. The bottom portion fails one floor at a time. If you watch videos of controlled emolitions, the only part that looks the same is the "falling" part.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"... failed to mention that neither was impacted by anything with the amount of force that the airliner that hit the WTC did."
Yeah, steel and concrete and other debris falling from the collapse of a 110 story building has almost no force whatsoever...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
And I suppose you have applied the relevant scaling laws to your lego model? Please, enlighten us to the dimensionless constants which define your system?
link...
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Not witch doctors for 9/11 truth. Not Pentecostal Ministers for 9/11 tongues.
ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS for 9/11 Truth.
"If you say so..."
The building you're showing has about 10 floors. WTC 1 and 2 had 10 times that and weighed exponentially more, in spite of being made with substantially similar materials. What would be strong enough to act as a pivot point for a 10 story building would buckle like a house of cards under a 100 story building, long before leaning over enough to "topple over" properly.
Well, in the first place your chronology is off. The first Enron trial began in 2004. As of 9/11/2001, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling were still in charge, and in fact the first public questioning by analysts of Enron's valuation were only a few months old at that time. The SEC investigation didn't begin until October 2001, so if it all were an attempt to cover up Enron evidence, it would quite literally be prescient.
In any case, there are easier ways to get rid of evidence if you have this kind of power. It is hardly necessary to destroy seven buildings when a fire starting near a single room would do. Even a simple burglary is both easier and more likely to succeed. Add this the fact that the destruction of so many buildings and lives means there would be commission afterwards to investigate. This commission could, of course, be controlled, but if the power to do this certainly it could much more readily have squelched the original investigation.
This kind of "evidence" is typical of conspiracy theories, which have three hallmarks:
(1) Require remarkably smooth coordination between conspirators with no demonstrable ties and considerable reason to distrust each other.
(2) Require the conspirators to choose convoluted, uncertain, and risky means where more direct, more reliable and safer means would presumably be at their disposal.
(3) Concoction and defense of dramatic "facts" that are either can't substantiated or are even (as here) demonstrably impossible.
Now what work, exactly, could be (a) passed of as routine, (b) be so non-invasive that witnesses would fail to recall it later and (c) reliably bring the building down?
Remember, the whole reason or this theory is that the building could not have imploded without considerable preparation. If a few plastic explosive charges here or there could due the trick, why couldn't extensive structural damage followed by a raging fire?
Armchair it may be, but whereever it proceeds from it is well supported in evidence that conspiracy theories such as this do not explain the facts very well. It follows that since the "explanations" involved are not very convincing in terms of how they reconcile facts, they must be convincing for other reasons. The exact nature of those reasons are, admittedly, a topic of speculation. Who can know for certain? However, I think my explanation is both plausible, and more charitable than the more common assumption that conspiracy theorists are just bat-shit crazy.
Now, I want to go on record that I do think Enron's senior executives were evil, and that I believe the Bush administration is both evil and wildly incompetent at pursuing its nefarious aims. However, I don't think it is within their scope of competence (or incompetence) to execute this putative conspiracy, nor is there any evidence requiring explanations of this sort.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Especially when you consider that the interior elements are failing first due to the heat, which in turn directs more of the kinetic energy inward (towards the core) than outward.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
RE: "Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere ..."
I am not wedded to particular explanations, however, the recent certainty of government explanations that are later proved to be fatally flawed only to be followed by another propagated with the same level of certainty leave me skeptical of all official pronouncements.
While I think the National Institute of Standards was a class outfit, since the "Reagan Revolution" scientific studies have not been immune to political interference. Moreover, when more than one explanation can explain the observations the simplest is usual given the greater weight. Three years sounds a bit too much time and effort to create another, albeit more complex explanation for an unlikely coincidence leading to a weird physical outcome. An asymmetric heat source left unattended could still bring down a building vertically? That results in a symmetric final failure mode brought together by the happenstance of low probability set of failures. Truly astounding, if it really happened that way.
On principle, I have qualms about accepting these findings on little more than blind faith from sources that have proven to be unreliable.
I worry too that the one and only anthrax terrorist has been found and explained (via leaks) to the most credulous and receptive types, i.e. the establishment press corps. I would prefer the skeptical scientific types with relevant skills to evaluate the evidence. Moreover, when you see a key element blown one day to be replaced the next without mention the first was bogus (Washington Post, http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/18/anthrax/), I think we all should give a hearing to the supposed crackpots. I no longer trust anything said or supported by the "realists" and their unlimited credulity to all official explanations. I bring this up, because they too (the establishment press) attack conspiracy theorists, that fail to see the truth as easily as they.
Are you Alex Jones?
Yer, because the weight and mass above is greater than the weight and mass below and will fall over because it has reached a tipping point. Obviously. However, the weight will not collapse the leg below my knee into a pulp into the floor. Everything above the knee will fall over and leave at least the foot relatively intact.
The momentum and energy of that collapse dissipates and slows as each person collapses until the collapse stops because there is less of you at the top than there is below. You'll be unlucky if more than half of that structure isn't left. However, since you're talking about a structure of people then it's all rather null and void, isn't it?
I am astonished that this is the level of pure bile we're getting on Slashdot these days. If the above were the case then the demolition industry is wasting its money.
What's the point of spending millions to find out why exactly a building right next to the WTC came down on 9/11 ?
Add this money to the billions the US spends each month on an unending war and you can see why the US economy is going down.
Maybe it's time America started focusing on its own people a little more, instead of pretending to be 'the greatest country in the world', while at the same time having more and more people being poorer than most people in former Eastern Europe.
It would seem to me, that it is more likely that it would be the exception rather than the rule for them to fall straight down.. because all it would take is for one of 4 sides to be weaker and collapse first and then weight would shift towards that weaker side increasingly..
I want to see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga recreations... now that's some science.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Now, what do you call the logical fallacy of relying on your own ignorance to prove a point?
Ooh, ooh, I know this one! "Truther"
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I did the sum in reply. I think your response is more satisfying; at least I got a smile out of it instead of...oh, horror at people's ability to quote technical from a basis of complete ignorance.
As it happens, a lot of this sort of stuff is answered quite gently in the NIST's FAQ
But that would require reading
Down with categorical imperatives
The Invasion of Normandy proves that large conspiracies can be kept secret. England was known to be crawling with German spies in WW2, yet the Nazis never found out the correct location of the invasion target... Normandy. Matter of fact, the commander of Axis forces at the Atlantic Wall, Rommel (one of Hitlers best generals) was so sure nothing was going to happen in the near future, he left his command to visit his wife and son and was not able to be at his HQ the morning of the invasion.
Several days after the invasion, Rommel was still so sure the primary invasion was coming at Calais, he withheld his best Panzer units away from the Normandy Peninsula.
As far as conspiracies within the US, how the Manhattan Project. We blew up a freakin' nuclear weapon in New Mexico, and nobody knew about it for years! We built a whole city nobody knew about too.
Some points about WTC7:
- NIST proved that according to our current understanding of physics its was possible for the building to come down without explosives due to the fires. This doesn't mean that this is 100% sure what happened, but it is dumb to scream "no way was it possible" after this if you have any belief in out physics. So, it was physically possible
- NIST showed that using explosives to bring the building down would not have matched what we saw when the building collapsed. No broken windows from the pressure wave, no explosive sounds of the required magnitude (before the fall)
Some points about "truther" theories
- The collapse didn't look anything like a CD. Sure from the moment the building started to collapse it did, but that's becuase in CD:s gravity also brings down the building. But no CD like explosions and flying debris and "squibs" were seen (before the collapse). Check this video (watch it fully or after about 2:30 you see CD:s). Tell me in what way is this similar to the WTC7 collapse: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926
- I haven't seen anywhere any calculations, models, tests or anything about how explosives would have been used. That is only now by NIST, but the truther side hasn't provided these. How muchch explosives? Where and how were they placed?
- Then there is thermite/thermate. I don't know why the truth-movement has clinged to this stuff. Anyways, show me some models or tests how you would cut vertical steel beams with this stuff. No such info has yet been produced. And these guys ridicule NIST for being slow? Yes, sulphur was found at the site, big surprise...
So the truhter side only likes to try to shred to pieces other people's work, but they have yet to produce one single scientific publication, or any other paper which hasn't been thoroughly dismissed by the scientific community.
Why is this? If they have all the answers why is it so hard to produce anything? No papers, tests, models, nothing. Just shouting "false flag!" like that proves eveyrthing. Oh I forgot, they only have questions...
One fool can ask more questions than 100 people can answer.
I actually read the report, which is quite interesting. This is the first time ever that a major high-rise building has totally collapsed from fire alone.
First, the biggest problem was that the fire sprinklers for the lower floors lost their water supply after the WTC1 collapse, which took out the city water main. The upper floor sprinklers were fed from tanks high in the building, and they were able to contain the fires on upper floors. The firefighters had to abandon the building because they didn't have a water supply.
The building had surprisingly little structural redundancy. The loss of one key interior column was enough to trigger a progressive collapse. The beams between columns were too long and not heavy enough to provide structural redundancy.
Fuel storage wasn't a factor. Paper storage and the use of open-plan bullpens was a much bigger issue. With more interior walls, the fire would have spread more slowly.
The building was built on top of a sizable power substation, but that didn't affect the fire. Nor did the basement-level fuel tanks for emergency generators. Only the small "day tanks" on higher floors fed the fire, and they weren't that big.
The recommendations in the report are surprisingly weak. They're not recommending any building code changes that would have prevented the WTC7 collapse. They're not recommending backup water supplies for sprinklers, for example. If there'd been some emergency arrangement through which the fire pumps could have drawn water from the nearby Hudson River, the building would have survived.
Emergency water supply in fires is a huge issue. In the 1989 San Francisco earthquake, the fire-fighting water supply for parts of the city was lost, despite a system that was supposed to be triply redundant. SF has a main water supply, an emergency system with a mountaintop tank, and cisterns under some key intersections. The main system was knocked out by the quake. The emergency system failed because some mains broke, and there was nobody on duty at the valve house at the tank to turn the valves to cut off the broken mains, so the tank drained out. (Due to a budget cut, that job was unstaffed. For seventy years, there'd been people at the tank on standby, with nothing to do until the next quake.) The cistern system had never been extended to the Marina district, so that backup was unavailable. However, there was yet another backup - SF fire trucks have suction hoses and pumps for use with those cisterns, and a few trucks were able to get to the edge of the Bay and suck in salt water. By stringing enough hoses together, they were able to deliver water to the fires.
If you Buy Fraggle Rock, Season 2 on DVD and watch episode 36, titled "The Doozer Contest," you will find, about 3 and a half minutes in, Flange saying "Look the Fraggles are Destroying the North Tower" and then all of the Doozers Cheer. If you don't believe that this is proof positive that Jim Henson was behind the events of September 11th, then you are a disinformation agent and a muppet of the shadow government.
Exactly - it's the same principle which allows a martial-artist to smash through 10 stacked concrete slabs. If you stacked the slabs directly on top of each other he'd smash his fist into goo before doing any damage to them, but if you leave a gap - even just a quarter of an inch - it creates enough space for the slabs to break individually instead of as a combined mass.
You do realize that the support structure in the towers was entirely on the perimeter, right? Each floor was hung like a (rigid) hammock from the outer walls. When the crossbeams softened just enough (no linger rigid) to pull inward rather than down, the outer walls buckled at that point. How else would you immagine a hammock would fall if you cut its strings?
Once the mass of building above the weak point got moving, nothing below was strong enough to hold it up, so it was nearly freefall at that point. But look carefully at the video and you'll clearly see that the building above where the plane hit falls as an intact mass, taking out each floor below it in turn.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Other videos have been mentioned in this thread.
But... so you watched the video. Do you still assert that it is a fake? Something that was aired live to millions of viewers?
If would be extremely easy show that it was altered, if it really were. Just compare the recording to the one BBC archives. But of course that would be a waste of time. It would have been noticed by some of those viewers long ago.
I am posting anonymously because I believe the moderating in this forum is unreasonably biased against those who question the official explanation of the WTC collapses, myself among them. I fully support having a new, independent investigation of the WTC collapses, rather than the federal investigations we've had to date. I thought I would include the following quotes directly from the NIST Report which I find interesting and relevant to some of the discussions here.
This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. (p. xxxi)
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. It was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an airplane. The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from those in the towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously. Instead, the fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings did not collapse, while WTC 7 succumbed to its fires. (p. xxxi)
The reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin. (p. 13)
The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 collapse sequence was the buckling of Column 79. This buckling arose from a process that occurred at temperatures at or below approximately 400 deg. C (750 deg. F), which are well below the temperatures considered in current practice for determining fire resistance ratings associated with significant loss of steel strength. (p. 19)
Note Figure 3-14. Buckling of the lower exterior columns... (p. 38)
Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris... The details of the progression of the horizontal failure and final global collapse were increasingly less precise. Thus, while the two predictions of the time of descent of the west penthouse also straddled the observed time, the mechanisms of building collapse were quite different... The kink and rotation of the northeast facade occurred 2 to 3 s after the exterior facade had begun to move downward, as a result of the global collapse. The simulations do show the formation of the kink, but any subsequent movement of the building is beyond the reliability of the physics in the model. (p. 40)
Yet, in the summary at the end of the report:
Computer simulations of the fires, the thermal heating of the structure, the thermally induced damage to the structure, and the structural collapse can be used to predict a complex degradation and collapse of a building. The overall features and timing of the prediction were consistent with the videographic evidence. (p. 51)
Knock-knock
Who's there?
Nine-eleven.
Nine-eleven who?
YOU SAID YOU WOULD NEVER FORGET!
I'm sorry you're sick of it, but have you heard a reasonable reason why there was molten steel?
There WAS molten steel found at the site. It was melted and liquified. That fact has not been disputed.
You can claim weakened steel caused the failure, but for the pattern you describe to be possible, the heat and damage had to be extremely uniformly distributed and the failure of all critical structures would have to have failed at exactly the same time. If there were any inconsistencies in the failures, the building would have fallen in the direction of whichever area weakened to failure first. But let's just accept for the moment that the failure only required "weakened" steel to fail the way it did. Where did the molten steel come from? What could have burned hot enough to cause that to happen? If you can't answer that, and the official explanations of the event don't touch on it, then what we have is a significant, unanswered question.
And even if this were as you suggest it was, why is this the ONLY building in existence that ever collapsed this way due to fire? Only, not the only... the only two. Never before and never since has a fire ever done this to a skyscraper and not even older, weaker structures suffered as complete destruction as this when a plane hit it. (I speak again of the Empire State building which still stands after a bomber struck it at the end of WW2.) And for what it's worth, a 767 is not a jumbo jet. It's a "regular" sized jet liner.
I am peddling no theory. I am stating that the evidence does not fit with the story.
Do you deny the official accounts of molten liquified steel? From what I have read, it was identified and recorded as being present. If that's true, then something burning at over twice the temperature of the hottest jet fuel had to have burned in order to reduce the steel to liquid. No explanation has been offered for that mystery. It's interesting that you seem to dance around that question as well. The fact that the buildings fell very neatly straight down and failed extremely uniformly might be dismissed or ignored by most people and yourself included (but it's an extremely unlikely possibility) but the liquified steel hasn't even seen an attempt at an official explanation so far.
Yes, it's true that building such as those are designed to fall pancake style. But that design depends on the main support columns being blasted out from under the floors to make that happen. Failing the main columns being destroyed to allow the orderly collapse of the building, they will not fall that way... in fact, they will hardly fall at all.
"I believe the NIST report suggests that elements such as the titanium axles used in the engines caused significant structural damage to the building core in certain places." -- I just love this part. In order for this to have resulted in what the whole world saw, the plane parts would have had to have damaged *all* core columns in such a way that they all failed at approximately the same time causing the pancake sequence to start. It didn't happen that way. Instead the structure was fine and did exactly what it was designed to do; withstand the impact of a 707 sized airliner. Then fires started and consumed multiple floors of the building but was otherwise fairly well contained.
Ah, yes, the favorite canard of the conspiracy idiot. Too bad the rest of the report then goes on to outline in detail the exact opposite strategy of what followed after 9/11.
That passage of the PNAC report is a good litmus test for the honesty of conspiracy theorists. If you quote it as evidence of conspiracy, it becomes obvious that you haven't actually read the PNAC report, nor have you bothered to look at any evidence which contradicts your theories. It's handy in that it allows me to immediately ascertain that you're an idiot, and move on to debating people who may actually care about the truth.
If your statements are correct, then you have been wasting everybody's time, not just your own.
You clearly stated, as if it were a mantra, "YouTube is not a reliable source of information." The implication is obviously that any video on YouTube is inherently unreliable. Many might be... but not in this case, because it was a news show seen live by millions of people.
The actual source was a reputable news organization, and there is very good reason to believe that the video has not been altered in any way.
As for your assertion that the BBC "made a mistake", you are still missing the point. How likely is it that they made that particular mistake at that particular time? The idea that it was just "coincidence", that they had all that exact information minutes before it happened, is just not likely enough to be believable. The idea that they were given this information and aired it prematurely is MUCH more likely.
None of the offerred scenarios are impossible. But which is more likely? Coincidence is not on the top of the list.
It wouldn't matter if the entire south end of Manhattan Island was submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and allowed to burn for weeks. The steel structures of the high rise buildings would emerge relatively intact.
Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to damage the framework of steel frame buildings.
-------
"While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÂC.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm
That must be nice to have all the facts. Not like all those so-called experts, they don't know anything!
Why won't slashdot let me change my terrible username
lol
It's funny how the biggest fools in the world are always the ones who are utterly convinced that they're right.
(describing the building my name, number, AND location)
Further, emergency workers are on video telling bystanders to run because the building was about to "come down", and that (in so many words) that it was about to "blow up". This, well before it actually fell.
This would all still be consistent with my scenario that they did expect WTC7 to collapse and that their was a misunderstanding between blowing up and collapsing. I am not claiming this is exactly what happened (we will never know), but in Mythbuster's words, it is a plausible scenario.
Those are just a few among many such "coincidences" that make the fire theory just unbelievable.
In your logic, the existence of an alternative theory makes the fire scenario less likely. This is false logic, since none of these 'facts' contradict the fire hypothesis. I don't see how one quote of a reporter/silverman is evidence that contradicts a simulation by NIST. Do read the report, i did and I liked it. It does explain in great detail how an uncontrolled fire can lead to structural weakening and an eventual collapse of the building. It will never be possible to determine how things happened exactly, but they describe a plausible scenario based on hard-core science. Denying this plausibility means you question the scientific integrity of some 50 experts of a highly respected institute. And as things works in science, you will need a consensus among people of similar qualification to counter their arguments, not just a single guy or some random amateur from the internet.
I could agree with you that they didn't rule out the alternative theory (controlled demolition) enough, although they do a little in appendix D of the report. But you still didn't give me an alternative scenario that would include demolition. I will help you: first we need a suspect with a motive to blow the building up, i can only think of Al Qaida (but they already blew up WTC 1 and 2 with airplanes, why would they take the trouble to blow up a smaller building with a lot of effort), Silverstein (he needed the insurance money, but would he commit a crime for that?) or 'the goverment'/FBI/CIA (but why? to cover up what?). Then we need to know how they did it, especially how they managed to sneek explosives or thermite into the building without anyone seeing. We also need to know when, did they install them in the few hours on 9/11 while the building was evacuated and already on fire? You see, if you try to make a story you quickly run into some hard questions. I dare you to come up with a story that is as simple as the one I gave.
karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
The Madrid building fire was also faught for many hours. The WTC7 fire was not.
Funny how you get so picky when your theories are being contradicted, yet fail to mention relevant details which contradict you.
The explosion of the 3 WTC buildings was screwed up. It was so badly screwed up millions of people that witnessed it knew it was government cover story was a LIE.
16% of the American people think explosives brought down the WTC.
Sounds like a pretty big screw up to me.
I would not recommend the crackpot option. That gets you hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh as a motherfucker.
Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
Why did you lie about not being a conspiracy theorist?
Anyway, any structural engineer can tell you that you're full of shit. There's more than enough kinetic energy in a building like WTC7 to guarantee a complete collapse once the mass starts moving. The reason demolition teams normally get involved is simply because if you want a CONTROLLED demolition, you need to be careful about how you bring the building down. On the other hand, if you don't care about damaging half of Manhattan, you can just send in a midget with a sledgehammer.
What physical evidence of a controlled demolition exists that can't be explained in a more likely manner? Do you have any idea how long such a procedure takes? And that the interior is basically gutted? I think someone might have noticed....
A LOT of people have noticed. A LOT of people have claimed things.
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in anything without fact. I posses extreme skepticism. I can easily disbelieve either scenario. I don't believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition and I don't believe it was only the result of the plane crash.
In my mind there are enough irregularities in the whole thing and there is enough world intrigue to justify a HUGE amount of skepticism on all sides. Unless I do the work, myself, or it is done by an organization that I can reasonably trust, I'm not going to "believe" anything if it doesn't satisfy my skepticism.
I have seen buildings collapse because of fire, small buildings, but buildings. They did not fall neatly into themselves. There is probably a good explanation, but I have not seen one put forth.
It is.
LOL. There is no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks.
You mean "small pieces" like these?
http://www.debunking911.com/cstripped.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/columnd.jpg
Apparently you're unaware that deliberately demolished buildings are largely destroyed by their own weight, after their structural integrity is broken with explosives?
Well, that just means as you scale members to take larger loads, it is shear strength that becomes your limiting factor, doesn't it?
No, two reasons: shear and bending are completely different beasts, and shear is linear while bending moment is squared.
The point of this thread is comparing ideal models and analysis tools; comparing scale models to larger structures becomes extremely complicated due to these difference and how section properties scale. This is why most structural analysis labs perform their tests with full sized components.
--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?
...The falling, growing, and accelerating mass destroyed the remaining building one floor at a time.....
amazingly in the same amount of time as an object would, freely falling through the air from the top of the building?
All theory is gray
The WTC collapses severely damaged many surrounding buildings and spread debris over a several block radius. If these experts did such a shitty job you can bet they would all be searching for new careers.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
That may well be the worst argument I've ever heard, and that's saying a lot.
The strength to weight ratio of Lego or Meccano is orders of magnitude greater than what you find in a skyscraper. You can't just slap together a six-inch model and "prove" anything about how the skyscraper will behave. Human intuition about how such large objects behave is quite simply wrong.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
That's called affirming the consequent. It's not insightful, informative, or valuable in any way; it's a fallacy.
I think your parent's reasoning is that regardless of whether the government is guilty or not, no government agency would say the government is guilty. Therefore, a government agency now saying the government is not guilty carries no information about the guilt of the government.
More specifically, let G be "The government is guilty." and let A be "The investigating government agency says the government is guilty.". We assume that ~G=>~A, i.e., the agency will not blame the government if the government is innocent. We also assume that G=>~A, i.e., if the government is guilty, they will force the agency to cover it up. Under these assumptions, both G and ~G lead to ~A, so the fact that we observe ~A should be obvious and does not say anything about G.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
so let me get this straight....
you are still contending that the fact that fuel burning at 1400+ degrees (300 more than the point where steel loses half of its load-bearing capacity.. a know fact by any structural engineer) is a fantasy, but that the buildings were taken down by a controlled demolition, which would have taken thousands of hours of planing, used up thousands of charges placed at exact points on each structure, would need a crew of several hundred working for weeks just to place(and not one has come forward in 7 years), and it was all orchestrated by a government led by George W Bush... the man who can not pronounce nuclear... that that explanation is the most likely?
Its called Occam's Razor... paraphrased it is "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
So which is simpler.. the thermal expansion of steel kicked in, or a conspiracy of thousands led by a simpleton not only succeeded, but has remained COMPLETELY undetected for years, despite countless investigations and scrutiny?
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
Governments lie, but this. . ?
From the get go, the controlled demolition idea struck me as 'off' somehow. If the goal was to persuade the country into war, then a single airplane crashing into a single building would have been plenty of motivation. Heck, the sinking of one passenger ship, (the Lusitania) was enough to inspire the national outrage required to get the U.S. into WWI. A couple of gun boat attacks on American destroyers in the "Gulph of Tonkin incident", (half of which turned out to be a mistaken report which nobody denies) was enough to get the U.S. to jump into Vietnam. Coupled with the right level of media encouragement, a medium-sized disaster is all that is required. Four crashing airliners on 9-11 was more than spectacular enough to launch a war.
So why go on to massively complicate things by planning a demolition of the three towers? The only two answers I've seen which suggest motive were the Silverstein profit gamble and the fact that WC7 housed a bunch of incriminating paperwork. But motive does not prove anything by itself; it has to be supported by evidence. --I've seen the Loose Change video and others, I've read all the arguments, and many of them raise clear and logical concerns. And I have gone over all the other evidence from the debunking side. They pretty much cancel one another out on the Twin Towers issue. --This is not to say that the debunkers are entirely rational. (The Popular Mechanics version of reality was perhaps one of the most arrogant, simple-minded and unconvincing.) Rather, it is the work of private individuals who put together the more rational arguments on the "natural collapse due to fire" side. (A good example of this is here.) --Though, even they offer up some pretty thinly-stretched and in my view, totally unnecessary ideas in their attempts to explain certain details. Indeed, everybody, on both sides, sport some pretty poor arguments. --But that's not a problem! All ideas, all questions and the attempts to answer them, the dialogue is entirely valid as people explore what happened on that day. All in all, it has been a spirited and very thoughtful debate with a lot of smart people contributing on both sides.
My personal conclusions?
1. Secretive portions of more than one government not only had foreknowledge, but actively strained against the well-intentioned systems in order to allow the attacks to take place, and indeed worked at certain levels to set various elements of it in place.
2. There is plenty of photographic/video evidence of the steel structure deforming and falling down as a result of fire. The big argument against this is that jet fuel cannot create enough heat. However, there were plenty of other combustibles in the fire, not the least of which being the several dozen oxygen generator canisters the planes were equipped with. I've worked with an iron forge, and simple bio-carbons, like coal in a forge, or in the case of the buildings, furniture and paper and plastics, etc., when subject to a steady airflow like a bellows or high-altitude winds, is sufficient to create high enough temperatures to take steel past the point of structural integrity and even melt it. The "Never Before Has This Happened to a Steel Building" arguments are faulty on a number of levels, not the least of which being that it's not even properly accurate. There are however, as far as I have seen, a couple of unanswered questions remaining; the claims of mysterious construction being done and the removal of bomb-sniffing dogs and the shut-off of security systems in the week leading up to the event is curious to say the least. I wonder if perhaps there might not have been more than one effort involved in the events of 9-11 rather than that of a single unified group.
3. WC7 is different question and it is less clear cut, but my impression after going over the many, once again valid questions raised by those suggesting that the building was
Yes, that is correct. Exactly as the theory says it should.
With that much mass falling at that sort of speeds, the existing structure would not have much effect on its collapse.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
But... how do you explain the firefighters repeatedly telling people to move back, the building is "coming down" and the building is "about to blow up"? This, before any other sign of collapse? Remember... they had been taken out of the building hours before.
Hmmm.. maybe because of the fact that 2 other buildings nearby have collapsed and WTC7 was known to contain thousands of gallons of diesel fuel and was in an uncontrolled blaze?
Either apply some common sense or get back on your medication.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
History is a pretty good example to use. Considering that WTC 1,2,7 are the first skyscrapers ever to collapse from a fire. Also pretty interesting considering WTC 7 didn't even get hit by anything... just somethings to think about.
Um.. no.. alot of people knew about the Manhattan Project.
The Germans knew about it, the Japanese knew about it, Stalin knew about it.
About the only people who didn't know about it was the American public, because back then, keeping a secret for national security reasons meant something. If that would have occurred today, then it would have been all over CNN and MSNBC in seconds.
And alot of people knew about D-Day... the Germans KNEW it was coming, but they didnt know when. And besides, the weather was crappy at Normandy and Rommel didn't believe the invasion was going to happen right then because of the weather in the Channel was bad.
Also, to compare wartime operations from 60+ years ago when it took hours if not days to find out what was happening on the other side of the world to a modern conspiracy is naive. Its not like someone could have picked up a phone in the UK and said "Hey Erwin, I think the Allies are coming, they just launched all there airplanes". Phone calls had to manually routed in those days, and during wartime, all those were monitored.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
As far as compiling suspect lists (the type of thing you are supposed to do in criminal investigations, Bechtel Corp. would top the list.
Means: Bechtel is the largest engineering co. in the US. Bechtel is a leader in the field of demolitions technology. Bechtel manages the Lawrence Livermore Labs a particularly suspicious form of nano-thermite was researched and developed and discussed in this April, 2000 scientific journal article.
Making Nanostructured Pyrotechnics in a Beaker
A.E. Gash, R.L. Simpson*, T.M. Tillotson, J.H. Satcher and L.W. Hrubesh
Energetic Materials Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livennore, CA 94550
Abstract
"Controlling composition at the nanometer scale is well known to alter
material properties in sometimes highly desirable and dramatic ways. In the field
of energetic materials component distributions, particle size, and morphology,
effect both sensitivity and reactivity performance. To date nanostructured
energetic materials are largely unknowns with the exception of nanometer-sized
reactive powders now being produced at a number of laboratories. We have
invented a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically
explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel ~hemistry.lT-~he ease of
this synthetic approach along with the inexpensive, stable, and benign nature of
the metal precursors and solvents permit large-scale syntheses to be carried out.
This approach can be accomplished using low cost processing methods. We will
describe here, for the first time, this new synthetic route for producing metaloxide-
based pyrotechnics. The procedure employs the use of stable and
inexpensive hydrated-metal inorganic salts and environmentally friendly solvents
such as water and ethanol. The synthesis is straightforward and involves the
dissolution the metal salt in a solvent followed by the addition of an epoxide,
which induces gel formation in a timely manner. Experimental evidence suggests
that the epoxide acts as an irreversible proton scavenger that induces the hydratedmetal
species to undergo hydrolysis and condensation to form a sol that undergoes.
further condensation to form a metal-oxide nanostructured gel. Both critical point
and atmospheric drying have been employed to produce monolithic aerogels and
xerogels, respectively. Using this method we have synthesized metal-oxide
nanostructured materials using Fe3', Cr3+, A13', Ga3+, In3', Hf', Sn4+and Zr4+
inorganic salts. Using related methods we have made nanostructured oxides of
Mo, Ti, V, Co, Ni, Cu, Y, Ta, W, Pb, B, Pr, Er, Nd and Si. These materials have
been characterized using optical and electron microscopy, infrared spectroscopy,
surface area, pore size, and pore volume analyses.
The epoxide addition sol-gel technique is amenable the addition of
insoluble materials (e.g., metals or polymers) to the viscous sol, just before
gelation, to produce a uniformly distributed and energetic nanocomposite upon
gelation. As an example energetic nanocomposites of Fe,O, and metallic
aluminum are easily synthesized. The compositions are stable, safe and can be
readily ignited. Production and characterization data of these novel energetic
materials will be presented...."
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/247064.pdf
There's been THERMITE RESIDUE in every single sample of WTC ash that's been tested so far by independent labs.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
Motive: The 9/11 destruction of WTC 7 destroyed the evidence that had been gather for the case the Departmant of Justice was building against Bechtel in "THE BIG DIG" corruption scandal.
Since 9/11, the only corporation recieving more Iraq/Afghanistan contracts than Bechtel is Halliburton.
All you have to do is damage enough of it to start a collapse. Like a fire weakening the steel, uneven heating causing some to expand more than others, and loss of support due to physical damage. Loose a couple of floor structures tying the outside supports to the inside, and the outer skin buckles, and down she comes.
OH, what caused all the floors to collapse? Try several thousand tonnes at 10m/s/s. Not much is going to stop that! Give it 3 seconds, and it's doing 100km/hr.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
"You can exclaim "fucking retards" but without thermite, there is nothing on the plane or in an office building that can burn hot enough to cause steel to melt."
Bullshit. You can melt steel in your backyard with some charcoal, piping, and a reversible vacuum cleaner. You also don't need to melt the steel, you just need to heat it to the point of weakening, which is a lot lower than melting.
Have you ever seen a bellows in operation? It's pretty simple. Take some fuel, set it on fire, then force a bunch of air through it. This creates far more heat than could normally be obtained and amateur metallurgists have been doing this in their backyards for years to melt all sorts of materials from aluminum to silver to steel.
When the jets crashed into the buildings, it created a natural bellows (restricted opening, lots of burning fuel, natural vacuum effect due to rising air). The fact that under those conditions the buildings lasted as long as they did is no small feat. The fire raged internally, weakened/melted the steel supports, and the top levels collapsed inward and downward.
There's really no mystery here. You can search online as to how you can melt all sorts of metals with a few household implements. It's not hard.
~X~
~X~
Moderation -2
50% Troll
50% Offtopic
To TrollMods, simple, public, indisputable facts about the chain of command of this report in Bush's government is a "troll". And somehow, specifically how the government is reporting on itself is "offtopic".
--
make install -not war
"In your logic, the existence of an alternative theory makes the fire scenario less likely. This is false logic, since none of these 'facts' contradict the fire hypothesis. I don't see how one quote of a reporter/silverman is evidence that contradicts a simulation by NIST. Do read the report, i did and I liked it. It does explain in great detail how an uncontrolled fire can lead to structural weakening and an eventual collapse of the building. It will never be possible to determine how things happened exactly, but they describe a plausible scenario based on hard-core science. Denying this plausibility means you question the scientific integrity of some 50 experts of a highly respected institute. And as things works in science, you will need a consensus among people of similar qualification to counter their arguments, not just a single guy or some random amateur from the internet."
Oh, yes, I do question their integrity. There is no doubt of that. They might have all the integrity in the world. But the simple fact that the report was organized and coordinated by a bureaucratic agency of the Federal Government gives me every reason to question. Remember that this involves the same government administration -- and in part even the same agency, FEMA -- that botched the New Orleans thing so thoroughly. So there is every reason to question. (There was a FEMA office in WTC 7, and a couple of FEMA employees are in fact two of the more credible witnesses who contradict the official government story.)
Perhaps you think that is unreasonable. Well, look at last year's IPCC report on Global Warming. Some of the science behind it might be reputable, but the conclusions found in the report were not based on that science. Authors of some of the papers cited tried to get their names removed from the report, stating that the conclusions are not supported by their work. And that was a report from the UN, involving literally hundreds of "reputable" scientists. Of course, the IPCC changed their tune in this year's report... which merely reinforces the point that their reports are unreliable. No matter how many reputable scientists they cite.
A problem here is that you are not looking at the big picture. If if you want to talk about science, then how about the science of probability? Here is a truth about probability: the likelihood of something occurring, given a number of independent variables, is the product of the individual probabilities for those variables. For example, let's take three variables that are pretty much independent: location, weather, and vehicle type. What is the probability that you will get injured by lightning, if you are on an aluminum-masted sailboat, in the middle of a large lake, in a thunderstorm? Not terribly high, really, but higher than would make most people very comfortable. On the other hand, what is the probability that you would get injured by lightning, in your car, on a clear summer day? Very low indeed. So you can take the statistic that 70-some people get struck by lightning every year in the U.S., and that might tell you something in a general way. But it tells you very damned little about the individual circumstances.
Here is a statistic that is true: prior to that September 11, NO steel-structure skyscraper in the world had EVER collapsed due to fire. Never. Not one. And there have been fires in skyscrapers that completely gutted the buildings. But no collapse.
The fire scenario is barely plausible regarding the twin towers. But WTC 7 had not been struck by planes. So THREE buildings, one of them built differently from the others by (I believe) a different firm, collapse from a cause that had NEVER been seen before? What is the likelihood of that? The circumstances of WTC 7 must be considered an independent variable... it did not have the excuses for failure that the other buildings did. The probability of this actually occurring is VERY low.
Eyewitness accounts contradict the government's official story on many, many things..
This kind of "evidence" is typical of conspiracy theories, which have three hallmarks:
(1) Require remarkably smooth coordination between conspirators with no demonstrable ties and considerable reason to distrust each other.
Like, for instance, a random group of guys from the middle east..
(2) Require the conspirators to choose convoluted, uncertain, and risky means where more direct, more reliable and safer means would presumably be at their disposal.
Like for instance living in America for several years, taking flying lessons, and then hopefully taking control of an airliner full of hundreds of people with a KNIFE, and then, never having flown a plane, mind you, fly the gigantic airliner into a huge city of skyscrapers and successfully impact the plane into a cross section of several hundred feet, TWICE?
(3) Concoction and defense of dramatic "facts" that are either can't substantiated or are even (as here) demonstrably impossible.
Such as finding a perfect, unscathed copy of the attacker's passport in the wreckage?
Cool! Amazing Toys.
....You will still get at least some of the building intact.....
That may or may not be true, depending on the structure of the building itself. However, the buildings collapsed at essentially free-fall speed, with apparently no resistance from the lower floors. If the domino theory of one floor collapsing the next one down and so on were true, then the total speed of the collapse should have been considerably slower than what the videos show. The inertial mass of the buildings below where the airplanes hit, was much greater than the mass above the impact point. From the videos I've seen at least, this large lower mass did not slow the fall of the smaller upper mass in any way. Only a deliberate near instantaneous removal of all supports in the entire building, could make the whole structure fall as quickly as it did.
All theory is gray
New building code forbade use of asbestos. If asbestos had been used to protect the steel from heat damage during a fire, the buildings would not have come down.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
I'm so sorry. That's incorrect. Thanks for playing
The Germans know nothing about the Manhattan Project. Stalin had one spy infiltrate the Manhattan Project pretty thoroughly, but like many of the Soviet spy successes, Stalin refused to believe the reports the spy was sending in, so the Soviets were ordered to do nothing with the information.
And the Germans would have sat down in front of a radio transmitter and immediately tapped out whatever needed to be sent on a morse code key.
You have heard of radio transmitters? I assure you Germans spies were more than capable of getting urgent radio messages out of England instantaneously.
He's answering your question about why a demolition crew doesn't work that way. Try to keep up.
I'm not even going to bother to quote you because you've made it apparent that you know shit all about physics, so I'll just make some points before I proceed to ignore you like the troll you are:
1. I never said that mass causes it to accelerate the collapse, I said mass adds momentum. F=ma. Force = mass * acceleration. The acceleration is constant. I believe that the report cited it as being 40% that of freefall, so 3.92m/s^2. As more and more floors are broken through, the weight of the broken floor itself adds to the mass of the debris that's falling, and since almost every floor is made of, roughly, the same materials, and assuming the fall is constant, that means each time to a floor is broken, the force of the falling debris doubles. So the fifth floor that was broken, for example, had to try to brace 4 times the force of the first floor that broken. It's a linear increase in force as each subsequent floor collapses. This is not "alleged", this is not "a myth". This is simple high school physics, that anyone who's even remotely intelligent can apply to the situation.
2. As c6gunner pointed out, demolition crews don't do this because it leaves a lot up to chance, and they want the demolition to go as smoothly as possible.
3.
Ok, I lied, I had to quote your utter ignorance of anything relating to this topic. To put it simply, kinetic energy is the energy of a moving body. Potential energy is the energy of a stationary body. If you put a book on a shelf, that book now has potential energy equal to its height off of the floor. If it falls, that energy turns into kinetic energy. The mass that begins moving, which c6gunner refers to, is the collapsing upper floors.
Let me put it to you as such: A car stands on a hill, and someone pushes it so that it begins rolling. It's possible that, if you're at the top of the hill, and reach the car soon enough, you can stop the car again with little more effort than pushing it with your finger. Try that at the bottom of the hill though, and you'll get run over.
Now imagine that that car is also getting heavier as it goes downhill. The increased weight doesn't make it faster, but it DOES make it more difficult for something to stop it. Each floor of the WTC was a massive concrete slab. Those weigh A LOT. So assuming that the 3-5 floors that were actually on fire were the only ones weakened, the question because not whether the floor below can support those 3-5 floors, plus whatever was above them, the question is whether the floor below can withstand the IMPACT of that much weight. The answer, as any engineer, and even some high school physics students can tell you, is not a chance.
All of this being said, pancaking did not cause the collapse per se, pancaking basically just made it sudden and violent. The building was already inherently unstable due to the the heat expansion of vertical columns, due to warping of the materials, etc. Nothing had to "melt". Melting points are mostly irrelevant. Heat causes metals, such as steel, to be soft and pliable, as well as expanding them. The pancaking of the upper floors caused even more severe stresses on the support columns to warp even further until they could no longer cope with the massive and sudden strain they were under, and they gave way.
PS- Believe what you like, but your ignorance on the matter, in addition to your insistence that you are correct, makes you a card carrying conspiracy theorists.
You presumably mean "engineering", not "math", and their collapse was investigated, determined, and documented about a year ago. There are a number of papers in engineering determining the reasons, even. (I should know; I've sat through a fair number of the colloquia.)
Like many, you seem to think that because nobody has shoved these analyses and models in your face, they must not exist.
Did you miss the part where jumbo jets loaded for a trans-atlantic flight were purposefully crashed into WTC1 and WTC2?
No, there were no pictures of molten steel. There was steel melted from blow torches, plenty of beam cutting going on. There was red hot steel pulled from the pile, that is true, no molten steel though. The flowing liquid from the south tower was identified as lead coming from a UPS center a few floors above the impact site. There is no cohesive conspiracy theory, though there are conflicting ones. Tell me Mr conspiracy theorists, was Al Qaeda in on this with the US Government? Did they make marty videos to help the US make it look like a terrorist attack. Was the US Government and Al Qaeda in coohots in 93 as well? Perhaps you forget that Al Qaeda declared War on the US after Saudia Arabia allowed us to use their land for Air Bases? Perhaps a lesson in the history of Al Qaeda's jihad against the US is in order?
It's funny... No matter how many times you tell people, or how intelligent they may be, for some reason you just can't seem to get people to realize that simulations are often worthless in cases like this, as you can make a simulation say or prove anything you want it to by tweaking it's internal dynamics to support whatever result you want. Regardless, unless you have an overwhelming amount of real-world data and flawless physics computational models, no simulation is ever completely valid - modeling the real world inside a computer to that extent is functionally impossible. There simply isn't enough data on what actually happened (hence the desire to create such simulations to begin with) to create an accurate model in the first place. They don't know exactly what each fire did where - fire is notoriously difficult to predict, as the difficulty in even reproducing believable fire effects in computer animation shows: little things like winds currents, fuel spread, what parts of the plane went where in the building and did what all add up to too many statistical errors for any margin to account for, and all they are doing is best guessing here and claiming it must be true because their model agrees with them - I think the model is likely to have been biased in their own favor from the very beginning, even if not purposefully or intentionally. We as human beings are always biased, and it is not unreasonable to believe that our digital (re-)creations are any more impartial than the people who coded them to begin with.
Could I make a simulation of a galaxy that looks and behaves like a galaxy? Easy enough. Does that mean that the laws I founded my simulated galaxy on has anything whatsoever to do with how a real galaxy works? Not at all. It just means that I've managed to create a series of conditions within a computer that outputs some visuals and math that happens to look strikingly like a galaxy. Just because you use a really big computer that took a long time running said simulation does not make it any more valid. I could create a "simulation" that would take years to run but still show convincingly - based on data provided - that the building actually collapsed because of a hole through the planet that leads to China that was opened up as a result of an earthquake caused by digging done for a new hydro-dam there - that still doesn't make it correct or even partially true. Too many factors outside our ability to guess or second-guess or intuit or even, honestly, our ability to perceive, are at work.
How often does it happen that something more complex than a cheap Chinese-made children's toy or other simple item that is designed digitally actually makes it in to the real-world without modification? Does anybody know anybody who has ever designed a 10-story building in CAD that didn't require hundreds or thousands of modifications before construction was completed? I've worked for a (major) aircraft company, and I can tell you for certain that despite all the best modeling and simulation software that a multi-billion dollar aerospace defense contractor can summon, not one of those simulations is ever entirely accurate when it comes to the real world.
Any video-game company that has an engine with solid physics could recreate on a screen the WTC collapse - does that mean the factors they employed to *simulate* that collapse have anything to do with what actually occurred?
I find the quote that is on the bottom of this page as I write this to be incredibly succinct and germane - Every program is a part of some other program, and rarely fits.
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
Or just stack up some office equipment and paper.
POKE 36879,8
I don't know about WTC7 specifically, but most of these larger buildings in densely-populated areas are designed to fail in very particular ways in different building-destroying situations.
Controlled demolitions seek to cause those failure modes as ideally as possible. While uncontrolled destruction is often non-ideal, it still bears a particular resemblance to the same failure modes.
...requires more structural integrity than any skyscraper has...
The issue of the structural integrity of the lower section of the building is only of secondary importance. The inertial mass of the falling upper section of the building was much less than the inertial mass of the section below. The downward moving section of the upper floors not only had to break all supports, which might have been trivial, or not, but more importantly had to accelerate the much larger lower mass of the building. This should have slowed the collapse of the entire buildings considerably below the free fall speed which the videos clearly show.
The buildings fell down at the same speed that a steel ball would fall when dropped from the top of each building. The only way such a thing can happen, is if the entire support structure of the building is removed in an instant.
All theory is gray
There are actually very good explanations, and they have been put forth. The fact that you have not seen it shows that you're not looking. It's hard to overlook enormous engineering reports if you're looking for them (though they are terribly boring once you find them).
Yeah, sure. They "accidentally" reported the building's collapse... accidentally getting the building's name right, and accidentally mentioning its number, AND accidentally mentioning its location. Mere minutes before the building accidentally collapsed.
Wow! I don't think I want to live in an area that is prone to such "accidents".
"Din't you find it strange that they could identify the teorists as fast as they did,
when identifying other victims took months."
Forgive me if it doesn't fit in with your conspiracy theory, but certainly if I was in the business of performing the forensic analysis, I'd start with "who were the guys that caused this" and not "what are the names of all these other dead people".
Ugh I was listening to the NIST conference on cspan radio a few days ago. I heard the crackpot from infowars going on and on about his crackpot theories.... All I want to know is how did he get to ask question.
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
... if you had read just about any of the rest of this thread, you would know that I am hardly "relying" on a single misreporting. That is just one thing among a great many.
I think we're in the presence of greatness here.
Tell me, Dr Avery, when is the next release of Loose Change (again cunningly released to p2p networks as "United 93" of course) up for release?
thanks
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Um.. no.. read the stuff from Project PaperClip.
Hitler DID know about our A-Bomb. They didn't know as much as Stalin, but the knew were were close. Stalin had spies at Los Alamos. The Nazi's just knew we had the project, which was more than the American public knew.
And as far using a radio transmitter, its a cakewalk to jam a local frequency, just by using a more powerful transmitter on the same frequency as the original signal.
So Thank YOU for playing.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
Demolition companies are just as concerned with preventing debris from ejecting sideways from the building as it collapses as they are with preventing the building as a whole from falling sideways.
However, to my knowledge, no building as large as the WTC towers have ever been demolished under controlled conditions, and few (if any) buildings with the same internal design (the steel tube core). The steel core of the WTC towers may have very well lent itself to a vertical collapse under any conditions.
Again, not saying anything conclusive, but merely because three buildings happened to fall more or less straight down when they collapsed is no proof that something secret went on. It could also be argued that since WTC 1 and 2 were more or less identical in structure, they should have been expected to collapse the same way given the similar conditions (of being impacted by jet planes), therefore it's only "two" perfect collapses. (Other problem: define "perfect collapse", the WTC 1/2 debris impacted other buildings, that's hardly perfect.)
It could *also* be argued that if you're going to demolish giant skyscrapers and kill thousands of people, you're also not going to care about collateral damage, so why not make them topple sideways so that it looks more accidental? Basically, it's bogus to assume that a straight-down collapse implies shenanigans in the first place.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Well, I can't go into detail, but I'm sure I'm a reputed crackpot anyway. I've spoken to more than one person ranked in a certain military branch, but they're career and obviously no one who wants to move up the ladder is going to say anything publicly. Basically what they said is that the attacks were real, but we knew they were coming. I imagine it was kept at the highest levels, where secrets are kept. Just take a look at everything from the Pentagon Papers, or released documents from CIA ops that were run by very few people - we overthrew Iran in '53 with less than one hundred people who even knew about the operation, which the person writing the after-action report called "excessive."
What I think happened is that the Bush Administration saw it as their chance to have their Pearl Harbor event as a pretext to complete the job of securing the middle east, especially what was left of Iraq. No matter what the talking heads say these days, oil wins wars. The Germans were at a severe disadvantage because they were cut off from their supply. It's one of the main reasons their North African theater collapsed onto itself, and we went to war with Japan shortly after we stopped sending them oil.
Anyway, I think some top level officials got a hold of the plans, and they staged the NORAD exercises to make sure the plans were executed successfully. I think both planes that weren't flown into the towers were shot down, one over PA, and another over the ocean. The Pentagon was hit to add fear to the whole equation, in my opinion with some sort of missile or simple explosion. I was glued to the news that day and every single news center started off with "We have reports of an explosion at the Pentagon." There are so many holes in the official story of that I really believe it was a purely American military operation, whether it was carried out by the CIA or some other covert group with US assistance I don't know.
I think the planes causing the collapse of the building is something no one saw coming, and something they continue to draw out in order to avoid direct questions about Flight 93 and the Pentagon. So, yes the civilian government is dumb, but they can carry out extremely complicated and covert military ops that never touch civilian eyes.
The dynamics of small (9 story in this case) structures are completely different from those of skyscrapers. The upper levels of small structures don't have to be built feather-light to keep the weight down, and their lower levels are under vastly less stress.
PS: It is sufficient to pose the question without adding an incendiary remark like "retards," dipshit troll.
On the other hand, if you don't care about damaging half of Manhattan, you can just send in a midget with a sledgehammer.
That's one bad ass midget.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Was the owner part of a conspiracy?
Was the media part of a conspiracy?
You sound like the crackpots, even though you're on the other side.
Knowledge is the small part of ignorance that we arrange and classify. (Ambrose Bierce)
Steel does not need to be 'melted' to be weakened well beyond safety margins, and beyond its required design strength. At moderately high temperatures it is weakened significantly.
True, steel does not need to be molten to be weakened, but you to need some event that melts steel to explain the molten steel found underneath the trade towers weeks after the collapse.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
No.
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
All Bush had to do was dismantle and stall anti-terrorism intelligence work, and he knew *something* would happen, and soon. He perhaps didn't expect the WTC to be hit, but the incompetence aimed at allowing it to happen was pretty systematic. Once it did occur, it took only a matter of days before it was cynically being spun to sell weapons and make bank for those who profit from disaster. It was a boon for all the institutions of the day, and big media who are wholly owned subsidiaries of the war industry. Perhaps nobody really allowed themselves to admit how they were using it to profit, but everyone did. Iraq was rolled out over the not-yet-cold bodies of 9-11 without anyone blinking an eye, while leveler heads were roundly ridiculed and marginalized.
None of these incompetent fuckers are innocent.
And who most likely told George Bush to lay low and do nothing? Probably, he was sold on the idea in a late night phone conference with Henry Kissinger: "Mister President, perhaps a little trip to Florida is just the thing you need to bolster your plunging numbers..."
In fact, this will be dramatized in my upcoming made-for-tv film "Homeland Insecurity" which will be released on the day Tom Skerritt apologizes for his role in NBC's racist, jingo-fest made-for-tv movie "Homeland Security" (now available on DVD!)
Welcome to the pretendocracy, people!
-- thinkyhead software and media
no citing truther says what?
Why do you say that? Based on what evidence?
It was clearly reported (and Silverstein himself said) that Silverstein and the fire department were in close communication long before the building collapsed. (In fact, contrary to the official story, it has been proven that the firefighters were told to leave the building hours before the collapse. So who WERE the people in the building? FEMA employees reported that for some strange reason, there were a lot of police. Not CIA or FBI, which had offices there. Police.)
Who is to say -- hypothetically only of course -- that the owner of the building did not tell the fire department, at that point, that there were demolition charges in place just for that kind of eventuality?
Improbable? Sure! But more probable than the building coming down due to a cause that had NEVER been seen at any other time or place in the history of the world. Ever. Before or since.
Hint: prior to 9/11, NO steel-structure skyscraper had EVER come down due to fire. And there have been plenty of fires, some of them much more extensive than in WTC 7. In fact, skyscrapers -- even much older skyscrapers -- have been completely gutted from fire before, leaving little more than the steel members left standing. But stand they did. And 9/11 saw THREE buildings supposedly collapse due to fire. AND... WTC 7 had not been struck by planes... so it did not have the excuse the other buildings did to fail.
I am NOT saying that fire did not cause the building's collapse. But I AM saying that just about all the real evidence points to it being unlikely as hell. Much more unlikely than the hypothetical situation given above. Which does not require prior collusion from the fire department for weeks in advance.
That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.
That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, Banco Ambrosiano, the P2 Lodge, the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so thereâ(TM)s no need to rehash all that. That was then, this is now!
That Jonathan Bushâ(TM)s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.
That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.
That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osamaâ(TM)s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.
That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.
That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.
The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.
That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.
That so many influential figures in and close to the Bush White House had expressed, just a year before the attacks, the need for a "new Pearl Harbo
Which it did - 40% as per the report.
Neither the videos nor the seismic record show any such thing. If you truly believe that, you've been hoodwinked by the conspiracy idiots.
For WTC1 and 2 this is easy to demonstrate - simply observe the speed of the cloud of debris falling on the outside of the building as opposed to the main mass. You'll notice a massive difference between the two. As for WTC7, it's a lot harder to tell from the video, but there are seismic records which show it took upwards of 20 seconds from collapse initiation to final impact. No matter what the actual numbers, though, there's certainly no evidence to suggest that any of the three buildings collapsed at unusually high speeds.
I see. Which engineering/construction company did you say you work for?
"It could also be that anyone who has ever watched a Discovery Channel documentary on professional demolition of large buildings has been led to believe that safely and completely collapsing such a building requires weeks of planning and absolutely precise placement and detonation of lots of explosives."
Actually, it does require that. It requires a vast amount of labor *and* highly specialized and complex physics/engineering.
Of course the operative word there is "safe" - it isn't uncommon for them to totally destroy a building and have a mostly glass front on the building next to it have *no* damage. It also takes removing a vast amount of the mass of the building beforehand.
It's not that hard to get a large structure to fall, especially *really* large ones. In fact it's probably harder to get them to stand up. It's just hard to get one to do so safely.
None of the WTC centers fell neatly or safely, the fell in an uncoordinated and dangerous way. The *did* topple over sideways to a large extent, they are just *really* large structures and the amount of sideways movement they can do before gravity becomes the dominate force and the pivot points gives isn't a very visible. They did significant damage to the structures around them (and, in fact, caused some to collapse also).
There is the occasional video of one of the (un)controlled demolitions going bad and the building "toppling" - it looks about like the WTC collapses too for the same reason. Gravity is a bitch when things go into free fall, it dominates pretty much all the other forces in play.
Heck, it isn't that hard to find where a fuel truck wrecked on a small to medium bridge and the resultant fire weaken the steel and caused a collapse (that went pretty much straight down). It wasn't *that* long that one such incident made the national news on a large bridge and a small one near my house had the same fate last year.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
I lol'd :)
For those of you who visited that site and laughed your ass off at the idiots trying to act like proffesionals, you may also want to check out the Journal of 9/11 Studies. It seems that a few of the nutters finally realized that they'd never get their drivel published in a real journal, so they started their own! Have a look at their "articles" - they're pure comedic genius.
Yes, militaries keep secrets sense it is sound tactics, but they are always released later on, and lots of people know about them.
In your examples, they kept a secret for a couple of months, but knowing that the truth would come out with the fruition of the plan. That eases one's ability to maintain a secret...knowing that he will be released of the burden later on.
That is far different from keeping a secret that is never ever supposed to come out for many years, especially when the more people are in on something, the less likely it is to be be secret, especially when the secret is a heinous human rights violation of treasonous proportions.
Someone blew the whistle on Enron scams, so there's just as much proof that conspiracies can't hold up over time.
If you study the 9/11 conspiracies, you can see that match the realm of the desperate, grabbing at any straws they can to support their theories instead of engaging in honest discussions of truth. So much evidence must be concocted to piece everything together that Occam's Razor cuts through their arguments very quickly.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
The point though isn't that the steel _needed_ to melt...the point is that it _was_. We _know_ some of the steel melted. They found it in the rubble.
Dude, Occam is rolling in his grave.
Planes flown by anti-American hijackers crashed into the buildings, and they fell down, causing massive damage. That is what was witnessed. Pretty simple...crash, burn, fall. Damn them.
OR
Most incredibly efficient and amazingly treasonous government conspiracy ever still hasn't leaked in 7 years. The complexity of things to make this true is mind-boggling.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
....To 'pull' a building is to attach cables to it and pull it down....
So what evidence is there steel cables were attached to WTC7 which were used to "pull" it down in some fashion?
All theory is gray
Seeing as this is roughly the 6,573rd time you've posted this same nonsense without anyone correcting you, I'll step up to bat before you embarrass yourself any further.
The inertial mass of the lower section as a whole is largely irrelevant because the building does not act as one solid object. Each floor can and does fail progressively - therefore it's absurd to model the entire building as just two bodies. If you're truly so obsessed with the mass ratios, you should be looking at the mass of the falling structure as compared to the weight of a single floor.
Once again: the entire mass didn't accelerate at once. The falling mass was much greater than any single floor.
Seriously, this is simple physics. Unless you think that Sir Isaac Newton was part of the coverup, you've really got no case.
No, it didn't. Stop lying.
"You are, in fact, accusing the owner of the building of having said something that he's repeatedly denied saying. You've taken a word out of context (Actually, not even that. You've invented a new meaning of a word.), added in a failure to realize that almost all building collapses look the same, and and made up some absurd theory that the US government went and told the extremely liberal BBC about a building collapse before it happens, and the BBC has not questioned this."
First, * I * did not make anything up. This was not my idea. And I did not "accuse" him of saying anything he did not, in fact, say. Further, I did not "make up" the fact that "pull" means to demolish via explosives. If you would BOTHER to look these things up, you would know that. In fact, the head of the demolition crew that took down Building 6 later used EXACTLY that same term in reference to their explosive demolition, on public television. Regardless of your opinion of YouTube, you can find unaltered clips of his statement that they were about to "pull" the building using explosives. THIS APPEARED ON PUBLIC TELEVISION and was seen by hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. You are simply wrong in that regard. Which you would know if you bothered to research your "facts". It's right there on the net, guy. Provably authentic. Easy to find. Go watch it.
As I already explained elsewhere, my "theory" does NOT require complicity by the NYFD. Your claim that it does is erroneous. In fact, there are more likely explanations than complicity by the NYFD, which still do not contradict "my" theory (which is not "mine" at all).
"And as for your question, the reason there is not an inquiry is that EVERYONE KNOWS STEEL REINFORCED BUILDINGS FALL DOWN IF THEY REMAIN ON FIRE."
Here is where you are absolutely, provably, dead WRONG. Look it up yourself. Prior to that 9/11, NO steel-structure skyscraper, anywhere in the world, at ANY time, had collapsed due to fire! Not one. Anywhere. Ever. There have been fires. Lots of them. But NONE of them ever caused the building to collapse -- EVER -- prior to 9/11. Or since. Even when the interior of the building was completely gutted, the steel structure remained standing. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, LOOK IT UP YOURSELF! You are WRONG.
I challenge you to show me even one supportable counterexample to show that is false.
Your final statement may or may not be wrong, but it is completely beside the point. It has nothing to do with the collapse of the building hours later. I can understand why you think it might, because you obviously believe that fires commonly bring down skyscrapers. But as it turns out, you are just plain wrong on that point. Again, if you can find a supportable counterexample, by all means let's have it. I don't mind admitting that I am wrong... if you can demonstrate that I am. You won't, because I am not.
That is, quite possibly, the most retarded statement made so far on this thread. I can't believe you're seriously trying to lecture others about physics.
The mass of the lower structure is largely irrelevant - it's capability to support weight is the important part. If you drop a bowling ball into a 5 tonne tank of water, it's going to drop right to the bottom regardless of the weight difference.
I mean, technically you're right - the lower mass WILL eventually stop the collapse. Unfortunately it will stop it once there are no longer any empty spaces within that lower mass, which is exactly what happened.
For the millionth fucking time, the reason we have controlled demolition companies is to PREVENT DAMAGE. They're not there because blowing up buildings is hard - it's not - they're there because it's hard to blow one up without destroying or damaging half the buildings in a 5 block radius.
Seriously, what's wrong with you?? Have you put ANY thought into this?
...The reason it seemed so sudden and quick is because we've only ever had video of one side of the building when it finally fell...
There are seismic records of the collapse that corroborate the videos which show the buildings in free fall collapse.
All theory is gray
A fool and his money are easily parted.
Hahahahaha what garbage...terrible physics, just terrible.
Debian FTW
I think you've mistaken me for a Truther. I don't think WTC 7 was 'pulled' in any manner, and I wish those people would learn some simple physics about how buildings fall.
I was just pointing out that, of all the terms that people who demolish buildings use, 'pulled' already has an entirely different meaning than 'controlled explosion', so it is unlike to ever be used to refer to such a thing.
To pull an example from my experience: It is like someone asserting that they heard a stage crew say 'We need to paint the flat.' in a theatre, and they were referring to the stage surface. That may sounds like some reasonable idea to people outside the theatre, the stage is, in fact, 'flat'.
But it's completely absurd, because 'flat' already refers to a specific thing in a a theatre, namely, vertical flat set pieces that are used as walls. The things people carry or lower into place at the back of the set. Those are 'flats'.(Well, if they lower, they are 'flies', but those are just a specific kind of flat.)
It's not only not theatre terminology to refer to the stage that way, it's inconceivable that it would ever be. The stage will not ever be called 'the flat'. Nothing will be a 'flat' except the things we're already calling the flat, because that would be too damn confusing.
Likewise, while 'pulling' a building by blowing it up sound reasonable to people outside the deconstruction industry, it's inconceivable that they'd start using that expression to refer to it, as that already refers to a specific, different thing!
A thing that quite obviously didn't happen to WTC 7.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
When talking about the so-called controlled demolition theory of 7 World Trade, it was only the conspiracy theorists who called it "W-T-C-7" when talking about it.
These buildings were known by a different name in colloquial speech:
The building in question was known as "7 World Trade." The others were "1 World Trade" and "2 World Trade" and the like. Never "South Tower" or "W-T-C-Anything."
All this internet-based conspiracism by non-locals has renamed them "WTCx" but they were never known as such to the 400+ men and women who died protecting them on 9/11.
.
Kriston
Since the force of the collapse would be orders of magnitude greater than what these elements were designed to support, it seems probable that they would impede the progress of the collapse to about the same degree that a cloud of smoke would impede a lazily swung sledgehammer.
More handwaving bullshit. You have no idea that anything you have stated is true apart from the fact you pulled it out of your own stinking arse.
Debian FTW
....You won't get a complete collapse.....
You still could get a complete collapse but not in a free-fall time frame which videos clearly show. The only way to get a free-fall collapse of any building is to eliminate the critical support structures instantaneously or in a carefully timed sequence. The official domino collapse scenario could still result in a complete collapse, but it should take a lot longer than the videos clearly show. The timing of these videos is also corroborated by sensitive seismograph records of vibrations the collapse sent into the earth below.
All theory is gray
Yea!
And this building steel's crystalline structure gotta have toppled it to the ground!!!
Oh wait. It didnt? And the fire completely engulfed it? And it burned for more than 20 hours longer than the WTC?
Gulp....
Frankly, this must be why Scientology and Intelligent Design has so many followers. Some people would feel and believe rather than think.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
Aicraft are tender thin and soft?
Humans are tender, thin and soft you insensitive clod!
Send your spendthrift head of state this
This is the real truth behind 9/11 http://wtfoff.com/2007/04/13/jason-the-real-truth-behind-911/
If those theories have been "debunked" so many times, why doesn't even a single media only talk about official conspiracy theories ? Why is there no independent investigation ? Many of the "debunked" theories I've seen are only based on hypothesis, nothing more, nothing less. Insulting people who doubt official conspiracy theories is not really fair. Doubt is science's own ground.
--/ TZ
You forget that high-rise buildings are not constructed as to make it easier for a cosmic martial-artist to smack and break it, like the 'example' you mentioned.
There's a steel core, reduntant braces, supports. Not no easy to judo chop it now, champ. :-)
Send your spendthrift head of state this
Molten steel present.... MONTHS after the collapse? Yeah right buddy, so tell me how this complete physical anomaly that appears to defy all laws of physics confirms your crackpot theory?
The whole molten steel claim is utter tripe, based on a handful of highly questionable anecdotal reports. By the same quality of evidence we also know that the US government actually blew up the levy walls in New Orleans during Katrina, after all, people *heard* the explosions.
They call this: "clutching at straws".
1. Start me a demolition company that uses exclusively aviation grade fuel.
2. ???
3. profit!
Send your spendthrift head of state this
Nothing on earth falls as in free fall. Everything is acted upon with forces in the opposite direction of gravity. One of the notions spouted by the conspiracy nuts is that the building fell exactly as if it was falling in one standard Earth gravity.
The above leaves us with two possible options. Either the "government" who brought down the WTC managed to change the laws of physics, or the conspiracy nuts are simply wrong when they calculate the time it took the building to fall. I know what I think is more likely.
Now, the other interesting point here is that in order for the "government" to create a fall like that by controlled demolition, they would have to hire quite a bunch of experts. These would have to go up and drill holes in the infrastructure, pull wires all over the building, and put a crapload of explosives all over the place. They would have to do this in a building with staff that is in place 24/7, and with nobody noticing.
The conspiracy nuts need to go take their medication.
Yeah, and the thought that you can have a demolition crew in place in two of the most crowded work-places in the world for weeks ahead of Sept 11, and nobody notices them is a lot less of a weird thought.
If more than 3 people share a secret it is no longer a secret. No government brought down the WTC, no space ships have ever landed on earth (in human history anyway) and no, Santa Claus does not exist.
Can someone explain the above post for me? It got modded Insightful, but I can only make out gibberish.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
Given that the WTC was fairly unique in it's construction (with a massive core) and that all of the buildings were built in a similar manner, it is not too strange.
It is for sure less strange than the idea that there was a bunch of invisible demolition crews running around the place drilling holes in walls with soundless pneumatic drills, pulling invisible cables all over the building and in so many ways behaving in violation of physical laws and common sense.
WTC7 was where the evidence in the case of the Enron trial was stored.
That is, by far, the most insane of all the conspiracy theories I have read. Simply because it involves the usage of a time machine. The Enron collapse came long after 9/11. Sorry dude, you are crazy. By definition.
Anybody noticing the work would simply be told it was routine maintenance.
Yes, and since a huge number of people who worked in the buildings actually did not die, and therefore a huge number of witnesses to these crews are still alive. It is good for you that the government used the MIB Neuralizer to erase the memories of those individuals.
You can't imagine the ovious motive of scaring the people so much they'll let you grab extraordinary powers
Imagination is a little overused with you. Try a couple of quarts of common sense. Add a little logic and education and you will be fine. Don't mind this nice white jacket I have. You will be able to move your head and speak. Don't worry. No, it is not a dinner jacket, it is called a straitjacket.
WOW This NIST report is a real slap in the face of science, WOW I'm in shock that This garbage gets put out. Check out the independent research that 400+ Architects and Engineers have put out and the Rebuttal against this Abomination of science and decency, http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3 Here we discuss the report and deconstruct it. http://www.truthnews.com.au/radio/export/TNRA_20080822.mp3 see the science here http://www.ae911truth.org/
This has been repeated often, and is utterly bogus. No demolition team has ever turned up on site and said "Oh, we'll burn five stories in the top half of this fifty storey building and it will collapse". Never happened. Why? Because there is nowhere near enough energy for those floors to collapse all the floors below them
Sigh. There is so much insanity here that it is getting a little sad.
Let's go through your dumbass comment line for line shall we? Let's look at one tower only, just for fun. The plane hits at 95/96 floor. That means that there is about 15 floors above where the plane hits. That is a fairly tall building. Five floors is high too, but it is not 15.
Now, can you explain to me why anyone would build a tall building so strong that each floor could hold up the weight of a 15 story building slamming into it after a ten feet fall? How much kinetic energy does a 15 story building have after having fallen 10 feet? Do you know of any commercial building strong enough to withstand such an impact?
Now, what about your idiot "all the floors below them" comment? Did the top 15 floors of the WTC demolish all the floors below them? Nope, they demolished a single floor. Incidentally a floor that had been weakened by fire. Once they collapsed that floor, we have a 16 story building falling ten feet. Do you think the floor below could withstand a 16 story building falling ten feet? At this point in time we are around 94 floor. Do you think that the first floor was build strong enough to withstand the impact of a 109 story building dropping ten feet onto it? I doubt it.
That is what pancaking is. The collapsing of a single floor. Many times over.
Oh, and I forgot about your retarded "demolition team" comment too. Dang, should have done that first. But you are right, no demolition crew would have demolished the WTC in the way they fell. Do you know why? Because the buildings and their debris fell onto an area covering several city blocks, seriously damaging a number of buildings around them. Usually demolition crews try to avoid that.
Am I harsh? Nasty? A name-caller? Nope. I just have absolutely no patience whatsoever for elected stupidity. If you were mentally handicapped I would have respected your opinions. You are not. You have just elected to have an intellect comparable to a mentally handicapped person, and that annoys the shit out of me.
You can exclaim "fucking retards" but without thermite, there is nothing on the plane or in an office building that can burn hot enough to cause steel to melt. I believe this is the one factor that needs a plausible explanation. Any attempts to gain a plausible explanation for the steel melted in this way has been met with refusal to answers or denial of the question.
This melting steel is often mentioned by those who have never welded, cast metal, or done any blacksmith work. Steel softens well before it melts. Watch a blacksmith work sometime. I've tried my hand at it while visiting the Oregon Trail Travelers.
http://www.ottravelers.com/
An 1/2 inch iron bar is easly bent by hand after some coal fire warming. A llttle work with a hammer and anvil easly forms the flat end for a good prybar for opening crates. A wood, coal, or oil fire is warm enough to make steel beams plyable and no longer able to support the load without bending long before you get molten iron. In foundry work, I have never gotten anything hot enough to melt, but hot enough to easly bend.
A floor sagging a few feet and pulling a support out of line by a foot or two is enough to start a major collapse.
The truth shall set you free!
You can't start a fire and/or structurally destabilise the top few floors in a multi-storey building and have it completely collapse the whole building. Fact. The greater number of structurally sound floors below are more than enough to dissipate any energy and momentum of such a collapse unless you destabilise the floors below (or they are already destabilised) in some way so they respond weakly.
BZZZT! WRONG! There never was a "few" (it was 15 in the case of the tower that was hit higher up) floors that "completely collapsed the whole building". It was a 15 story building collapsing a single floor after falling ten feet onto a 95 story building. Then it was a 16 story building falling ten feet onto a 94 story building and collapsing the top floor only, and then it was a 17 story building ramming into a 94 story building, again collapsing the top floor only. And so on until a 109 story building dropped ten feet onto a single story building, collapsing it.
Do you know any buildings in the US, single story, that would survive having a 109 story steel and concrete sky scraper dropped on it? Only from ten feet mind you.
Obviously it wasn't that neat. Once the collapse got going the shock wave increased the overall damage of the building, but if you have a little bit of a brain, perhaps you get the point.
Just for fun:
it burned at temperatures of 800C for more than 18 hours [AFP]... The fire in WTC 1 is reported to have burned at 800C
And how do they know this? Either of those facts?
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time.
Yeah -- designed to. Doesn't mean it was a flawless design.
this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.
That'd be an interesting experiment -- take that mosquito netting, and use it to build a little square tower. What happens if you throw a pencil at that?
What happens if it's not a pencil, but a welding torch?
Because as it is, the mosquito netting on your screen door is held up by the door frame. What happens if you kick the door frame hard enough?
But assume they're right:
you have to conclude that either a fundamental flaw existed in WTC 1's inner core construction, or a fundamental flaw exists in the official explanation of the building's collapse.
What's wrong with the former?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
As a point of fact, thermite ignition boosters often use sulfur as an oxidizer. Consequently, it would not be surprising at all to find significant sulfur residue at a thermite burn site even though thermite itself contains no sulfur. Which is not to say the guy is not an idiot.
The only way any large building can collapse in such a short amount of time, is if it's ENTIRE support structures is instantaneously removed.
And the only way to have the entire support structure vanish instantaneously is to have hundreds of professionals working on placing explosives along the entire support structure. These explosives are set of using utterly standard wiring, in the case of something as large as the WTC, hundreds of miles worth of wiring. Finally, the explosives would have to be placed with extreme accuracy all around the building by drilling holes in the support infrastructure.
Now, what do you think is more likely, either the government has access to:
or, they have access to the MIB Neuralizer and they have bee able to Neuralize all the witnesses
Here's idea: The premise for you conspiracy theory is incorrect. The building never dropped as if all it's support structure was instantaneously removed.
The moving mass of the upper part of the building was considerably less than the inertial mass of the building below the break. The weight and inertial energy of the falling upper part of the buildings could theoretically have overcome the strength of the lower support structure, but not its much larger inertia.
To put it simply, assume the top of the building starting to fall from standstill above the floor(s) where structures break. Now it comes down at least height of a full floor (3 meters?), in other words that much potential energy (mass * height * G-constant) gets converted into different forms of energy, mostly momentum and breaking the structures inside that floor.
Then this moving mass is going to hit the first intact floor.
If the top of the building was heavy enough, it now has enough momentum (after falling that 3 meters) to break the intact floor and have some momentum left. The breaking floor adds to the mass of the falling top, and any momentum left also gives some initial velocity instead of starting from standstill. If this is the case, then of course the next floor will break because it'll be hit harder than the floor above it, leaving even more momentum after breaking and adding to the mass again. Repeat until bottom of the building is demolished down to the ground level. And then finally any intact floors at the top will be hitting the debris pile at ground at some velocity (in WTC case, at high enough velocity to destroy them too).
On the other hand, if the top of the building is too light, it won't have enough momentum after falling the first 3 meters. Then it's not going to fully break the first intact floor, and so it willhit the next floor with less force, quickly halting the pancaking collapse after the weakened floors have collapsed (maybe after that the top would fall sideways, or just stick up there, I don't know).
You're free to believe that the latter case is true for WTC, and there were additional explosives to cause pancaking. But the collapse accelerating faster and faster on it's own, is quite inevitable with enough mass (I mean, this is common sense, with enough mass there's enough force to pulverize the concrete slab of a floor below). And I'm sure in this case the top floors had plenty enough mass to initiate the accelerating collapse (which is self-maintaining after it starts, as more mass and momentum gets added every floor).
But feel free to show me the math demonstrating that the first intact floor's concreate slab would have had enough strength to halt the entire moving top of the building. Also feel free to believe that there wasn't enough mass even if you can't show the math. But don't go about saying that a pancaking collapse would always stop, 'cos that's essentially saying that the every floor can withstand impact of infinite force.
The Germans only had interest in Allied atomic research. They had no real information on allied atomic research.
Check the text of pp 347-348 in Heisenberg's War by T. Powers at google books...
http://books.google.com/books?id=4i2ghEnG6VkC&pg=PA348&lpg=PA348&dq=german+knowledge+manhattan+project&source=web&ots=80jOHCHQxO&sig=nHXDnjxwqM6dbBD-F0da8k78AuA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA347,M1
This German WW2 radios collection website...
http://www.laud.no/ww2/se108/index.htm ...shows German spy radio transmitters were built with variable frequency transmitters. Sorry. No single local frequency to block. Jamming attempts would be very hit and miss propositions.
Wow! A Beelzebubba reference! Thanx for making my day.
I have never seen an increase in the weight of debris accelerating a collapse beyond the fall of gravity.
Yes, you have. In the WTC. You call it debris, but let's call it what it was. The plane hitting the higher up hit 95 floor or so. Once that floor collapsed the "debris" that came crashing down 10 feet was 15 huge slabs of steel and concrete (plus walls, furniture etc). The 95th story collapsed under under the weight of these 15 slabs. Then 16 slabs rammed into 94th floor. Do you think that 16 slabs of concrete and steel has higher weight than 15? And thus it continued until 109 massive slabs of concrete and steel slammed into the bottom floor from ten feet.
Here is an experiment for you. Find a solid stick of plastic. 20 concrete slabs, make them about 1x1 foot and about half an inch thick. Drill holes in them and stack them on top of each other with the plastic stick through the holes. Now take the plastic straws and make some space between the concrete slabs. A couple of inches for example. Note that if you do this carefully, the thin straws will easily hold the slabs up.
You have now build the WTC. Now, set fire to the second floor from the top. Not very hot, only hot enough to bend (no need to melt) the straws holding up the top two slabs.
When the top to slabs come crashing down on the slab below them, do you think the tiny straws will be able to hold the one slab they have been holding and the next two coming down with some velocity? Probably not. What do you thin happens from then on?
You aren't engaging of honest discussions of any evidence here. nI don't see you responding with any scientific evidence at all to dispute the findings. I see you calling people names and lobbing insults.
That's a logical fallacy called an ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem [wikipedia.org]
All things being equal the acceleration of gravity is 9.8m/s. As soon as any object loses support and begins to fall that acceleration is constant. The crackpots think buildings would maintain some support during collapse and that support would cause the building to pivot as it falls. The only time I'm aware of a building has ever tipped and fallen was when a building shortly after the Kobe earthquake tipped over. This building tipped over because of liquefaction. The vibration of the sand and water had caused the ground to soften, weakening the foundation and causing the building to tip over.
This is the only case I'm aware of where a structure tipped over and in this case the structure was completely intact with no damage. Once you damage structural components a single failure cascade as the additional weight transfers to the other members and causes ever expanding failure. Imagine a single floor falling, all that mass, hundreds of thousands of pounds is now moving at significant velocity as it impacts the next floor. No member in the building will be strong enough to resist the force of impact or the additional weight with enough strength to pivot the upper members.
Buildings are not designed for these forces. We don't design a building to take failure of members and still survive. The entire building must be in tact. There is no question that when the towers came down debris impacted WTC-7. Debris that would have been moving hundreds of miles per hour with lots of mass behind it. Massive structural damage would have been almost guaranteed. Take into account a massive fire that is well documented and you have a structure with softened steel and structural damage. Collapse would be highly likely under those circumstances. That gravity was the largest force and the building didn't resist in it's motion downward is simply logical. There was nothing in the building with enough strength to pivot that amount of weight and cause the building to do anything other that come down as vertically as WTC-7 did.
If anything what happened in WTC-7 probably confirms that controlled demolition is more about the publicity than the science of making a building come straight down. As it indicates that given no external forces the building will likely come straight down anyway. Although speculating a bit here the explosives are probably strong enough to cause sideways motion during collapse as the structural members would be given horizontal forces immediately before collapse.
There are seismic records of the collapse that corroborate the videos which show the buildings in free fall collapse.
Actually, no the seismics agree with NIST. Not that conspiracy nuts are going to accept that of course.
Once again, in all of the skyscraper fires throughout history, it is the first time it has ever gone down like this without the help of thermite and/or explosives. The first time ever. And in this case, twice in a row, the mysterious occurrence of at least one floor giving way completely and simultaneously such that it would cause a chain reaction. You don't find it amazing that such an occurrence would happen on such a wide scale? And by wide, I mean World Trade Center wide -- it was a REALLY big pair of buildings.
I got modded troll too. I understand. :-)
Send your spendthrift head of state this
They use rebar, I'm sure if that heated up it would fail, and the concrete alone can't handle the stress, so it would still collapse, although it would take longer.
Omg! You got modded troll too! Jesus shit. That's your answer! Damn slashdot....
Send your spendthrift head of state this
I would submit, there are more facts and science supporting a controlled demolition of the word trade center buildings than there is evidence supporting Intelligent Design.
You submit wrong. There is exactly the same amount of facts supporting a controlled demolition as there is supporting ID. There is less supporting facts for a controlled demolition than there is for Santa Claus (I've seen him).
there are some serious irregularities in how the buildings came down.
The only way you can find irregularities is if you assume that some of the assertions by the crackpots are true. They are not. There are no irregularities in the way the buildings came down.
A LOT of people have noticed. A LOT of people have claimed things.
Thousands of people in the building every day, 24 hours a day. Nobody saw a single person drilling or laying explosives. Nobody saw anything. The only people who "see" things are the cracpots.
You can exclaim "fucking retards" but without thermite, there is nothing on the plane or in an office building that can burn hot enough to cause steel to melt (my emphasis).
The reason that you are retard is not because you believe retarded things. The reason you are a retard is that you are unwilling to listen to logic. You are also unwilling to learn. Not unable. Just unwilling. That is what makes you retarded. People who are not retarded are not actively fighting knowledge.
Now to what I emphasized above. The idea that steel melted or had to melt for the towers to collapse. Not required. When steel heats up it does two things, it warps (loses its shape) and loses its load-bearing capacity. It does so at perfectly normal burning temperatures, and when a fire is allowed to rage for 7 hours with nobody fighting it, it is guaranteed to go bad. Since the steel that went bad was supposed to support 15 full stories of steel and concrete, shit happened.
Now go and get neutered or play in traffic or something so your dumb genes are not propagated into the future.
"Thermite, however, does not make an explosion sound."
Nor does it have anything to do with sulphur, it's made from Aluminium & Iron Oxide.
My advice is to change your conspracy theory to a jet full of sulphuric acid and continue ranting.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
heat and damage had to be extremely uniformly distributed and the failure of all critical structures would have to have failed at exactly the same tim
Nope it wouldn't have to be, and in fact it wasn't. The damage was significantly higher on one side of the building making it tip over as it started to fall. The problem is gravity and the building design stopped the tilting and then it fell straight down. You know what gravity is, right?
Every single one of your assertions have been utterly debunked. Why do you still believe in them?
Never before and never since has a fire ever done this to a skyscraper and not even older
You see, this is rather easy to explain. You see, this has never happened to a sky scraper before. Nothing even remotely like this has happened.
I am stating that the evidence does not fit with the story.
And that is a statement based on severe religious derangement, not on fact. Read any of the engineering reports to get the facts, and stop reading the insane crackpot websites. They rot what little is left of your brain.
Yes, it's true that building such as those are designed to fall pancake style. But that design depends on the main support columns being blasted out from under the floors to make that happen.
The fact that you don't even understand how insane that statement is just illustrates how far your brain has rotted. The buildings are designed to collapse pancake style after an accident. The demolition people only introduce a carefully orchestrated accident. The whole purpose of designing a building so that it collapses onto it self is so that it does it under all circumstances, not just after being demolished.
would have had to have damaged *all* core columns in such a way that they all failed at approximately the same time causing the pancake sequence to start
Wrong. As usual. If only one side of the building collapsed and fell onto the floor below, the fall in it self would cause the rest to collapse. That is in fact what we saw. The top 15 floors leaned over slightly as they were collapsing, in other words, only a small portion of floor 95/96 collapsed. Once it fell however the fall caused the rest of the columns to collapse because that is how the building was designed. To collapse onto it self.
but you to need some event that melts steel to explain the molten steel found underneath the trade towers weeks after the collapse
No, you don't. You only better facts. Remember, lead melts at much lower temperatures than steel. But again, don't let facts mess up your conspiracy. It is much more fun this way since it is a constant reminder that most people are utter morons.
Can you show me case where a fire has been on a high rise, covering several floors entirely, and that fire is located at least 15 floors from the roof? If you can cite just one source, I'll consider myself a moron.
Noticing how they have cranes in cleaning the site up and removing debris? Isn't it rather plausible that some time before the picture was taken, that an ironworking crew has come in and helped cut some of those beams down so they can move the pieces to the landfill?
Neither of those statements are true.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
They described the building both by name (Salomon Brothers) and by number.
Yes, they were quoting the Reuters press release. Big deal. The Reuters release was wrong. A single person gets it wrong and it spreads through the news organizations. The person reporting it at the BBC had no clue what building it was.
"No, he didn't. You didn't link to it, it doesn't exist."
Garbage. I don't have to link to everything that you can find yourself in 30 seconds on Google or YouTube. Don't ask me to do your homework for you. If you are too lazy, you are too lazy. But that is YOUR problem, not mine! Wrong is wrong, even if you are afraid to prove it to yourself. I am not your mommy.
"Um, actually, buddy, the balls in your court to show a non-concrete core building that was allowed to burn for an hour without the fire being fought and didn't collapse."
Nonsense again. I have no obligation to prove to you every claim I make. YOU are the one who called "bullshit". In this society, it is traditionally YOUR job to show that the call has some kind of basis. And in this case it does not.
"None of them did not have a concrete core."
Really? NONE of the steel-structure skyscrapers that burned did NOT have a concrete core? That's a rather incredible claim. I know of one such... but only one.
Regardless, I can meet YOUR challenge easily enough: WTC 7 burned for a good many hours, without active firefighting, without collapsing. The fire department actually gave up on the fire early in the day; the building was not brought down until almost 5:30.
So: I showed you mine, now it's your turn. How about some evidence? I have given you plenty, for free. You have claimed some things that have turned out not to be true. How about a little evidence to back up your rebuttal, for a change? You are starting to look pretty silly.
Buildings are NOT designed to suffer complete destruction after an accident. Where did you get the idea that in the event of an accident, a building should come down completely offering no chance for survivors in a highly occupied building. If this were true and the public were made aware of it, I think there would be a tremendous hesitation to ever work in a skyscraper. A fire breaks out and the entire building comes down? What the hell kind of design is that?
Please go find some references on the assertion that buildings are designed to fail like this under ALL assertions. This notion could never fly in any world but the one you live in.
And I am waiting to see what I have stated has been debunked. And really, what I state are two things:
1. There were unexplained puddles of molten steel on the site. This is very unusual and has yet to have any official explanation.
2. That the perfect pancake collapse was something other than an accident.
This building, that stood a very long time, lost some of its upper floors to a chain reaction of falling floors above it. You're asserting that it collapsed under its own weight? WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 are the only skyscrapers in history ever to collapse after a fire. And I have search high and low only to find image after image of buildings gutted after being completely consumed by flame. This is the first and only time this has ever happened in history and you accept this as possible? You probably believe in other crack-pot ideas that defy the laws of physics as we know it as well.
The fact of the matter is that there are more examples of failed building collapses after professional demolition attempts than there are of accidental complete destruction. If anything like this had ever happened before, I might be inclined to believe the official account. It has simply never happened like that before and never since. And the whole series of events is amazingly full of problems. The initial images of the Pentagon attack were missing a lot of things that should have been there like wheels, massive parts of jet engines and damage to the surrounding lawn.
I wouldn't begin to know or imagine what really happened. But the basic facts and evidence don't fit with the official account.
But please, if you actually believe what you are asserting is true, that buildings like these are designed to fall this way, cite some references. I actually work with architects and engineers every day -- professionals in the field who know better -- building safety includes considerations of things like survivability estimations. I find it ridiculously hard to imagine that a building catching fire could lead to a complete collapse by design. I really don't believe you will find any such reference information, but if you find it, link it or post it -- I'd really like to be wrong. In my view, most people who are defending the official accounts are denying a lot of public knowledge and have yet to see any experts in the field without direct involvements in the reports themselves agree with the official accounts.
Clearly, you have never flown a plane either.
I am not a licensed pilot, nor have I received any training to speak of, and yet I have flown a plane before. A roughly 30 second explanation of the stick and pedals was quite sufficient, and by the way I was about 10 years old at the time. Of course, I didn't take off or land the plane, but then neither did the 9/11 hijackers. I'm pretty certain I could have hit a building if I had wanted to, even given that the only buildings in the area were single family homes, much smaller than the WTC towers.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
The thought that you can get three out of three perfect collapses by splashing them with a bit of aviation fuel must have demolition companies shaking in their boots.
Your premise is ridiculously flawed. The collapses were very, very far from "perfect" by the standards of controlled demolition. The buildings did not fall straight down at all--the outer walls peeled outward and disintegrated, with debris landing hundreds of yards away and thoroughly destroying all neighboring buildings.
Any controlled demolition company watching the fall would feel very comfortable about their jobs. Those companies don't get paid just to knock buildings down. They get paid to drop the debris where it is supposed to go, and only where it is supposed to go.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I was under the impression most 'skyscrapers' were DESIGNED to collapse straight down if anything ever went wrong, including something asymmetric.
It stands to reason someone had to realize that a building tall enough to hit it's neighbors if it fell over sideways would be a bad idea (domino effect anyone?).
In a place as crowded with tall buildings as NYC is I would hope that at least a few people in lawmaking positions would cause such robust design to be mandated.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20041115a.asp
The floors weakened, but the building did not collapse. And it did not have a concrete core.
Firefighters stopped work on this fire in the early afternoon. The fire was described as "raging", and the sprinklers in the building did not work. The fire continued to burn for a very long time after that.
So... I met your challenge, and it took me all of about 10 seconds to find this case on the internet. Your turn.
How did such an intense fire start in the building? I understand that there was debris from the other building, but seems like you would need a better than average fuel source for such an intense fire.
The ignition source has nothing to do with the eventual intensity of the fire. A refinery fire can start from a light bulb, a forest fire can start from a cigarette. All you need for an intense fire is plenty of fuel and oxygen. An office environment will give you all the fuel you'd need, and debris damage will poke holes to allow air in.
I remember on CNN, one of the researches claimed that this was the first recorded event of firing taking down such a structure.
This is not surprising. There really aren't that many 50 floor buildings in the entire world, normally a building would have a functioning anti-fire system, and you would not normally leave a fire burning in such an expensive building. With such a rare sequence of events, it's unlikely that it would happen too often.
The next such event will probably take place after an earthquake; much of the damage in places that are prepared for earthquakes ends up being due to fires; anti-fire systems are messed up by the earthquake and first responders are overstretched so they have to let some things burn. Hopefully we won't see this in our lifetimes, but time says it will happen.
So how many unlikely events happened in that one (12 hr?) period? I often hear Occam's razor being suggested to push against ridiculously unlikely events. Any one know what is the approximate probability of that 12hr period occurring as officially stated?
You act as if they were independent events, but they weren't. It was one unlikely event with a bunch of effects. For example, if you have a 1/10k chance of dying on an airplane flight, the chance that 100 passengers die is not (1/10k)^100, but on the order of 1/10k. That's because an unlikely event (a plane crash) causes a bunch of then likely outcomes (passenger death). Such things can be modeled with conditional probability. People without knowledge of conditional probability are famously inaccurate at estimating outcomes that involve it.
Also, with things like this, it doesn't make sense to talk about probability of a particular outcome: that will always be very low. What's the chance I will get to work at 9:12:34.26 tomorrow and spill coffee on my co-worker Joe Programmer? -- vanishingly small, but not much different than getting to work at 9:14:12.62 and spilling coffee on Jane. Thus, we usually talk about either simple events (binary), or similarly complex outcomes relative to one another.
In that light, here's a relative probability for you; The chance of a building falling down given two much larger nearby buildings fell down from a massive jet fuel fire, spewing all sorts of material on this other building, or a grand conspiracy involving hundreds or thousands of people is kept secret for 7 years, and even firemen and police in the building didn't discover the conspiracy, or kept silent about it when hundreds of their co-workers died. Grand conspiracies don't stay secret even in the most locked-down autocratic societies, let alone the US. Besides, if it was a conspiracy we would have made it look like Saddam did it, which would have been more "useful" to the agendas of those in power at the time.
Just seems to me, that if all these things did happened accidentally (aside from the actual hijacking and plane crash part), this is approaching the miraculous/"God did it"/fate level of likelihood.
Again, check your independence assumptions, and relearn your conditional probability theory.
Oh, and one more question, which I probably might know the answer to if I had read the full report: did the research set out to virtually replicate the collapse? Or did they model the entire environment and scenario, and th
I never said that the fire played no role in what we saw. And what do you mean "how old is thermite?" What kind of question is that?
The collapse of a joint in an overpass is a lot different from the collapse of every single floor of a skyscraper. There are abundant examples of skyscrapers standing after a fire, and abundant examples of skyscrapers that actually survived controlled, professional demolition attempts. What there aren't abundant examples of, before or after, are events like those on 9-11 where fire led to the collapse of some of the floors which led to the complete collapse of entire building. Furthermore, there was no mention or indication of molten steel at this site. Weakened steel, yes. Fractured concrete, yes. Molten steel, no. And you're attempting to compare the structural design of an overpass to that of a building that was designed to safely contain and evacuate more than 14,000 people (in the case of WTC7 and a LOT more in the case of WTC1 and WTC2) in emergencies such as these.
But you almost had me convinced I was wrong when you called me a fucking idiot. I'm sure a lot of people were equally moved and impressed.
There were unexplained puddles of molten steel on the site
There wasn't any
That the perfect pancake collapse was something other than an accident.
It was no accident. Big buildings are designed to undergo pancake collapse in case of total structural failure. In other words, they are designed not to fall down, but in the unlikely event that they do fall down, they are to undergo a pancake collapse. The WTC did what it was designed to do, and it did so partly because of the architect, but mostly because of gravity.
Have you ever watched the history channel? Specifically the stories about how massive structures like the world trade center are built? If you did, you would know that even in much smaller buildings, the main support structures are throughout the building. In fact, often is the case where the strongest of the structures are in the center of such buildings rather like a tree.
You do realize that the support structure in the towers was entirely on the perimeter, right? Each floor was hung like a (rigid) hammock from the outer walls. When the crossbeams softened just enough (no linger rigid) to pull inward rather than down, the outer walls buckled at that point. How else would you immagine a hammock would fall if you cut its strings?
Total bullshit.
The buildings had a central core complex made up of 47 box columns, each one metre square in cross-section, formed from six inch thick plate steel. This code housed elevator shafts, stairwells and support conduits, took up at least a quarter of each floor area and was designed to bear the total load of all 120 floors several times over.
It was designed to withstand hurricanes and plane impacts by allowing the building load to be distributed dynamically by allowing lateral forces (from winds and impacts) to be transmitted from the outside ring (250 columns) to the ground through the core via the floor trusses.
If it was built as you say it would collapse in the slightest breath of wind.
And in this case, twice in a row, the mysterious occurrence of at least one floor giving way completely and simultaneously such that it would cause a chain reaction
Just how many buildings in history have a 7 hour fire with no firefighting to compare this to? Remember, the sprinkler system was dead due to the other buildings water breaks.
7 hours of baking has very little history to compare it to. Other than the fire was allowed to burn with no cooling for 7 hours, what's the point?
The log rack in my fireplace has the same sagging from only a small wood fire.
The truth shall set you free!
There were massive steel beams running through the central core of the WTC buildings.
To use the martial artist metaphor properly, there would have to be about 12 lengths of rebar running side-by-side securing each board right through the middle of the boards the guy was trying to break.
As a result of the investigation covered by this story, they discovered weaknesses in current building designs, and we could potentially save lives in the future by applying new building standards to deal with these weaknesses. 9/11 conspiracy theorists, however, would ignore these findings and stick firmly to their "they bombed it" stance, or whatever they are saying nowadays.
9/11 conspiracy theorists are trying to prevent us from learning from the mistakes made in constructing these building. They are trying to deflect everyone's attention to other things. Things that won't make buildings safer in the future.
"There are many examples of other steel buildings that collapsed due to fire before 9/11."
Not hit by anything? It was hit by falling and burning debris from the twin towers! Are you even paying attention? Did you even bother to read the summary in the Slashdot story?
The seismic data disprove both NIST reports.
Huge explosions in the ground immediately before the collapses of both of the WTC buildings.
http://uscrisis.lege.net/911/
Both the old and new NIST reports have no explanation for the huge shock recorded in the seismic recordings immediately preceding the WTC collapses.
References? Links? Insults alone are a pretty sad basis for your position.
For a pancake collapse to occur, ALL vertical support structures have to be disabled or removed to allow a floor to fall straight down. Otherwise, the resulting fall of floors tends to swing and rotate as the support structures fall to one side. Ever watch a smaller scale building demolition? Heck, even a card house collapse illustrates that point pretty well. (and before you pick on the card house comparison, I will direct you to your own ridiculous comparison of the WTC buildings to slabs of concrete being held up by plastic drinking straws.)
Your argumentative skills are amazing. I assert that buildings are designed to be survivable and not to suffer complete destruction from fire as is claimed in the official accounts, and you respond by calling someone retarded.
I did go back to re-read what you wrote about "in the event of destruction, it would fall pancake style." Here's what you wrote: "The buildings are designed to collapse pancake style after an accident. The demolition people only introduce a carefully orchestrated accident. The whole purpose of designing a building so that it collapses onto it self is so that it does it under all circumstances, not just after being demolished." (I omitted the part about my having a rotted brain, but you do seem to feel it's important to insult people a lot. Have you considered counselling and psychiatric therapy for that? I'm sure I am not the only person you respond to in this way. And looking back on your posting history, I'd say there is a distinct pattern.) Setting aside that this statement is patently false, let's consider the ramifications of your assertion. How much of an accident needs to occur before a building collapse of this nature occurs? Is damage similar to that displayed in the Okahoma City bombing enough? Clearly not in that building's case... only the outer structures collapsed. The rest of it held just fine.
So let's assume that the buildings, and indeed all sky scrapers, are designed with this pancake fall design built-in. Why is it that in spite of the design, this has NEVER happened before or since? If they are designed to do this as you say, why is it that until this one time, the design has failed for all these decades of building these structures? I imagine the building designers were finally vindicated after all their other buildings failed to collapse as designed under similar circumstances.
And okay, I should have been more clear with my assertion of working with architects and structural engineers. I HAVE INDEED queried these licensed professionals with literally decades of individual experience (hundreds of years if you count them collectively) on what they think of the official accounts and they all agree that they are extremely dubious to put it mildly.
And to clarify my point about why it is so hard to believe that fire took these buildings down, there have been over 100 uncontrolled fires in skyscrapers over the past 50 years prior to September 11, 2001 according to reports and none of them resulted in the complete collapse as witnessed in these three examples to the contrary in rapid succession. In human history, only two things take buildings of that magnitude down: controlled demolition and earthquakes. If the official account is true, then fire can be added to this list in spite of overwhelming examples to the contrary.
WTC7 was most certainly "pulled" intentionally. Buildings closer to WTC1 and WTC2 are still standing and didn't seem to suffer any serious damage and yet WTC7 which was considerably farther failed? It was stated that the building was ordered to be pulled and although some people have asserted that the order was to evacuate or "pull" the firefighters from the building, I have to wonder since when has the owner of a building has ever had the authority to order the withdrawal of firefighters from a building under their jurisdiction? After all, a building on fire endangers not just the owner's building, but the buildings surrounding it. Building owners don't have that authority.
Every single sample of WTC ash that has been tested by independent labs has found the residue of thermite in that ash.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
Science has led to the controlled demolition hypothesis. No other hypothesis fits the data.
Better take a look at good hard look at what is in the public record regarding what Bechtel Corp. of being fully capable of accomplishing before being so dismissive.
Any type of credible criminal investigation would have them at the top of the list of potential suspects.
You have to make your conclusions based on the actual facts at hand.
The facts are... ...no amount of jet fuel can burn down a steel framed skyskraper. Period.
I don't care if Manhattan Island is completely submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and the fire is allowed to burn for years... ... when the fires do go out, the steel frames of the skyscrapers will emerge mostly intact.
If jet fuel could not burn down the WTC buildings, and it couldn't, then there had to be another cause. The evidence from every single sample of WTC ash tested by independent laws shows thermite residue in every single sample.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
-----
Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃfC...."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm
WDYM no spaceships have landed ? Mike Melvill would take issue with that, and quite a bunch of Shuttle or Soyuz pilots as well.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
I keep saying this over and over. Hell, I think these problems are important enough, so let's just build an exact WTC7 replica and see what it takes to duplicate the collapse.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Look it up. The WT Towers were not built like other massive structures, much of the structural support is in the outside wall. Here is a link that describes them as 'tube buildings':
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/world_trade.html
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Can someone explain the above post for me?
The GP suggests that the government hired the people who did the deed on 9/11. He then, strangely, suggests that part of the group that were hired included the rich Saudis who were allowed to fly out of the US on a chartered aircraft shortly after the attacks. Leaving aside the fact that we have all sorts of evidence about who did, why they did it, and who paid for it... why would some absurd government conspiracy that orchestrated such a large, complex attack include a ridiculous maneuver like flying some of the participants out of the country AFTER the fact in such a highly visible way?
What role could a handful of rich Saudis play in getting the attackers to crash aircraft into those buildings... and somehow NOT be able to leave the country before it happened? It's obviously a BS notion designed somehow to feed the trolls that are so sure that Bush personally made all of this happen. It would be funny if so many people weren't willing to ignore basic information so that they could harbor such fantasies and maintain their comic-book-villain ideas about someone they dislike personally.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Those examples are not connected in any way. Making that connection is fallacious.
Holocaust deniers and ID proponents are most often politically, spiritually, and scientifically opposed to the 9/11 truthers I've met.
Most of them seem like godless atheists who want to talk about the burning point of jet fuel and thermate, evidence of which has been found in the dust and wreckage.
There is clearly a cover-up going on, no matter WHAT you might suppose actually happened.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Well, actually, the payment of the hijackers was done by high levels of the ISI, Pakistani CIA run largely by our own. The 9/11 commission report suggested this funding and tracing it was "of little practical value." All the Al Quaeda members involved were not on flight manifests. They were out drinking at strip clubs, and some are still alive. Besides which, the CIA has been funding Al Quaeda all along, including during the time we were fighting the cold war in Afganistan against the Soviets.
But you know, when the mob pays a hit man, police rarely bother chasing the money trail, right?
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
No, it most certainly isn't. I'm shocked this is the level of intelligence we've actually got on Slashdot. The collapse loses energy, force and momentum as it goes, and it is slowed even more by the compacting of the debris. To say that an object can collide with another and for there to be no loss of force, momentum or acceleration is just so ignorant and stupid it defies belief.
Repeating this parrot fashion won't make it true. The report is wrong, because what they say in there has never been practically proven either in any observed collapses in the past, or in simulations with models. They can say what they like, but until they practically demonstrate it it is still fundamentally flawed. The rate of fall will slow dramatically as the collapse progresses until it stops, and that will leave much of the building intact.
No. Demolition companies collapse buildings floor by floor in that manner because it is the only way of completely collapsing a building that tall.
No. The question is whether the floors (notice the plural there) can withstand the impact of that, because the debris and floors compacts together to withstand the collapse, and the further the collapse progress the greater the reactive force from the debris and floors below to withstand the collapse. Like I said. Try this with some Lego, a scale model or anything to give yourself some actual practical experience.
I'm just wondering how destabilisation and the effect of heat on the eightieth floor of a building affects the structural integrity of unaffected floors at the fortieth or the tenth floor, because this is what is required to completely collapse a building. The firefighters knew this fact, which is why they had no worries at all about going into the building and setting up a base on the unaffected floors below. Try this with a model, any time. You will never be able to collapse a building as tall as the WTC buildings by doing that, which is probably why we've never seen a scale model demonstration of the shit that that report says is true.
Sweetheart, you have never seen a building collapse in your life - not even a model. If you think this is a conspiracy theory then that's fine, but that's something you're going to have to deal with in your own mind. The questions still remain.
OK, let's suppose a sprinkling of jet fuel DID bring the buildings down with perfectly cut 45 degree angle I beam cuts (of which there are several pictures). Please explain:
1. Who killed Kennedy.
2. The role of the Federal Reserve, and IRS, and how it is constitutional.
3. The electoral college, and the reliability of Diebold voting machines.
4. Why we can't get candidates not bought and paid for by mega-corporations.
5. How there is a free press, when every newspaper, magazine, radio station, TV station, book publisher and movie publisher is owned by five corporations: Viacom, AOL/Time, News Corp, Disney, and Bertellsmann.
6. Why Marvin Bush was in charge of security for the WTC for only one month prior to 9/11.
7. Why there is no footage publicly released that shows the plane hitting the Pentagon, arguably the highest security building in the world.
8. Why the Bush family and Bin Laden family are so cozy.
I mean, even if some stripper loving drunkard muslims did bring down the buildings and live to tell about it later, how do you explain the complete lack of transparency and latent fascism encroaching whats left of our democracy?
Who wants to volunteer for a water-boarding?
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Stop calling it a conspiracy THEORY. There were tons of put options put up in the week before 9/11 on the airline industry, and the insurance for the whole wtc complex changed hands less than 2 months before. There most certainly was a conspiracy, now the only theories are trying to figure who perpetrated this dastardly deed.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
No, because what you're doing here is that you're assuming that the collapse will continue unabated. It won't. The collapse dramatically loses force, acceleration and momentum as the debris and the floors below compact and the reactive force pushes back. In the face of that, the debris will then escape to where it can, which is usually out over, causing the collapse to lose even more energy.
If the 109 stories were destabilised to collapse straight onto a single floor then yes (which would be the point between the first and second floors), this would happen. However, that cannot happen in the manner you describe because it is totally flawed thinking. You're assuming that one object can crash into another and experience no loss of energy, force or acceleration. That's so shocking it isn't even funny.
I'm always amused by how people start pulling out other little things out of nowhere such as 'shockwaves' to explain away something immoveable - rather like the rest of the building. Build yourself any kind of model of a building that tall and try and collapse it in the manner you describe. It will never happen.
More to add to your point, without any training, I've been able to take a 767 and crash it into lots of buildings in MS Flight Sim. The way planes are these days, they are just big video games in essence. Doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of skill.
You don't have to accelerate the entire mass of the building. You just have to take care of one floor at a time. One floor will not provide much resistance to 15 floors falling on top of it. Once that one goes, you have 16 floors falling onto the one below it. If the floor above didn't stop the first 15 floors from collapsing it, the next floor sure as hell won't stop 16 floors. Keep adding up for the entire height of the building.
No, because what you're not getting is that the collapse on to the lower mass will lose energy, force and acceleration dramatically as it goes, which is what happens in a building collapse. As the debris and floors compact their tendency will then to be to go out over and elsewhere, losing even more energy and force at a pretty reasonable rate. It doesn't just keep on going. It is dictated to by:
a) The ability of the lower structure to take the force.
b) How much of the building there is to absorb that force, which is crucial in tall buildings.
c) How the debris and floors compact, absorbing and dissipating the energy, and forcing the debris and mass above into other directions losing even more energy.
You're assuming that the collapse just cascades down in a linear fashion. It doesn't, and saying that it will continue until there are no empty spaces has a grain of truth in it because the floors and debris will compact quite quickly losing dramatic amounts of energy. You can't just put your hand on a model skyscraper and collapse it like an accordion, which is what you're trying to say here.
I'm not too sure why you insist on trying to point out this irrelevant factoid here. Like I said: No shit? You also don't get the point, which I'll get to below.
I can tell you quite categorically that it fucking is hard. Every building is different, has different foundations, a different structure, you have older buildings that might be quite unstable.......... The list is endless. However, there are constants. In the case of tall buildings, demolition companies destabilise the floors below a collapse not just because of safety, but because it is the only way of ensuring the complete collapse of the building.
Yes. Unfortunately what you're doing here is coming up with a bunch of theories that don't actually fit the mechanics of what we're talking about rather than going out and doing some practical. There are a lot of other variables at play here.
Do you actually watch the news? They make major mistakes all the time! On average reporters are just slightly less educated than the average citizen. They attempt to be experts on all topics and banter with the true experts while interviewing them. They commonly make huge errors in statistics and object identification. For instance, during the Columbine shootings several reporters stated that a military tank had arrived on the scene, when in fact it was a swat team APC. There's a big difference between the military showing up at a high school with a tank and the police showing up with an APC. They are sensationalizing to get ratings and if they hear a rumor they will repeat it as fact. It's a fun game to watch the news and see how many factual errors you can find per hour.
It's like this: It's steel and concrete. Each floor is 200 feet square. That's about one acre. Picture a poured concrete pad of one acre suspended by a (really strong) rope. Cut the rope, it goes straight down. Now try to push it sideways. The inertia of the mass of the concrete resists that force. Gravity wants to pull it straight down. So it wants (cause this is smart concrete and has a choice)to go down. (Insert your own lewd thought here) A pancaking building is doing just that. The weakened steel joints cannot bear the force of the weight above it and snaps. Once you set that mass in motion, and the momentum builds up, it is inevitable that it come straight down. Remember, the building was 110 stories of an acre of concrete each. Such an enormous mass needs an enormous force to do anything but come straight down.
You make my point for me. I have, allegedly seen it in the WTC collapses (from the way certain people describe it anyway) - but no one has seen anything like that anywhere else, ever. Not in reality and not with models either.
Again, you're repeating a fallacy that pervades these threads - that the collapse continues unabated. It doesn't. What happens is that the debris and floors compact under the weight, resisting the force and forcing it elsewhere, usually out over. The collapse dramatically loses energy and force as it goes. The taller the building it is the further up the collapse stops. Simple.
Yes, they will, otherwise you've got yourself one seriously unstable building that would already have collapsed most probably through normal wear and tear. You might get a few floors collapsing and damaged, but the debris will compact, dissipating the energy, the debris will tend to escape outwards and the force and energy will dramatically reduce as the collapse progresses. It is not linear.
Pulling a figure from the report won't get you out of this. He made the point that the rate of collapse would have slowed, but 40% is still an unusually low figure backed up by no previous observations and it's not apparent at all how they arrive at that figure.
No, no, no, no. Observing the debris cloud is not the same as observing the collapse.
Wow. That's an incredible statement to make considering what actually happened to those buildings, especially versus previous building collapses.
Fuck. Let me know any buildings you've had a hand in so I can avoid them. Make a list. Please.
Yeah, right. And the "molten steel" absurdity too. You really need to gauge your eyes out so you stop reading retarded shit like that, it rots your brain.
Your reply here does not in any way dispute the scientific research being done there. I don't see you responding with any scientific evidence at all to dispute the findings there. I see you calling people names.
Well I can ask more questions though? Like the big argument of the 911 "truth" people is that, the building fell straight down and that can only happen when it's a professional job. But here's the thing, show me a 37 story building that tips over sideways and I'll believe it can happen. I've only seen buildings implode straight down. Saw a bulldozer try and tip over a 15 story smokestack once, and even that imploded. (on top of the dozer to boot)
So I just don't understand why people believe that a huge skyscraper can tip over.
You'll have that sometimes...
My bad. Replace "space ships" with "alien space ships".
The official story of 911 is a huge lie. Even us nerds, as smart as we are, have been pulled into a matrix where we accept authority as truth instead of truth as authority. There are so many holes in the official government story of 9-11. It is completely absurd and almost laughable that the general public has been fed and believes such a fairy tale. I am not going to go into specific points. Once you realize the truth behind the building collapses and the cover-up taken place to hide the truth of 9-11, you never really look at life the same way again. It is really the Matrix red pill. I watched the greatest 911 film I have ever seen last night, and I have seen them all. I invite you to watch Zero: An investigation into 911. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-YqET96OO0
Well, at least you are willing to go to the point of admitting the WTC was a unique situation that strangely repeated itself three times. But isn't it odd that WTC7 came down from minor fires and damage where other buildings closer to WTC1 and WTC2 survive today without any structural woes? I guess the guy who bought those buildings REALLY made a bad investment... oh, wait... he made a huge profit when the insurance claim paid off... but that's another thread/topic entirely.
No, because what you're doing here is that you're assuming that the collapse will continue unabated. It won't. The collapse dramatically loses force, acceleration and momentum as the debris and the floors below compact and the reactive force pushes back
That is not necessarily true. Now, compared to the weight and the inertia of the concrete slabs that is the floor, the debris "between" the slabs is irrelevant, even compacted. In other words, given the total weight og the floors above, each individual floor (the 10 fee4t of mostly air) will be crushed. Now, if that was the only thing, you'd have 110 huge slabs of concrete more or less on top of each other (a stack of pancakes if you will). Problem is, there is more. Below the building it self there is a huge hole in the ground called a "subway". The building collapse makes this cavity cave in.
You're assuming that one object can crash into another and experience no loss of energy
No, I am not. I am assuming that the upward force from the steel beams between the concrete slabs is not strong enough to withstand the weight of an increasing number of slabs falling onto them.
immoveable
I am constantly amused that when people want to defend their religious beliefs they invent mythical properties of things to support their superstition.
The funny thing here is that you are asserting that a building like this can't be brought down at all. Not by accident and certainly not by a demolition crew. According to you any demolition crew that wants to pull down a tall building will run into the following problem "[t]he collapse [will] dramatically [lose] force, acceleration and momentum as the debris and the floors below compact and the reactive force pushes back". So, how do you explain that demolition crews are able to pull down buildings?
I have addressed this question elsewhere in this thread at least three times already. My opinion on it should be well known by now.
My hope is these findings will make the people who are considering a crackpot point of view to choose to believe otherwise.
I feel we should treat the "9/11 Truthers" the same way we should treat the "Flat Earth Society." Ignore the loonies and not give them the satisfaction of any attention.
+1 Funny for the Dead Milkmen reference. Bravo, sir!
TODO: Insert witty sig
But isn't it odd that WTC7 came down from minor fires
It didn't. It came down after a severe fire that raged un-fought for more than seven hours.
You risk alienating the majority of your readership with something as juvenile as name-calling. I'm a crackpot? Meanie!
(There is an entirely different 'Monokote' which is just a kind of plastic shrink wrap. Don't get confused.)
Oh phew, I was wondering what kind of idiot used RC plane skin as a fire deterrent! I can tell you that stuff doesn't slow fires down one bit!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
As if 7 hours were a long time... some sky scrapers have burned on for days without a structural collapse. I guess WTC7 was just a crappy building then right? This is certainly not "typical" by any stretch.
So, what do you think is more likely, some structural aspect of WTC7 made it collapse (you can read the NIST report for details) or that the government has access to invisible demolition crews, silent pneumatic drills, invisible thermite wiring, quiet thermite and Neuralizers?
You see, without the above implements, there is no possible way the government could have pulled this off. So... please, tell me... just pick one of them... where did G. W. Bush and friends find their invisible demolition crews?
What always gets me is how Bush can be the most evil man in history, but also such a huge and complete idiot. Which is it? (Not directed solely at this post, just a general observation.)
my favorite 9/11 site is this one.
What do you, sane, non-crackpot people, will say to that? That those cars too were melted by the biblical fires in the WTC 7?
Btw, what is the point of bringing the 9/11 issue up, over and over again? If you can't make someone believe *your* truth, just make them forget.
Isn't vision what's really being argued here? It seems that everyone wants to see 9/11 in their own light. There will always be people who want to think that the simple answer is that the government did it. Just because one can watch the YouTube videos of the politicians indoctrinating the audience with words of '9/11' doesn't mean that they were behind the so-called 'attack'. The politicians certainly had their own, now-unravelling agenda after it, but were they responsible for it? Likely not. Maybe financed, through cash that can't be traced so that any investigation would turn up with empty leads.
Facts can be argued and are being used like bible verses. Paint with a big brush with bristles of bible verses, and you can depict any picture. Facts are not holy writ, especially when they are construed by people who are paid money.
What's the concern? Isn't it fear? Fear that the government could be responsible for such a thing? Or fear that some jihad might be organized enough to send a symbolic message that world trade is collapsing? Is it the sub-cultural knowledge that very few that don't watch YouTube know about the third building on 9/11, resulting in a severe blindness between the larger culture and the sub-culture? Is it fear that there could be something so deep here that goes beyond the Bush administration, beyond the World Bank and beyond even World War I?
Instead of arguing over who's right and who's wrong, perhaps what we need to be doing is working to abolish fear of basic survival in our communities. How can we be conscious of the larger world, and how can we respond to the great unknowns? Perhaps it all starts at home.
Neutiquam erro
Did anybody notice? I spent 5 minutes looking at the NIST site on this and as a interested layman I'd sure love to have a working licensed PE walk me through the draft report. The NIST video leads by saying that no tall building had ever collapsed primarily due to fire previous to 9/11 so they clearly know they had some 'splaining to do. Anyway, it's open for public comment through September 15. If you can see any glaring holes in their logic, if they've omitted pertinent facts, or if they've simply got something wrong you have a couple of weeks to get it together and let them know they're full of BS or maybe even to get your favorite tenured or emeritus engineering faculty member to do it for you.
It is obvious that many of you doesn't take into consideration that most efficient and easy way to collapse a steel structure is to use thermite 'explosive', which doesnt explode at all, in fact thermite generate an extremely powerful exothermic reaction, that can reach temperatures in excess of 2500-3000degrees Celsius. So there is no need to hear any loud bang at all. In addiction thermite is composed of very easily produceable and transportable materials, ferrous oxide (rust+-) plus aluminium powder, which in fact can be carried inside a building without any concerns about security checks and can be installed around main structures without big problems by a team of post-delivery service boys in few weeks-months. Thermite cannot be stopped in any way once the reaction is started , no water , no lack of oxygen, no anything almost. Even a very rough placement of the charges will produce a high destructive flow of molten steel that will weaked/melt any other steel-made parts it comes in contact with. What strikes me more yet is the totally symmetrical way all the buildings collapsed... this is totally unlikely to me.. I would expect the top tower bend in the way the airplane damaged the structure and eventually fall off... but not almost perfect vertical collapse. And the highly thermical hotspots that were present in the ruins for so long time really reminds of active thermite reactions... When there are trillions on dollars in the equation black can turn white and viceversa...really.... cheers mrn
I was glued to the TV and radio while all this was going down and I'm sure you were too. I heard the announcement that WTC7 was going to be pulled shortly before it was. But yes, it does take a lot of planning to demolish a building... properly. But the act of setting explosives and the like without getting planning and permits and all that nonsense, I believe a building probably only needs a few hours to prepare... you gotta know there's probably a lot of overhead that could be skipped.
But one thing I think is really interesting about these discussions is that there is a constant and consistent miscommunication with regards to certain assumptions about what is being said. For example, when the whole "pull it" thing got started, the presumption was that the firefighters were the demolition people. That's a pretty wild assumption and not likely that anyone has ever suggested it. The next assumption would be that a team was sent in to place the explosives and get out. That's not an event of record, so truly the only logical presumption could be that the explostives were planted prior to September 11, 2001... and interestingly enough, there is the testimony of at least one IT person in that building that shows exactly when the opportunity for that came about. And I haven't heard any follow-up on that story to determine if electrical work done on that building could be verified as bonafide electrical work... did anyone identify the electrical company or contractor or any of their employees about the event? I don't know. Another interesting thing that people keep confusing is about the mention of molten metal. Yes, we KNOW steel can be weakened and made malleable at much lower temperatures, so no one is saying that the steel of the building had to be liquified to cause the structural failures of the buildings. What people are ACTUALLY pointing to is that something VERY hot and VERY fast was used to cut the steel supports to bring the building down and that the liquified metal, that wouldn't appear when a building is being weakened by ordinary fire, is the result of the application of something used to destroy the steel supports of the building... in this case, people are asserting that thermite was used as the means by which the columns were severed and to bring the buildings down. So the presence of molten steel isn't the indication that people claim that it is. The "weakened steel" argument is not adequate to debunk the argument that there was molten steel found and reported by several independent sources at ground-zero during the aftermath. (And there's the odd angular cut on several of the support beams... there are pictures of it on various web sites... it looks like someone whacked them off with a lightsaber or something... dribbles of previously molten steel shown solidified in the eds\ges of the cut and all that. Some might suggest those cuts were made during the clean-up, but the angle is so weird that the only welder I know thought it was very unusual indeed to cut the steel that way for removal and clean-up purposes, but I'm very open to hear other opinions on that as well.)
There's no question that the September 11 attacks were premeditated and carefully planned mass murder... the real question is who is responsible. We want to say Al Qaeda, but to this day, Al Qaeda does not accept responsibility and does not claim to have perpetrated the attack. (And they are pretty good at claiming the attacks they ARE responsible for too.) And to this day, they have non hard evidence to support Al Qaeda's involvement and more specifically, Osama Bin Laden's involvement... and interestingly, he's still not mentioned here: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm either. Several government people claimed they would produce the evidence they have against Bin Laden, but after all this time still haven't produced it, so in spite of everything else we have on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, we don't have a clear connection betw
No, because it's not each individual floor you stupid twit, and that's where the flaw in your thinking remains. You're looking at this from the POV of each floor at a time. That's fucking stupid. It's all the floors underneath which are absorbing that force collectively, because it is one structure. You'll get one floor collapsing into another and so on (so no, one floor cannot take that force by itself to answer your idiotic question), but the floors underneath that will absorb at least some of that energy away, forcing the falling debris and collapsed floors to compact and go elsewhere, dissipating yet more energy and making it less likely the next floor will give way and so on until it stops. The process does not accelerate, as some stupid people are claiming.
One more time: The collapse does not continue unabated, and repeating that flawed piece of thinking is not going to make it come true.
Shit. See above as to why. Repeating this shit won't make it true. Basically, not looking at a building as a whole is indicative of some really serious conceptual issues.
Well, it's the collapsing of another floor into the one below and so on, but well done. You're sort of getting there. The demolition industry avoids pancaking because it's dangerous and won't collapse a building by itself. The collapsed floors just get very compacted very quickly and the effect peters out unless the floors below give way to allow the process to continue.
Not too sure why you keep repeating this, nor am I sure why you're trying to claim that a demolition crew wouldn't have collapsed the WTC buildings in the way that they did. You probably have your own reasons for saying that.
My reasoning for that comment I made way back when is that if you could collapse buildings just by destabilising a few floors then demolition companies would have a far easier time. We then got a long line of bullshit that they collapse tall buildings in the manner that they do for safety. Well, yes they do (no shit, really?), and they also do it because it is the only way of initiating a complete collapse of a building from the top to the bottom floor in that manner. Get it?
Yes. I know that you know that I'm not ;-).
Anyone who cannot look at a building structure as a whole is retarded. Even a child with some building blocks has some conceptual knowledge of this. Your entire line of reasoning rests on looking at each individual floor and saying "That collapses because that collapses because that collapses" one individual floor at a time. It's called a building for a reason.
I'm aghast at what an educational system can produce.
Because college is the only way to learn something, right?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Yet again, it's floors (plural) and not floor. You fail to look at the building as a whole structure. Again.
You've gone from eighty odd storeys up to the subway in one fell swoop. Hmmmmmmmmm.
You've got to be fucking kidding me?
A building is 'pulled' down piece by piece when it is not feasible to get it down by any other safe means. A building like a tall office block is demolished, sometimes via explosives, by collapsing the floors in advance ahead of the advancing collapse itself, ensuring the collapse continues, ensuring little debris is spread outwards and a pancaking effect is minimised and ensuring the destruction of the building from the top to the ground floor.
Quick - look up the size of a B-29 bomber, its fuel load and engines, then compare those to a Boeing 767. Now remember that the B-29 was running close to empty, while the 767 had a full fuel load.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I don't know. You tell me. I'm not claiming that the WTC buildings were demolished because I have no evidence for that. I just want a credible explanation for the collapses.
Bzzzzzzt. Wrong. You're assuming that I'm implying a conspiracy here when I have no evidence for any such thing. I just want a credible explanation for the collapses. I'm still waiting.
...that the first intact floor's concreate slab would have had enough strength to halt the entire moving top of the building....
The issue here is not the strength of the building, but the rate of collapse. The falling upper structure would not only have had to overcome the structural strength of the lower structure, but much more importantly it much larger inertial mass, to also accelerate the entire mass downward. This domino acceleration, floor by floor and should have been much slower than what was observed and recorded. Even the 40% slowdown figure is way too fast for such a one floor at a time collapse.
All theory is gray
You don't like what is being asked here, and you're assuming I have some government conspiracy packed away when all I'm doing is asking the questions.
Then let me ask the question. Since you seem to doubt the official report, what do you think happened, and why do you think the trained professionals with much more experience and knowledge than you who made the official report got it wrong?
Learn to love Alaska
Which is total baloney. I don't have the structural engineering math to refute this, but others have. The WTC towers were over engineered to withstand two jet liners (of the 60'70's era) hitting them. Sure, once the collapse began, there was no way for lower floors to hold up, but neither could they fail instantly and result in free-fall acceleration. The math has been done by others, and they should have taken way more than 10 seconds to collapse.
Who was fired for the lack of air security over our capitol that day? Over New York? Who was fired because of inadequate communication equipment in the towers for the first responders? Who was fired because the buildings collapsed despite being billed as capable of withstanding such a collision? Who was fired for not taking the previously reported threats of hijacked airplane weapons seriously?
...You don't have to accelerate the entire mass of the building.....
Yes you do, and it doesn't make any difference whether you do it one floor at a time or all at once. Somehow, the structural integrity and the inertial mass of the lower building both must be overcome in order to get it all to fall downward. The issue is not whether it fell because it obviously did, but the incredible speed at which the collapse took place.
All theory is gray
Why do I keep feeding the troll?
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/collapseofWTCeyewitnessreportsexplosions07feb05.shtml -- under the heading "Opportunities for tempering" indicates some interesting opportunities and frankly, anyone wearing a hard hat and coveralls would likely not have been questioned.
And while reading there, you can find links to an interesting bit about the seismic sensors at local colleges that mark the time of seismic tremors at "just before the fall of the buildings" and almost nothing by comparison during the time of the impact of the building hitting the earth.
And who is saying "The Government" did this? Not me. In my view, someone in the government must have been involved, but to say "the government" certainly makes it sound like everyone knew which was clearly not the case... and some players who were not in the government knew what was going on as well.
And frankly, it was not my imagination, nor that of many others who heard and saw various news media on TV and radio announce that the WTC7 was going to br brought down moments before it happened. Ostensibly, this announcement was explaining that this demolition was to be planned at a later date before "fate" stepped in to make it happen sooner. But are you really going to suggest that the NIST report is more reliable than data collected at the University of Columbia?
You seem to be really animated when it comes to denying the validity of certain sources of information and simply denying the testimony and reports of countless witnesses at the site many of which are considered to be highly reliable such as police and fire crew. It's pretty clear that your level of faith in the government's [NIST's] information is unshakeable and that you will not allow anything into your mind that might contradict what you are being told. Christians are the the same way when it comes to any evidence that questions their faith as well. But I have to wonder how much conflicting evidence has to be brought to your attention before you see the possibility that your faith is what is broken, and not that of those who are willing to question what we are being told.
There is exactly the same amount of facts supporting a controlled demolition as there is supporting ID.
I'm not trying to support or deny the controlled demolition theory, that being said, there are some odd things about the World Trade Center collapse that have not been explained.
Again, I'm not saying I believe it, but I have a doubt of the official explanation.
There does seem to be an explosion on impact of the plane. There do seem to be explosions in the building below the floors where the plane hit. The buildings falling within their footprint seems a little too convenient and counter intuitive.
Now, if I were inclined to disregard the controlled demolition argument, I would disregard these things an satisfy myself with plausible explanations. If I believed the controlled demolition theory, I'd point to these things as proof.
In the absence of belief either way, they just seem odd in and of themselves. They could just be how these buildings collapsed. The sub-flooring giving way, the insulation on the trusses burning and weakening the internal structure, blowing out Windows as they go. The pressurized building would, of course, "pop" on the impact of the plane, etc.
I don't believe the government and I don't believe the conspiracy theorists, and, alas, I don't believe government funded scientific institutions since the shrub.
I do know that the use of language like "crackpot theories" is an intentional logical fallacy intended to discredit a theory without any real intellectual proof. When people use that sort of language, it is intentional. REAL SCIENCE makes a crapckpot theory OBVIOUS and does not need such a characterization. When people use this language, I am skeptical of what they claim.
I know i'm throwing fuel on the fire here And I will say now that I am reletivly undecided, though I will admit I lean to the idea that a gov' which has pretty much limmitless resources could pull this off. Any way, I can accept the explanasion of pancaking, It's makes perfect sense, the momentum and energy in a steel and concrete floor collapsing would be more then enough, an dby the time it reaches and stable floor woul dbe too much. But what i was thinking was, for that theory you only need one of the higher floors to fail, and that means it takes a whole lot less effot to collaps a building, and even less when you consider a plane has just hit it. it's just a thought that particularly in wtc7 where there were several gov angencies, including CIA, that setting one floor of charges may not be all that inpossible.
Quick - go look to see where any current assertion exists that claims the plane hitting the towers caused the collapse. There's none.
Over the past 50 years prior to Sept 11, 2001, there have been more than 100 uncontrolled fires in skyscrapers and none have resulted in a building collapse such as the ones witnessed in WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. Following that was one in Spain that was getting a lot of attention so I'm sure you have heard of it... it burned for DAYS without collapse... all that was left was steel and stone. Jet fuel or even gasoline can conceivably burn hot enough to cause various supports to weaken and give way, but not all at once in unison as we all witnessed in three towers. And frankly, the fire from the fuel quite likely burned out quickly during the more explosive parts of the fires from the crash.
And even if the jet fuel caused a chain reaction pancaking the two towers, what burned hot enough to cause the same in WTC7
The things we saw on 9-11 have never occurred before or since. The facts we are given do not match the evidence and do not match with anything that has been demonstrated, tested or simulated [by any independent 3rd parties]. And while there are claims that the buildings are designed to do what we saw, then I have to wonder why it has never been seen before or since during a fire, but only during controlled demolition or rarely during an earthquake? Something did happen, but as with other similar crashes, it started at the bottom of the structure as countless witnesses have claimed and seismic equipment has shown, not at the top.
Thousands of people in the building every day, 24 hours a day. Nobody saw a single person drilling or laying explosives. Nobody saw anything. The only people who "see" things are the cracpots.
People can be in a building 24x7 and not notice anything if it is done right. The cleaning crew, the security guards at night. Hell, fire alarm inspectors. No one would see anything as we quickly decide to see what makes the most sense.
In a building that large, there are maintenance elevators and access ways to get to inside of the building not generally accessible to others.
Like I've been trying to say. I'm not advocating the theory, but I think there is room for reasonable doubt and there are things that should give people pause to believing the official report.
I don't believe the conspiracy theory and I don't believe the official story. I'm just interested in all the facts and history.
....conspiracy nuts are simply wrong when they calculate the time it took the building to fall....
There is nothing to calculate here, because it has all been measured by the video and seismic records. The "official" explanation for the collapse is doubtful, simply because the collapse took place too fast, according to the laws of gravity and inertia.
All theory is gray
No, because it's not each individual floor you stupid twit, and that's where the flaw in your thinking remains. You're looking at this from the POV of each floor at a time. That's fucking stupid. It's all the floors underneath which are absorbing that force collectively
Really? So the walls of the 95th floor would not have had any problem with a building 15 stories tall falling on them? Interesting. The central core is also not one uniform item stretching from the ground to the 110th floor. Do you think the individual items of that column was designed to have a 15 story building dropped on them? The floors didn't collapse simultaneously, the collapsed one by one.
I'm aghast at what an educational system can produce.
Yeah, me too. I am aghast that someone like you, quite apparently able to read and write, but who still believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and government special task force demolition crews with Invisibility Cloaks.
The NIST report does not explain news reports as that is not their job.
And major network news reported it falling while it was still standing in plain sight behind them.
Duh Media have an aversion to accuracy. Basing anything on what Duh Media reports is hazardous. It is unfortunately possible, even likely, that a reporter can stand in front of a fact and misreport that fact.
But in this instance, they may have been correct. WTC 7 could very well have been falling down during their reports, with beams giving way bolts severing and whatnot, just not enough to be obvious in a news clip.
In any case, you're basing far too much on hurried reportage. Duh Media are idiots and liars on their best days, and whether a day when 3000 Americans died was one of their good days is unfortunately still an open question.
The difference being that that building was reinforced concrete stack, which is essentially monolithic.
If the building was monolithic, would that explain how it induced F.E.A.R. in people?
"Just a fox, a whisper."
A building is 'pulled' down piece by piece when it is not feasible to get it down by any other safe means. A building like a tall office block is demolished, sometimes via explosives, by collapsing the floors in advance ahead of the advancing collapse itself, ensuring the collapse continues, ensuring little debris is spread outwards and a pancaking effect is minimised and ensuring the destruction of the building from the top to the ground floor.
Interesting. And this is what happened at the WTC? So not only does the government have invisible demolition crews and invisible thermite ignition cables (no, can't be done over radio) but they also are able to selectively weaken the building infrastructure days and weeks in advance in a building where thousands of people are working, and they are able to do so without anyone noticing.
Perhaps our school system failed you completely when they didn't lock you up in a mental institution before the age of 12.
I don't know. You tell me. I'm not claiming that the WTC buildings were demolished because I have no evidence for that. I just want a credible explanation for the collapses.
Until an alternative theory comes along, there is only one, and there is no credible refutation of this theory. Hence, according to standard scientific practice, it is the assumed truth.
I just want a credible explanation for the collapses.
And you haven't even been interested enough to actually read the NIST report. You are just sad.
...Each floor can and does fail progressively...
Indeed correct, but that process is even slower than accelerating the whole lower structure as a unit. This reports of each floor have to break, then that floor and its contents has to be accelerated downward onto the already moving upper part of the building.
According to the videos and seismic data for the time for the collapse of the buildings was just under 10 seconds. That is about the time a bowling ball would take to fall that same distance.
All theory is gray
there are some odd things about the World Trade Center collapse that have not been explained.
And that is precisely why you religious nutcases still make noise in a world that ought to be sane by now. For fucks sake we had the enlightenment a long time ago. God is a fiction. Get over it.
The fact that there are things we don't fully understand with the universe doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Neither does it mean that it was created by some bearded moron who wants his creation to worship his dumb ass. The fact that you don't understand everything about the WTC collapse and that perhaps even the NIST engineers are not 100% sure why some of the things happened, it still happened. Every other explanation for the WTC collapse is significantly more insane than the "official" version. Believing something that is obviously insane over something that has observed data supporting it is absurd.
Please read up on concepts like "The God of Gaps" etc. Your crackpot insistence that there had to be "something else" is exactly that. No difference between you and the ID and Creationist nuts.
Disclaimer: I don't believe the official story, but I'm not a "truther"
You talk about the design of the buildings being such that the collapse in a predictable way.
I have a CS degree, and I'm in EE right now, although I haven't gotten into any specifically engineering classes (just math/physics, etc.).
To someone like me who is a relative layman, what would I need to study to get a better idea of this? One the things that always got me about the twin towers and especially 7 was the relative symmetry of their collapse. From my thinking, the only way this would be possible is for all or most of the structural columns to fail simultaneously. But apparently you're saying that's not true. Any links you can give me would be appreciated.
Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
The "official" explanation for the collapse is doubtful, simply because the collapse took place too fast, according to the laws of gravity and inertia.
Good. So not only does the Bush administration have access to invisible demolition crews who have access to silent Thermite and invisible thermite detonation cables. The Bush administration also has access to extra-gravitational devices that makes things fall faster than they possibly could under the laws of gravity and inertia.
Are you not self-aware enough to understand how insane you sound?
Any demolition crew would have the exact same problem. There is no way they could make the building fall as fast as you crackpots claim it fell. There is no feasible way of doing this short of completely de-atomizing the entire building below 95th floor. All of the material would have to vanish instantly, but it would have to leave an image of it self as it pretended to collapse.
What is more likely? The Bush administration has access to de-Atomizers that leave a video of the building in 3D for all to watch as they totally remove every atom below 95th floor or that the crackpot theory about the time of the building collapse is just that. Pure, utter, insane crackpot.
And that is precisely why you religious nutcases still make noise in a world that ought to be sane by now.
I'm an atheist.
This BBC thing is dumbfounding. Every ask yourself if they new the WTC7 was supposed to fall before it happened, why they would have known that? Do you propose that the BBC was somehow involved in bringing down the buildings? If not, how did they know ahead of time. Was it because George Bush was afraid no one would notice that another building fell so he wrote up a press release for it?
More likely the BBC just screwed up as the media so often does.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Sweetheart, you have never seen a building collapse in your life - not even a model.
I've watched a number of them go down. All sorts of demolitions on TV and even a few in person. And since you seem to be stating such experience means something, let me tell you that with my experience, it fell as I had guessed it would. I expected it to collapse while watching, and it fell as I thought it was going to. That you are confused on such matters doesn't indicate a conspiracy. It indicates ignorance.
The collapse loses energy, force and momentum as it goes, and it is slowed even more by the compacting of the debris.
There is no compacting of the debris. It's not collapsing from the bottom up. They didn't explode the bottom floor and let the rest collapse on it. If that was the case, you would be a little more correct. Instead, they dropped massive amounts of material onto the 91st floor that was designed to hold the static weight of 4 floors, but the impact was sufficient to break the supports between the 90th and 91st floor. This repeated. There was no debris to compact and get in the way. Every floor below was empty except for supports that were crushed. This repeated. The result was the complete demolition as we saw. A demolition expert would never do it that way because they couldn't guarantee that in a fall that long that the supports on one side wouldn't give way more quickly than another, causing a tilt. Not to mention that the debris was not contained. The massive cloud of dust and debris was thrown far away from the site. Someone purposefully destroying it would have to take that into consideration. It isn't a consideration when the demolition was unplanned.
The report is wrong,
So, why do you think that so many trained experts got it wrong and you know the truth? What is the truth? Do you have anything to support that truth other than your opinion?
Learn to love Alaska
No demolition company has ever turned up on site and said "Oh, we'll burn five storeys in the top half of this fifty storey building and it will all go down". The entire building needs to be accounted for.
Yes, because no demolition company has ever been asked to destroy a skyscraper in such a manner that numerous buildings around it would destroyed or damaged by falling debris. That is why controlled demolition is so difficult, and why if this was supposed to be a controlled demolition it was the worst one ever.
You've offered no explanation as to how all the floors, most of which were completely untouched, below the few floors that were affected by fire became so structurally unsound that they were able to collapse in. Unless this happens, you simply don't have enough energy to precipitate a full collapse from the action of a few floors at the top of the building collapsing into those below. You will still get at least some of the building intact.
It's called kinetic energy. The floors below don't need to be structurally unsound at all. Because at their full sky-scraper supporting strength, they are nowhere near strong enough to withstand the impact of a 15-20 story building being dropped on them from 10 feet. As soon as the core near the top was weakened enough by the fire that the floors above the impact point began to fall, that was it. The floor beneath could not possibly survive and would be driven down with the already falling mass, meaning the next floor is experiencing at minimum the energy of all the previous floors plus one accelerating for ten feet, but realistically the falling floors would not be greatly decelerated at all as they continued to pulverize floors beneath them, adding to the mass and energy being exerted on lower floors.
It may intuitively seem like the steel structures of a skyscraper are extremely strong and it's unlikely they could be destroyed that easily. The fact is that they are extremely strong, they must be simply to do the job of countering the gravitational force on all the mass above it. But once part fails, and all that mass starts to accelerate, the forces that would have to be withstood to decelerate it would be orders of magnitude past what the structure was designed for in the worst case. Immediate and complete failure of each successive level is exactly what would be expected, and by the time that stack hit the ground it would have so much energy that much of it would in fact be pulverized.
The enemies of Democracy are
I don't know. You tell me. I'm not claiming that the WTC buildings were demolished because I have no evidence for that. I just want a credible explanation for the collapses
You believe the experts to be wrong. You are claiming that they did not collapse as per the official reports. You must have some reason to have that belief. An explanation was presented, and you state that you think it isn't credible. You give no standards as to credible. You are not listening to others and saying "thanks for the info, I'll consider that." You are saying "Sweetheart (in an obviously condescending tone), experts (unnamed ones that are apparently not the ones that wrote the reports) think that it is improbable that it would fall that way." That's not refuting anything. That's parroting a personal opinion like it's a relevant fact. The simple fact is that no one has ever destroyed a building that large. Extrapolation can be used to guess as to what might happen, but someone that takes an extrapolation over actual data must be insane. No really, not name calling, but a technical diagnosis. They must have a disconnect with reality in order to take what has been shown to happen and state it did not happen because it was called unlikely by some unnamed experts who have never done anything similar in their lives.
I subscribe to the Sherlock Holmes school of thought. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth. I can agree that it is unlikely that the events would have unfolded exactly as they did. However, every other possible explanation has been found to be impossible. That leaves only one explanation. If you have another, let us know. If you don't, then you are supporting my Sherlock Holmes theory that the unlikely has happened.
Learn to love Alaska
No, it's not baloney, and it was a civil engineer who designed tall buildings that was telling me this. A side impact from a jet liner is nothing compared to the impact of a large 20 story building falling on top of it, okay? Once it starts to fall, the lower floors would fail instantly, because as over-engineered as it was for the task of supporting a building, it wasn't anywhere close to being built to withstand that. As the engineer who had in fact done the math, using actual specialized domain knowledge said, once it starts to fail that seemingly strong steel structure was going to be more like toothpicks.
The enemies of Democracy are
Oh my god, an English word has multiple meanings? Say it ain't so!
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
I'm an atheist.
Actually, no, you are not. You are what I would call a selective atheist. You are unable to use the logic that you use to disregard fairies in the sky on other aspects of your life. You are what I would call a wanna-be atheist. Someone who would like to be an atheist but who is unable to let go of some of the fairytale stories.
Don't worry, if you really have a brain you will grow out of it.
And it doesn't seem odd to you that the incredibly unlikely event of all four sides giving way at exactly the same speed for the entire height of the building, actually happened? Twice?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Actually it was 20 seconds. The video isn't useful because the dust and debris cloud obscures much of the lower floors' collapse.
BTW, the ones who are saying it'd lose force seriously need to buy a newton's cradle... And whoever said that we should "try the experiment with Legos"... I just have no words for how completely stupid you are...
Yeah, Newton's 3rd Law. So the 20 story building experiences an amount of deceleration equivalent to the amount of force required to destroy the single floor underneath it, i.e. a microsecond of deceleration, followed by more acceleration due to that other great theory of Newton's, gravity.
So yes, it absolutely can be "anywhere close" to free fall.
The enemies of Democracy are
I'm an atheist.
Actually, no, you are not. You are what I would call a selective atheist. You are unable to use the logic that you use to disregard fairies in the sky on other aspects of your life. You are what I would call a wanna-be atheist. Someone who would like to be an atheist but who is unable to let go of some of the fairytale stories.
Don't worry, if you really have a brain you will grow out of it.
I'm an atheist
Actually, no, you are not.
LOL, what do you know about anything? I should know whether or not I'm an Atheist.
You are unable to use the logic that you use to disregard fairies in the sky on other aspects of your life.
So, because I refuse to blindly believe one opinion over another, I am unable to use Logic? Are you insane?
I would suggest that you cool off and consider what you just accused a person, of which you have no personal knowledge, of being and ask yourself who needs to use their logic functions of their brain more?
I'm quite skeptical of the whole thing, if you disagree, then lets discuss facts and science. You have merely just used insult assuming your point is so unassailable that only a moron would disagree. Well, personally, I don't have an opinion one way or the other, I just find the contradictions and opportunities interesting and curious.
Don't worry, if you really have a brain you will grow out of it.
I'm probably older than you, and from this exchange, I'd bet a lot smarter as well.
Yes, it can. The steel will weaken from the heat, the stress of the crash and debris and floors above will cause a collapse.
Learn to love Alaska
True, steel does not need to be molten to be weakened, but you to need some event that melts steel to explain the molten steel found underneath the trade towers weeks after the collapse.
Now I'm confused. If it were demolished, then there would be lower temperatures. You don't heat the steel to demolish it, you blow it apart. Whether there is molten steel is irrelevant to whether it was demolished by man-placed demolitions or airplane. That, however, does go to support the theories that the fire burned hotten because of the confined spaces, extra materials, and other conditions. That would further indicate that the steel failed from temperature, not demolition. So such statements are anti-conspiracy. Just because it hasn't been explained doesn't mean aliens or the government did it.
Learn to love Alaska
Right, without collateral damage. Do you guys have any idea how stupid you look?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I think that right there is the problem. People assume that their intuition on how a complex system they know basically nothing about should work is worth something. It is not.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
People assume that their intuition on how a complex system they know basically nothing about should work is worth something. It is not.
Everyone assumes that not agreeing with them is the sign of some form of ignorance. There are lots of things that can't be explained easily in the WTC collapse, and only a fool would overlook such matters as trivial.
If you care to use a logical argument about why the building fell inward and in place, rather than coming apart and falling any which way, please do tell. Hint: don't use opinion, use facts and science, if you can't, don't even bother posting.
I heard the announcement that WTC7 was going to be pulled shortly before it was.
You are incorrect. The 'and they decided to pull it' comment that delusional loons have decided was the owner of the building openly admitting to treason on television for some reason, was demonstratively made months after the fact.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Anyone stop to think that the way Trades 1 and 2 were built..the main support for the buildings was the exterior? Its equivalent to a Ziploc bag...the main support is the fabric of the bag. If a large hole were punched into a bag full of water, what would happen? The skeleton of the bag would fail and containment would be breached, resulting in collapse. In a manner of speaking, this is what happened to Trades 1 and 2... a large hole was punched into all sides of the main support structure...perforating the bag...the result was a total, catastrophic failure. One of the towers leaned a bit one way, then fell straight downward...the other just went down.. We're fortunate that the towers came straight down, as designed...otherwise, 1160 feet of Manhattan would have been crushed and there would have been more casualties. The building's tops with the amount of damage they took, trade 1 from 95-105 and trade 2 from I think 70+ to 85 probably would have had to come down anyway from the damage they took. It's sad that they had to collapse with that many people in or under them, but think of how many people it would have been had these attacks occurred only an hour later. The 3000 people would have more likely been 10-100 times that in the area. Point being, it could always have been worse. I think there are many questions still left unanswered, but those will come in time, when a private investigation is funded.
Remember, it's not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you...
Lovely. All we have is a lot of serious questions left as a result of this 'theory'. We've had a lot of towing an frowing on these threads about pancaking of floors being feasible, completely ignoring that floors themselves do not stand by themselves and there is a support structure in place for a building. That, in a nutshell, is the central tenet of the theory presented - finding some way, any way, that the pancaking of these floors would precipitate an entire collapse and that a collapse would have been initiated from the damage sustained. We just instantly jump to those 'known' states without explaining anything. I'm open to a reason for all that. I haven't seen one.
Your logic is also totally flawed. You don't pull a theory out of thin air and say "Disprove that, and if you can't then you're wrong and it's all we have so it must be true". The theory itself has to have credible evidence as proof that it happened that way and I am afraid there is no such thing. Questions are asked and we continually get answers thrown back which were the reasons why the questions were asked in the first place! Rinse and repeat.
When you have something that actually supports what your saying as a result of that report, give us a call. Unfortunately, questions are met with the same 'known' facts pulled from the report without explaining first why they are true. A lot of assumptions are presented as known facts and we are all expected to go from there.
hmm...what were the makes and models of the 4 aircraft used in the attacks? 2 United flights 2 American Airlines flights.. Strange..there are a few questions that remain unanswered.
Remember, it's not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you...
You're kidding, right?
Look, I can't help you if you insist on comparing apples to oranges. None of the fires you mentioned involved a couple of thousand gallons of jet fuel, a 767-sized airplane, buildings several 100 feet tall and a steel exoskeleton. You can't call on experience to predict what will happen it such a situation, because this situation never occurred.
You're willfully ignoring any evidence or knowledge that contradicts your pre-conceived notion of a conspiracy. I - and no one else either - can help you with that.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
No, because what you're not getting is that the collapse on to the lower mass will lose energy, force and acceleration somewhat as it goes, which is what happens in a building collapse. As the debris and floors compact their tendency might then to be to go out over and elsewhere assuming that they can, losing even more energy and force at a pretty reasonable rate. It may or may not just keep on going depending on the conditions.
You are speaking in absolutes, so I had to fix a couple of things for you. Are you really saying that this building could not have collapsed this way? (yes you are) The weakened structure of a few floors may allow enough momentum to build such that it could not cause a floor by floor pancake collapse? (yes it could, it is a question of how many floors and how weakened the structure) Are you suggesting that if it was possible then demolition companies would in fact do this? That claim alone suggests that you don't know what you're talking about.
Honestly, that's why I tend to use Bushco rather than Bush to try and avoid the equivocation. "Bush" refers to just him; He's a braindead meat puppet for the neocon cabal. A psuedo-charming front to deflect criticism. "Bushco" refers to the neocons with IQs above room temperature (far above, most likely) who actually run the show.
A risk of Godwinning: Hitler was a moron. He failed frickin art school. But Himmler, Gobbels, Eichmann - The psychopaths who actually ran the show? Most of them had IQs of 125 or more. I imagine they approached Hitler as Bush's handlers approach him: "How can I get the idiot child to say what I need?"
LOL, what do you know about anything?
Absolutely everything. Given that you have shown here that you would rather put your faith in absurd fairy tales than in hard science, is proof positive that you are a selective atheist. Once you are able to use your skepticism on every part of your life then you are an atheist.
So, because I refuse to blindly believe one opinion over another
Not at all. This is not a matter of believing one opinion or another. Neither is atheism. It is about believing and not believing. There is absolutely no supporting evidence for any of the alternative "theories" about 9/11. Not a single shred of proof. In fact, the alternative theories are not theories at all but conjectures at best. This means that there is currently a single theory that explains what happened. Not one, two or three. One. You can either realize this or you can believe in fairytale hokum. You have chosen to lean towards the fairy tale in this case.
ask yourself who needs to use their logic functions of their brain more?
You do. Try to find the source of the following important concept: "That's not right. It's not even wrong". The alternative explanations for 9/11 are "not even wrong".
I'm quite skeptical of the whole thing
Actually, no, you are not. Again, try to find out what the meaning of being a skeptic actually is. You are latching on to absurd fairy tales because you don't like "the official" explanation. This in spite of the fact that the "official" explanation is so far the only rational explanation. This is what makes you a believer in flim-flam fairy tales. That is what makes you a non-atheist (sorta, kinda, in a way).
I'm probably older than you, and from this exchange, I'd bet a lot smarter as well.
Probably not on the first one, and I guarantee you are wrong on the second one. You have proven through this discussion that you don't even understand very basic scientific concepts and elementary reasoning.
I do, and it is scattered around here. Also, calling them 'experts' won't make the questions go away.
Unfortunately, that is flawed because you obviously haven't read anything around here and taken it in. What's happened is that questions are asked, reasons have been provided as to why a certain view of the collapse is wrong, and all we've had is parts of the report repeated parrot fashion and the very statements that have precipitated the questions in the first place repeated again as answers.
Again, flawed. There has been plenty of data from many building collapses since the days of yore, as well as the history of many building collapses themselves. You trying to present that as my personal opinion is very funny. There is plenty of differences between the data in the report versus data and experiences from plenty of past collapses to formulate some questions about that data. Many people just don't like those questions because they struggle to explain those differences.
We've been shown that something has happened that has never happened in any other building collapse, and that there is no historical data to support. Essentially, a theory revolves around the buildings in question being 'different'. Also, trying to discredit 'unnamed' experts having labelled the report writers 'experts' doesn't aid credibility.
Have they? I don't believe they have. Besides, I'm not interested in alternate explanations really. I'm interested in the report and the 'official' version of events being able to explain the questions flagged up by historical building collapses and things that are chosen to be painted over. They cannot provide those answers, and if there are questions left dangling I'm not too bothered. Obviously you feel the need for some sort of closure, which is why you throw your hands up in the air and say "Oh well, it must be true because it's all we have".
As I said, I'm not bothered about alternate explanations, nor that questions are left dangling. The lack of an alternate explanation won't make them go away.
Alas, you think you're boxing me into a corner here by getting me to come up with an alternate theory (hopefully really outlandish!) I don't have evidence for. Unfortunately, it won't make the questions regarding the version of events portrayed by the report and individuals around here go away. Holmes would laugh his head off at such Inspector Lestrade thinking.
1. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough. It just doesn't. If it did, international flights wouldn't be possible because it would melt the engines. And it's irrelevent that there was jet fuel at all except that any fire was spread faster. A fire's heat is limited by the fuel's volatility and by the amount of oxygen available to it. So I'm saying that there's a good chance that the fire didn't even burn at its highest potential rate and temperature because it was likely consuming all oxygen available to it as such a rate that it could burn no faster being starved in that relatively confined space. You will note that the color of the smoke was grey most of the time which is a pretty good indicator that something not oil based was not doing the majority of the burning which means it wasn't nearly as hot as you might think it was.
2. The actual building we're focusing on is WTC7 which is one building that certainly qualifies as going through a more conventional disaster scenario and one that is a lot more like many others. The building suffered some damage but the fire apparently started from within for undetermined causes. Within seven hours, it collapsed at a time that immediately followed a seismic spike of about 2 on the ricter scale according University of Columbia instruments. There was no jet fuel involved.
I'm not claiming conspiracy. I'm claiming we're being lied to because the evidence doesn't support the story.
I have to wonder why it is that the government is presumed to be telling the truth at all times and anything counter to that is a conspiracy theory? Other governments do it, but ours is somehow impossibly honest and forthcoming with the truth at all times? I think there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.
I'm sorry, I can only argue using facts, logic, and reason. I cannot defeat the force of idiocy. This is why we'll never run out of Trufers.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The tops of the buildings fell a bit slower than free fall, exactly what you would expect given that each floor offered almost no resistance to the falling mass.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Fucking hell. You tell me! It sounds like you're accepting a demolition theory, and then proceeding to tell us that it is so fantastical that the official version must therefore be true. You're off into the twilight zone now, and that really is a conspiracy theory.
I have no evidence whatsoever for demolition crews at the WTC, nor does anyone who talks about demolitions at the WTC buildings. Even though people might be able to point out similarities, it's all conjecture really. The questions over 'accepted' explanations and the problems the present, however, remain.
You're under the mistaken impression here that I am offering up some alternate theory or explanation (hopefully, really outlandish!), and I'm not. I have no need for closure, nor do I offer some explanation to tie up those loose ends. You'll just have to deal with them.
All we have is a lot of serious questions left as a result of this 'theory'
Please don't put quotes around the word theory until you know the difference between conjecture and theory. The NIST report is not a "theory", it is a theory. If you can fin a flaw in the NIST report, please come show us. Currently the only thing you have is your "feelings" about how it can not possibly be true. This despite the fact that you haven't even read it. The sad thing is that you don't even understand how insane that is.
You don't pull a theory out of thin air
I never said you did, and nobody ever did for the events of 9/11. In fact, the theory was based on solid scientific forensic work. It took years. Your "feelings" on the other hand is pulled straight out of your ass, fired up by insane preachers of "the truth". It is a religion. Not more, not less.
The theory itself has to have credible evidence as proof that it happened that way and I am afraid there is no such thing.
Then I suggest you stop emoting about this thing and show us where the NIST report is wrong. That would obviously require you read it, which I doubt you ever will since it will make your new found religion crumble. Religious nuts like you studiously avoid any knowledge that can undermine their cherished beliefs.
When you have something that actually supports what your saying as a result of that report,
Here is a simple question: What in the report is wrong, and what scientific evidence you base this on?
I'm not sure why people waste so much energy on 9/11. 9/11 is way too vague and there are too many viable opinions on what happened. The War in Iraq is what people should be getting up in arms about if they're worried about an authoritarian government screwing them over. The evident is there in the news. There are quotes from Rumsfield, Bush, Cheney, Rice and the rest of the group talking about how Saddam was linked to al Qaeda, how Saddam had WMDs, how Saddam was building nukes, etc. etc. All of those claims proved to be false but none the less we're still wasting billions of dollars a month in Iraq while our economy is collapsing at home.
It sounds like you're accepting a demolition theory
You should familiarize your self with the "if ... then" concept. If the nuts are right about the demolition theory then a certain set of items follows. Items such as that there must have been a demolition crew, equipment etc. In rational debate, you can show how absurd an argument is by using such "if - then" constructs. That doesn't mean that you accept the premise in the "if" clause. The fact that you apparently never have heard about this astounds me. Given the fact that you are able to operate a keyboard and that you read /. would indicate that you at least have some education. Apparently not.
I have no evidence whatsoever for demolition crews at the WTC
Good, and since this debate has long since shown that there could not have been such crews anywhere near the WTC, then we can readily, easily and without hesitation, immediately ignore the demolition theory. Why are you not?
You're under the mistaken impression here that I am offering up some alternate theory
No, I am not. I am rightfully under the impression that you think there might be an alternate explanation. Despite the fact that nobody ever has come up with such an explanation. Given the thousands upon thousands of people, some with a lot of education, are interested in the matter, and that not a single alternate explanation ever has been presented. Don't you find that just a little odd?
Evolution isn't a theory of how life came to be, it is the only theory. No other theory has been presented in a long time. Why do scientists assume Evolution is the answer to this question?
Of course they would, but again, you're looking at an individual floor. Being able to collapse the 95th floor has no bearing on what effect that would have on the 40th floor apart. There would be an effect on the 95th, 94th, 93rd, 92nd floors and so on, probably resulting in their destruction, but the effect would be dramatically minimised the more floors down you go.
You can't just collapse an individual floor and then move on to the next one as a separate entity. There is a structure in every building that binds those floors together into one strong and coherent whole (as well as all the other variables involved in a collapse on them). If they didn't then, you know, the building would be..............unsafe. Seriously unsafe.
Alas, trying to extrapolate some outlandish theory that I have never offered, and for which there is no evidence, from what I have written is not going to work. I'm just going to leave the loose ends dangling. It seems that you're already coming up with explanations to them yourself, so carry on!
The fact that you don't understand that there are different grades of steel and metal for different purposes means that you cannot contribute in a meaningful fashion to the scientific discussion.
The problem is that you really don't know what you're talking about, and assume no one else does. That's why people deride the notion of a conspiracy and cover-up. It's not that they implicitly trust the government, it's that the government arguments actually hold water, while the conspiracy theorists can't put together two coherent sentences on the subject.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Building 7? I thought there were only 2?
Good point - 9/11 "Truth" is to NIST what "Intelligent Design" is to the theory of Evolution. In neither case is an alternate theory proposed - they're simply an attempt to tear down existing theories through ignorance and lies.
That's it? Nothing else to say? I think it goes without saying that different alloys have different melting points, but do you know what those melting points are? Neither do I, so I speak in generalities in this case. The point of saying that jet fuel has a fixed and limited burn temperature is to indicate that it definitely burns at a low enough temperature as to not cause too much weakening of the steal in engines. Yes, it would melt lead and tin. But not likely steel girders of that size and density and frankly, by the time you saw grey smoke, the jet fuel was used up and was no longer a part of the equation. That was pretty damned fast and therefore the jet fuel had little opportunity to do more damage that the rest of the fire's fuel.
And once again, you completely ignore the fact that WTC7 was a completely separate situation from the towers even though they behaved remarkably similarly.
Looking back at the vast majority of your comments on various topics, it's pretty clear that you're uninterested in making meaningful or enlightening discussion but would rather skip around attempting to punch holes in ideas and have none of your own.
The government arguments do not hold water. It completely ignores several bits of evidence such as the seismic timing issues and the evidence of thermite. And the fact that this ridiculously rare occurance of a skyscraper actually collapsing from fire damage repeated itself three times in one day in rapid succession is more than a little weird.
It is one thing to link to a story or article that is hard to find. It is quite another to insist on links to information you can find FOR YOURSELF in less than 10 seconds if you are a reasonable typist and have an internet connection. You have "won" nothing, except to look like a lazy ass.
"Your example of a building that didn't collapse is a building that did collapse? Interesting. I think I'll let that example stand without any comment at all."
No, you idiot. You asked for a building that burned for more than an hour without firefighters trying to put out the fire, but did not collapse. The fact is we were discussing one! WTC 7 burned for a number of hours, without active firefighting, and did not collapse until almost 5:30 that evening.
We were already discussing an example of what you asked for, and I pointed that out, and you were STILL to stupid to recognize it. Well, I DID give you what you asked for. If you think it doesn't "count", then too bad. You don't get to change the rules after someone else has won the argument.
"More to the point, slashdot isn't filled with traditional Truther morons. They understand that if you assert a web page exists, and I assert it doesn't, your job is to link to it. It is logically impossible for me to prove such a video doesn't exist. (Of course, logic? Not your strong suit.)"
That is actually pretty funny. What makes you think I am a "Truther" at all? Just because I disagree with you on one single issue? Hmmmm... looks like I am not the one here who has problems with logic. In a number of ways.
No, I am NOT obligated to provide links to you for everything I claim, when you can prove the claim to yourself with a few seconds' look at the evidence on the 'Net. YOU were the one who called "Bullshit". YOU are the one who is obligated to support your claim of "Bullshit". That is a tradition that goes a lot farther back than the Internet, not to mention Slashdot.
And you haven't. You have yet to give me ONE counterexample to my claim. I have given you TWO examples of what YOU asked for. So... who is winning, you think? I don't care if you don't like my examples... they are still examples that bested your challenge. If you don't care for that, then think through your challenges better next time. But you don't get to change the rules after the fact.
Given that you have shown here that you would rather put your faith in absurd fairy tales than in hard science
I have no "faith" to put anywhere. I have carefully considered opinions, and IMHO neither camp has unassailable science. Both sides make interesting points.
This is not a matter of believing one opinion or another. Neither is atheism. It is about believing and not believing.
"believing" is often a bad thing. As an atheist, "believing" is patently absurd.
Your argument has been insult and absurdities, when you can present some facts I'll listen.
Din't you find it strange that they could identify the teorists as fast as they did, when identifying other victims took months.
That because they already knew who to blame.
No. They had passenger manifests. 4 planes, maybe 250 people per plane, that's 1000 people. You parse through that list and run it against your gigantic database that you have compiled for decades. Anyone that matches between the two will instantly stand out. That kind of comparison would take no time at all.
The Parque Central is still an example of a steel building that does not "have a concrete core". That's what you asked for. If you wanted something else, you should have asked for something else. But bitching about it afterward is nothing more than sour grapes. I win.
You are also wrong about the Parque Central being a "more modern" building. Parque Central construction began 4 years BEFORE WTC 7. It's all right there on the 'Net, guy. Don't blame me if you are too lazy to do your own research.
You can make excuses and try to change the rules of the game all you want, but the fact is that I have given you two counterexamples that met the criteria you asked for. You have not shown me even one that disproves my claim.
Of course they would, but again, you're looking at an individual floor.
OK, so, lets say that the 95th floor collapses when a fifteen story building falls on it. What happens to 94th floor when a 16 story building falls on it a fraction of a second later?
trying to extrapolate some outlandish theory that I have never offered
So, what is your alternate theory? What other options are there? I have heard two options, a demolition scenario, which requires leaps of faith far greater than those required for Santa Claus, and the NIST explanation. What would be your explanation? Invisible nasty goblins?
Exactly. And the 9/11 "truth" people are just as ignorant, dumb and annoying as the ID proponents. This is why I have stated that some dude here who claims to be an Atheist and who gives credence to the crackpots is in fact not an atheist. Not if you take a wider view of the matter.
Both sides make interesting points
In exactly the same way that both sides of the Evolution debate "make interesting points". In other words, you have rational science and a bunch of lunatic crackpots, and you give credence to the lunatic crackpots.
Your argument has been insult and absurdities
Insult, absolutely. Absurdities, not at all. Given the fact that you are actually stating that the crackpots have opinions as valid as those of scientists, you are really not worthy of anything but insult, but I have also tried to use one or two arguments.
I find it staggering that people who stand up-right actually give credit to the Intelligent Design crackpots. That is what you are doing here. There is no difference whatsoever.
Okay. So "crazy nut job" conspiracy theorists who do not accept authority as truth simply due to its authority, have alleged that elements within the current Bush administration staged terror attacks on 9-11 in order for a pre-text for war and expanded power. So.. The NIST is going to say "Yes, my boss is guilty of the biggest criminal act of this century?" THINK AGAIN Best 911 Movie to date: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-YqET96OO0
I am not claiming it didn't happen. I am claiming that the odds are strongly against the idea that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire. Maybe it did... but the odds are against it.
People have tried to say that this is an "extraordinary claim". But actually, it is the other way around.
The "official" claim is: on 9/11, THREE buildings -- one of which had not been struck even by much debris, not to mention any airplanes -- fell down due to a cause that had never been observed before in the history of the world, or since!!
If you ask me, THAT is the extraordinary claim. Not impossible, mind you... but rather extraordinary. I think -- based on some solid evidence -- that it is MORE LIKELY that it fell due to other reasons. That is all.
Nope. Happening twice doesn't mean a miracle. It means that's the failure mode. Perhaps the way both went down there was a material failure in the middle that dumped hundreds of tons on the floor beneath. That impact in the middle compromised the supports at the edges, and it came down cleanly. It isn't an issue about how it should come down, how it would "naturally" come down most of the time. With demolition, they will spend a lot of time and money making sure that the 1% chance of tipping doesn't happen. It's about probabilities, and if there's an 80% chance that it would come down the way it did, then it was most likely for it to happen the way it did, have it look exactly like a demolition, but have a demolition still not down the same building in the same way. I see nothing intellectually inconsistent with that. If you do, please point it out to me.
Learn to love Alaska
I do, and it is scattered around here.
I've seen some of your other posts, and you "scatter" doubt, but do not scatter information. The best you do is point to other people who have a similar opinion. More believers does not make something more true.
Also, calling them 'experts' won't make the questions go away.
When you claim to know things an expert doesn't, I have to presume you to be an Internet Crackpot until shown otherwise. I can look up the qualifications of those that worked on the report. You claim to know more than verified experts. I call your knowledge into question, and thus their being an expert does make the questions you raise less important. You are a non-expert with no theory presented as to what did happen if it didn't happen as the experts state. You give nothing to the discussion and act like it's important you speak.
Unfortunately, that is flawed because you obviously haven't read anything around here and taken it in. What's happened is that questions are asked, reasons have been provided as to why a certain view of the collapse is wrong, and all we've had is parts of the report repeated parrot fashion and the very statements that have precipitated the questions in the first place repeated again as answers.
A commission looked into it and gave an answer. That the answer doesn't fit your uneducated pre-conceptions does not make it a conspiracy. Oh, and on that, the fact that you imply conspiracy yet deny that's your implication makes you look like not only a nutjob, but a lying nutjob as well. You parrot all that the admitted conspiracy theorists cling to, yet try to distance yourself from them. Why?
Again, flawed.
No, it's not. And your undeducated opinion will not be taken over that of trained professionals. You either think that there's a conspiracy (which would directly contradict your previous staments, making you a liar) or you think your personal opinion formed with no direct access to the data is better than those of experts that had more time and money to examine the issue than you did. Either way, you are not worth listening to.
There has been plenty of data from many building collapses since the days of yore, as well as the history of many building collapses themselves.
The tallest steel building demolished up to that point was about 1/4th the size of the twin towers. It is known that demolishing a 1 storey bulding is significantly different than a 4 story and that is significantly different from a 16 storey building. As such, you would have to prove to me how the smaller demolitions directly contradict the collapse of the towers and *also* prove that the data is also applicable to a collapse many times its size.
We've been shown that something has happened that has never happened in any other building collapse, and that there is no historical data to support.
It's happened like that before. Every part. No other one has matched the whole exactly because it was so much larger than any other demolition in the history of the planet. But pancacking? It's happened. Failure of steel due to fire? It has happened. Nothing was new, just the combination, and that is because there has never been another building ever subjected to those conditions.
Have they? I don't believe they have.
You have refused to give any other explanations, so of course they can't be proven impossible. For a controlled demolition, there is no evidence that any group did any "maintenance" necessary to demolish it if it were a controlled demolition. That is proof because there were tens of thousands of survivers and not a single one saw any charges, wires, unusual people, or anything like that. Either the building was wired to explode when it was erected, or it is impossible that anyone managed to wire it to explode between construction completed and the collapse. If you want to argue that it was wired to explode when erected, I'll accept that
Learn to love Alaska
You give, as an example, a building that you, yourself, claim was of a completely different type of construction?
That is not a valid argument. Look back at the original statement. It was about STEEL structured buildings. If you can come up with a valid counterexample to THAT, then I will admit I am wrong and go away. But the Windsor Building is not an example of that kind of construction. In fact, it is even likely that weaker steel was used because the structure relied on its concrete core. Or perhaps not... but the fact remains that this is not an example of what I asked for.
In exactly the same way that both sides of the Evolution debate "make interesting points". In other words, you have rational science and a bunch of lunatic crackpots, and you give credence to the lunatic crackpots.
You keep insulting and impugning, but you have made no rational argument yet. Insults are not reason.
Given the fact that you are actually stating that the crackpots have opinions as valid as those of scientists
Again, ad hominem is not debate, it is the rambling of an idiot. It is intellectually barren.
I find it staggering that people who stand up-right actually give credit to the Intelligent Design crackpots. That is what you are doing here. There is no difference whatsoever.
That is your opinion, of course, I have a different opinion and I have done my share of reading on the issues. The difference is that I don't see a "slam-dunk" by the "scientists" (Question: how many independent scientific organizations were allowed access to the evidence?) There has been NO independent investigation, and that in itself is problematic.
So, insult away, be as rude as you want, but note that you are the one behaving unreasonably.
You haven't been reading carefully... or you skipped over part of the conversation, or something.
I am saying that it is UNLIKELY that it happened by accident, given all the other unlikely "accidents" that happened in the same direction.
When you have a number of independent events, the probability that they would all happen together by accident is the product of their individual probabilities. So when the individual events are all extremely improbable, the probability of them all occurring together at about the same time is so low as to be pretty damned astounding.
When things occur with probabilities that are THAT low, it should throw up a red flag. They do happen, of course... but one has to ask what is more likely. And there are a number of scenarios that are MORE LIKELY than all those accidents happening the way they did on that day.
And no, they are NOT all "conspiracy theory"!
"Repeat after me... YouTube is not a reliable source of information."
THAT was the context in which I replied. He clearly implied that he felt the video could have been faked (else, how could it be "unreliable"?). And that was the implication I was rebutting. Your comment is out of context.
My statement was that YouTube is irrelevant... the video was seen live by millions.
That was all.
As for the mistake, again people have been taking this out of context. Originally, I was trying to point out that this "mistake", WHEN PUT TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OTHER SUCH UNLIKELY MISTAKES THAT DAY, was highly improbable.
Perhaps my examples were not wonderful. But what I meant was people working independently, in different areas, who were not in contact. If there is no reasonable way to connect them, via proximity or shared communication (through a third party, for example), then those must be considered independent variables. You cannot consider them DEPENDENT variables unless you can show that they were connected in some way. I was referring to events that could not reasonably expected to be connected.
Does that clear it up for you?
Your bigfoot example is not even remotely relevant to the scenario I was trying to describe. Nor was it a good example even to illustrate what you were trying to say. That was simple sarcasm, and out of context. Please try to keep the discussion reasonable.
"Aicraft are tender thin and soft?
Speaking as an experienced aircraft mechanic, not only that, but they have a certain pleasant smell of fuel and....lubricant.
JP-4 was nicer, but I can deal with JP-8 since I grew up in New Jersey.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
It is only complicated for small structures, like that one in the video. Small, concrete structures.
WTC was huge by comparison. And it is steel.
Steel does NOT like being compressed. Steel only works through tension. Compression - bad for steel. Concrete, on other hand, does not like bending, but will take HELL of a lot of compression. The building pictured is steel/concrete so tough -> not easy to break and too small to pancake by itself.
This is why reinforced concrete structures are difficult to take down. You have to plan ahead, weaken support walls. Heck, put dynamite in support walls.
In a steel structure, you take out the foundation, and rest basically goes straight down. But because of risks of stuff flying around and ease of taking steel apart, steel buildings are generally taken down piece by piece, from top down. No explosions needed to take them out.
And please, don't compare crappily built, small buildings to large steel sky scrappers.
For an example, do the following. Get bunch of paperback books (you know, 400-1000 pages each) and stack 12 of them. Then push them over. They will end up all over the place.
Now, build a stack 100 books (ok, 60+ should do). Now, push at the 30th book from the bottom. Do they continue to tip over like the 12th story high structure? Probably not.
Now who's the flat earther? Apollo, Soyuz, Shuttle, Mercury. Need to name more?
As for extra-terrestrials, I think your statement may be premature. Kind of like saying that there cannot be any 2 headed snakes, yet,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycephaly
Fire doesn't melt steel.
To me, this is the most compelling argument that controlled demolition took place. Videos show molten metal pouring out of the windows of the towers.
I have heard testimony that thermite/thermate was used to increase the heat. A white residue around the still-standing beams (which are angle-cut, btw) makes a strong case for this.
Aluminium plane + iron oxide on steel beams + lots of heat = aluminium oxide + molton iron.
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
Uh, the collapse of building 7 is identical to many planned demolitions.
Debian FTW
I don't need any research to tell me that if you fly a large passenger airplane into a building then something really bad going to happen to it.
In other words, you don't need any facts to know the truth? Idiot
Debian FTW
They weren't Jumbo jets, fool. Jumbo jets are 747's. What we have here folks is another fine product of the public schooling system.
Debian FTW
Oh so YOU know all about it ay? I'm glad we sorted that out. Now we can bin all the unanswered questions along with all the answers that don't make sense.
Debian FTW
And besides, it wasn't the government that did 9/11, it was the people that control the government.
Debian FTW
the same reason they demonstrate nuclear weapons to the public, so we all know what they're capable of.
Debian FTW
the Twin Towers didn't have any of that, it merely fell in the direction of gravity, which doesn't much surprise me.
Yeah, into the path of greatest resistance at a rate not much less than that of freefall.
Debian FTW
So, if your government is under suspicion of committing a false-flag type tragedy to manipulate their people, accept without question, said government's report on the event in question as objective and honest. Something's wrong with the system folks.
You'll have to show some calculations if you expect anyone to believe that. It's a preposterous conclusion which is totally unsupported by any simulations.
That's because models don't scale properly. It's complicated, but basically, the bigger you make something the weaker it is.
Because you're being an idiot, and I'm countering your foolish assertions.
I can tell you quite categorically that you're full of shit. You've obviously never even seen explosives in person, let alone used them, wheres I have worked with them on numerous occasion in the performance of my duties. So please, stop spewing bullshit.
lol
Wow.
Just ... wow.
You do realize this is WTC7, not 1 or 2
You keep insulting and impugning, but you have made no rational argument yet.
Sigh. Reading doesn't seem to be your strong suit. Here is my argument: The NIST report fully explains the events of the day. No other forwarded explanation does. All the crackpot ideas require Deus Ex Machina to work. That is an argument, and if you have missed it I would have to recommend a course in Reading 101.
Again, ad hominem is not debate
Pointing out that a crackpot is a crackpot is not an Ad Hominem attack. It is pure reason. I have also described why the crackpots are crackpots, in case you missed it. Look up the concept of Deus ex Machina.
That is your opinion, of course
You still seem to to think this is a matter of opinion vs opinion. And, living in the times you do, you probably feel that all opinions deserve equal investigation. You are wrong. You have given credence to crackpot theories. That is observable fact. The fact that they are crackpot theories is also observable fact. In the same way that ID and Creationism is crackpot. That is what is sad here.
I don't see a "slam-dunk" by the "scientists"
Putting scientists in quotation marks just proves that you are an ignorant idiot. On the other hand, that entire sentence shows that you are an ignorant idiot. You see, you imply that I have seen a "slam-dunk" anywhere, and I have not. I have never argued that it is a slam-dunk. Again, you are giving credence where none is required. I'll try to take it very slowly just for you.
There has been NO independent investigation, and that in itself is problematic.
Sigh. The NIST report is available to anyone who wants it. Go find fault with it and then come back. Until you do you are just a crackpot lunatic. and I am not at all unreasonable when I point this out. The fact that you don't like that I call you a crackpot lunatic and the fact that you your self feel that you are not a crackpot lunatic doesn't change the fact that you are. The only unreasonable behavior here is from the people who think that the Santa Claus theory might have merit.
Hey - all I said was the parent post was bullshit. I hear it bandied about that the floors were strung up all flimsy and hammock-like from the outer load-bearing columns, which is completely wrong, as the load was designed to be transmitted to the ground through the central core.
However if you want to extrapolate from there that I obviously believe that it fell due to some crack government demolition squad, or aliens using gravity rays, or whatever, I couldn't care less, be my guest, but you'd be the idiot.
I'm not sure what that means, "why doesn't even a single media only talk about official conspiracy theories?"
There usually are official investigations. We have official investigations of Roswell, WTC, JFK... but of course the official investigation's findings aren't convincing to conspiracy theorists -- that's why they're conspiracy theorists.
No, you're wrong, foolio.
Oh, that's strange, other 9/11 conspiracy theorists have tried to claim that the buildings fell faster than gravity, which is a weird claim. I see now you want it to go slower than it actually did.
I shouldn't do this, but I'll bite: given a skyscraper blasted with lit jet fuel and left to burn, how would you expect it to fall down, or what would you expect to happen? How fast should it fall when it falls?
(Also, let us know if you are a structural engineer, or have some qualification in this area. For the record, I don't.)
"The other buildings were hit by a plane, not that one."
That's nice. I never said WTC7 was hit by a plane. I said DEBRIS. As in chunks from the other buildings and possibly the plane. Some of it on, y'know, FIRE?
And who said anything about high temp? Do you have any concept, whatsoever, of what a sustained low-temp burn can do to structural elements in a building? Especially one weakened in some places and overloaded in others due to structural damage?
Straw. Camel. Back pain?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
My, my, my. How you do hate real physical scientific evidence.
That seismic evidence isn't going anywhere. Neither is this..."
-The USGS Spectroscopy Lab produced images which showed dense thermal hot spots days and weeks after the attacks.
-ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees (1000 degrees hotter than jet fuel burns) Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to."
The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and
Nano-Thermites
Kevin R. Ryan, 7-02-08
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
âoeWas the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? ⦠NIST did not test for the
residue of these compounds in the steel.â
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable
difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented
destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan
2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NISTâ(TM)s story, it never
considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is
at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for
fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other
pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with
explosive and thermite materials.
One of the most intriguing aspects of NISTâ(TM)s diversionary posture has been their total
lack of interest in explosive or pyrotechnic features in their explanations. Despite the
substantial evidence for the use of explosives at the WTC (Jones 2006, Legge and
Szamboti 2007), and the extensive expertise in explosives among NIST investigators
(Ryan 2007), explosives were never considered in the NIST WTC investigation. Only
after considerable criticism of this fact did NIST deign to add one small disclaimer to
their final report on the towers, suggesting they found no evidence for explosives.
The extensive evidence that explosives were used at the WTC includes witness testimony
(MacQueen 2006), overwhelming physical evidence (Griffin 2005, Hoffman et al 2005,
Jones and Legge et al 2008) and simple common sense (Legge 2007). There is also
substantial evidence that aluminothermic (thermite) materials were present at the WTC
(Jones 2007), and the presence of such materials can explain the existence of intense fire
where it would not otherwise have existed. Additionally, despite agreement from all
parties that the assumed availability of fuel allowed for the fires in any given location of
each of the WTC buildings to last only twenty minutes (NIST 2007), the fires lasted
much longer and produced extreme temperatures (Jones and Farrer et al 2008).
These inexplicable fires are a reminder that the WTC buildings were not simply
demolished, but were demolished in a deceptive way. That is, the buildings were brought
down so as to make it look like the impact of the planes and the resulting fires might have
caused their unprecedented, symmetrical destruction. Therefore, shaped charges and
other typical explosive configurations were likely used, but there was more to it than that.
Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed
otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted
(or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether).
This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are hightech
energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG
metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other
compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005). The mixing is accomplished by
adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called âoesolsâ, and
then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their
intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting âoesol-gelâ is then dried to form a
porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways.
The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far
Are you scientifically illiterate?
I just posted in the above post the results of a study done in the UK that says it doesn't.
As far as I can tell this is science fiction.
> Despite the substantial evidence for the use of explosives at the WTC
Wishing doesn't make it so.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
My, my, my. How you do hate real physical scientific evidence.
Honestly, when using difficult words like "evidence", you should try to find out what they mean first.
The NIST report is available to anyone who wants it.
But is the evidence? How many INDEPENDENT studies have been done?
A lot of very good scientists have done some very good work and have been very wrong. An agenda can cloud thinking and very plausible and convincing, but wrong, conclusions can be made. An independent investigation is the only way to come to the facts.
Again, I don't necessarily accept that it was a controlled demolition, but there are a number of things that don't make sense.
Until you do you are just a crackpot lunatic.
Again, you insult, you impugn, if you were confident of your arguments, you wouldn't need to do that. So, I guess you must not really believe the NIST argument and NEED to irrationally protect it, otherwise you'd be forced to accept something you can't accept: doubt.
But is the evidence? How many INDEPENDENT studies have been done?
As I said, the NIST report, fully ready for your review, is available in it's entirety.
An agenda can cloud thinking and very plausible and convincing
Why would NIST have an agenda? Given all the people involved, how on earth would you manage a consensus based on flawed data? Have you ever even met a scientist? Are you not aware that each and every argument you have against the official explanation requires MASSIVE leaps of faith. Far more than is needed to accept the NIST findings. This is why you are a religious crackpot.
Again, you insult, you impugn
Nope. I observe, analyze, conclude and report. Nothing more.
you'd be forced to accept something you can't accept: doubt
As a skeptic, doubt is part of my nature. Gullibility and fairy tale belief is not.
The Earth just sucks.
Why then are demolition teams paid thousands of dollars if the only way buildings fall is straight down?
As I said, the NIST report, fully ready for your review, is available in it's entirety.
But are the evidence and the materials available for independent investigation? No. Who reviews and confirms the NIST conclusions with the same data? SOP in scientific inquiry.
Why would NIST have an agenda?
Why would NASA's climate statements be edited by politicians, deleting references to global warming? Why would the army withhold evidence that soldiers were killed by friendly fire? Why would Dick Cheney refuse to testify in congress?
Given all the people involved, how on earth would you manage a consensus based on flawed data?
What people? You mean people on the government payroll who depend on a security clearance for their livelihood? Did you read the report on the Challenger explosion? Think about it.
Have you ever even met a scientist?
Yes LOTS of them. People I'm sure you've heard of too.
Are you not aware that each and every argument you have against the official explanation requires MASSIVE leaps of faith.
That is conjecture, why do they require leaps of faith? On film there are clearly explosions on floors well below the impact site and leading the collapse. I'm open to the explanation that the explosions are the result of the floors collapsing ahead of the building, that makes sense, but it is not the only possible explanation.
I'm a skeptic, why is the evidence NOT available for independent research? Why can't chemical analysis be done on the rubble by INDEPENDENT scientists? When people withhold information, there is reason to be skeptical.
Far more than is needed to accept the NIST findings. This is why you are a religious crackpot.
Again, you insult. Again, I say you must be trying to convince yourself you are right. You try to paint me as a religious nut job, but all I've said in this whole interchange is that I'm skeptical and I don't believe either explanation. It is you that "believe" the NIST and call me a religious crackpot for not believing as you do.
No, seriously, how can you claim for hundreds of people that you don't know that running into a gigantic, burning building during what many people might be afraid is the beginning of a war that they didn't even have the willies?
I'm pointing out the logical fallacy, not the material the firefighter's testicles might be made out of. The poster tried to use this claim to support an argument.
And I don't know the facts, I don't have the slightest understanding of the incredible level of science involved trying to calculate all of this, and these people who say there's some big conspiracy seldom have any better of an understanding than I do.
I want logic, I want science, I want to trust in studies and peer review, I don't want to believe a bunch of panicky idiots.
The problem I'm seeing is this is an ideological argument more often than a scientific argument. Statements like "Let's bring up the sheer number of people that died to prove my point" are painful and things like "Because you're assuming that these people you believe to know more than you do about this stuff are right then you must be an idiot" just leaves me flabbergasted.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Improvements are learned from people making mistakes and seeing how it can be done better. How many planes have been flown into mountainous buildings to date? How many do you think it takes to make a proper analysis? How might this compare to a bomb or a fire? How is it different?
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Because they have to make sure ALL the building falls "straight down". If only half does, you have an extremely dangerous and unstable structure to deal with.
Are you scientifically illiterate?
Not at all. Why are you?
I just posted in the above post the results of a study done in the UK that says it doesn't.
You posted about a student's thesis that indicates a structure in perfect condition suffers significant deflection under heat. Add in a little damage from a very large airplane smashing into it, plus the large confirmed deflection, and that sounds like a recipe for structural failure. My guess is that the terrorists expected instant collapse from a large plane slamming into the building. But it didn't happen. And if the sprinkler system were designed in a way that would allow continued operation, then it would have stood. However, there was massive damage at impact, including the sprinkler systems being destroyed, that also caused structural damage leading to the collapse. Your study was interesting, but only studies one point of the collapse, large deflection of steel buildings is confirmed. And that supports my statements, not refute them.
Learn to love Alaska
Rinse and repeat. There are an awful lot of trained professionals who seriously question the current explanation of what happened. Being unable to accept that opposing view and respond to it is the sign of a loony bin with a cause.
Again. You're look at an individual floor. It isn't the 94th floor it falls on but the whole building as a structure.
Being unable to accept that opposing view and respond to it is the sign of a loony bin with a cause.
I'm unclear, are you talking about you? It sounds like you are calling yourself a loony bin with a cause. "That's unlikey" is not a retort. "This is what happened and why" is. You are only giving the former, and it's a useless rhetorical exercise to cause confusion and doubt, but it doesn't get at the truth at all. Asking questions and declaring that all answers that don't agree with your pre-conceived ones as wrong is not discourse, it's a monologue. You are speaking by yourself to yourself. Tell us what you think happened. Oh, you won't. You know it'll get you laughed at for being a looney bin. For all I know, you think it was a Martian plot. And from what I can tell, that's as likely as a plot by the CIA, US government, or whomever else the nutjobs think is behind the conspiracy.
There are an awful lot of trained professionals who seriously question the current explanation of what happened.
No, there aren't. There may be 100 loud wackos that doubt it. But for every one of those, there are 10 or more that find the official explanation the most plausable by far. Just because the nutcases are loud doesn't make them any more right. If you want loud and wrong, turn on the Sunday morning churches with those that demand money so you don't burn in hell. They make it sound nicer than that, but they are loud and they get millions to follow them. Doesn't mean that they are right, nor does it mean that most theologists agree with their intrepretation of the same item (the Bible). But they are loud, so the weak minded follow them.
Learn to love Alaska
and again, what happens to the top floor of a 95 story building if a 15 story building falls on it, will it hold or will it collapse? Simple question.
You don't heat the steel to demolish it, you blow it apart. Whether there is molten steel is irrelevant to whether it was demolished by man-placed demolitions or airplane.
You can't 'concentrate' heat. If you have a campfire stove, and you cook a can of beans on it, no matter how long you have the can on the stove, it will *never* get hotter than the flame.
Wikipedia says that jet fuel burns at 550 farenheit. So no matter how long the jet fuel or offices burned, they could never get hotter than 600 F, which is the temperature at which jet fuel and office material burn.
Then the question is, if there was molten steel, how did it the steel get so hot? We know from physics that it can't be jet fuel or offices. So the question is, what produced the heat. Certain chemical reactions, such as thermite and thermate produce heat in excess of 2500 degrees Fahrenheit -- more than enough to melt steel. So, one explanation for how the towers and WTC7 were brought down is Thermite cutter charges.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
"This is how it's been since day one...and this is six weeks later. As we get closer to the center of this it gets hotter and hotter - it's probably 1500 degrees."
OK, 1.5 months later, and it's still 1500 degrees. jet fuel and offices only burn at 600 F. What process created enough heat to get the steel temperatures to over 2500 degrees? Remember, you can't 'concentrate' heat. A heated element will get get hotter than the heat source.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
We have plenty of evidence of molten steel, even 6 weeks after the collapse.
Do you have any evidence of molten lead, or is this your own personal speculation?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Intact does not mean undamaged. All you need is enough stress to weaken the steel core, and then the fire (presumably near or at the stress impact) to burn long enough to cause enough damage to create a break. Then gravity and mass take over.
I was referring to the buildings that supposedly caught fire but did not collapse, not the other WTC buildings. And the main reason they did not collapse was that their core was concrete, not steel.
It also answers the idiot who thinks that just because the structure below the falling floors was intact, that it would have stopped the collapse. Hint: objects falling onto other objects is work (in the physics sense) and generates heat.
Falling objects generate that much heat? I doubt it. If that were true, then whenever a plane falls out of the sky, there should be no wreckage, just blobs of molten metal and incenerated organic material. Or if you dropped a penny from a tall building. Is it the mass or acceleration that generates the heat? What is the formula?
Except that there was no evidence of thermite/thermate found at the site
No evidence of *anything* was found, because no investigation was done. All the steel beam evidence was shipped to China to be recycled.
Others have suspected tactical nukes, from the evidence of melted cars that had nothing fall on them.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
RTFA.
"The energy dissipated during the fall is about 250 or 300 GJ, and the leftover energy at impact is about 600 GJ. So it's about a quarter kiloton of TNT for the North tower and about a fifth of a kiloton for the South tower; that's still a hell of a lot of energy, more than sufficient to liquefy a pretty healthy chunk of steel, and it doesn't change the fact that there's a lot more energy in the office contents."
Sorry, I'm a critical minded skeptic. Show me the equation.
Others have suspected tactical nukes, from the evidence of melted cars that had nothing fall on them.
Please! Have you ever seen a nuclear detonation?
Have you ever seen a detonation of a tactical nuke? I haven't, and neither have you.
Show me the equations ( meaning, show me the work, not just the results ) and I'll start listening to you. I haven't seen any conventional theory yet that explains the amount of heat.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
The SEC investigation didn't begin until October 2001, so if it all were an attempt to cover up Enron evidence, it would quite literally be prescient.
Yes, as if they knew they were commiting criminal acts and covering them up. Odd!
This kind of "evidence" is typical of conspiracy theories, which have three hallmarks:
You don't even understand that a criminal will know in advance that he will need to cover his tracks. You call that "prescience".
And you presume to lecture me on my way of thinking? Wow!
(1) Require remarkably smooth coordination between conspirators with no demonstrable ties and considerable reason to distrust each other.
Such as business associates with investments in the same long-term endeavours who golf together often.
You mean these people with no ties and no trust?
Seriously?
Explain to me where your assumption of no ties comes from.
Then your assumption of distrust.
You take these assumptions as valid dismissal, you offer no proof, and yet you claim that the people you're contradicting are the ones without proof.
Bravo.
(2) Require the conspirators to choose convoluted, uncertain, and risky means where more direct, more reliable and safer means would presumably be at their disposal.
Presumes the man who's unable to understand that criminals foresee the need to destroy evidence prior to the start of an official investigation, and unable to understand that business partners have ties and reasons to trust each other (if one of them goes down, they all go down, they must watch each others back).
You seem to be making the claim that conspiracies are inherently impossible. Why would there be entriesd in criminal codes the world over mentioning "conspiracy to commit" if conspiracies were inherently impossible?
I mean, the Nixon administration was not involved in a conspiracy against anyone ataying at the watergate hotel, and surely no one mentioned in the incriminating Nixon tapes was head of the Department of Defense at the time in which there couldn't possibly a conspiracy, right?
It's all make believe by nuts, huh?
(3) Concoction and defense of dramatic "facts" that are either can't substantiated or are even (as here) demonstrably impossible.
You demonstrated nothing. You made ignorant comments to contradict me, but those were demonstrably invalid.
If a few plastic explosive charges here or there could due the trick, why couldn't extensive structural damage followed by a raging fire?
That's true, if that's the case, why is there an entire industry devoted to "imploding " buildings?
All you have to do is set fire to the joint and step back for a few hours, why waste millions paying professionals to spend time and explosives on accomplishing a result that will occur naturally without human intervention?
There must be a demoliition conspiracy, huh? All these shadowy people in hard hats, convincing the world that only their arcane arts can bring down a building on its own footprint in one smooth motion! Is that your theory?
BTW, I notice you're getting far far away from your primary dismissal: Lack of motive.
The motive is : Billions and billions of dollars, as well as a short-time absolute power while everyone is scared shitless.
Tell me, how could anyone not see the motive? Billions of dollars involved, and you can't see the motive. I don't know if if I find that more sad or more infuriating, to be surrounded by fools who can't see money as a motive for murder.
It follows that since the "explanations" involved are not very convincing
None is as blind as those who refuse to look.
Here's the crux of your argument: "I'm not convinced". It's an emotion, you're not approaching this honestly and rationally, you have an emotional investment in believing that the people who have the power of life and death over you aren't willi8ng to kill you for a buck, and so you rationalise away any evidence that they do.
You can't take the sky from me...
Ah, yes, the favorite canard of the conspiracy idiot. Too bad the rest of the report then goes on to outline in detail the exact opposite strategy of what followed after 9/11.
following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power.
Ah, yes, they did the OPPOSITE of that.
You are obviously right, and I am obviously the "idiot", not you.
Obviously.
After 9-11, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, did NOT use perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power.
That did not happen, according to you. Only dishonest conspiracy idiots think that is what happened.
You can't take the sky from me...
WTC7 was where the evidence in the case of the Enron trial was stored.
That is, by far, the most insane of all the conspiracy theories I have read. Simply because it involves the usage of a time machine. The Enron collapse came long after 9/11. Sorry dude, you are crazy. By definition.
How could criminals possibly know that they have to destroy evidence of their crimes!
That's unpossible! They couldn't know that what they did was criminal, they couldn't know where the detailed records of their intricate crimes were located, they couldn't know the jig was up!
You're mentally retarded, conviced that people with an IQ above yours are simply crazy, by definition.
You can't take the sky from me...
"If you say so..."
The building you're showing has about 10 floors. WTC 1 and 2 had 10 times that
We're talking about WTC7.
Wanna tell me about other, unrellated stuff while you're at it? Your shoe size? The date of the first hot dog eating competion?
WTC7, not 1, not 2: SEVEN.
You can't take the sky from me...
You do realize that the support structure in the towers was entirely on the perimeter, right? Each floor was hung like a (rigid) hammock from the outer walls. When the crossbeams softened just enough (no linger rigid) to pull inward rather than down, the outer walls buckled at that point. How else would you immagine a hammock would fall if you cut its strings?
Once the mass of building above the weak point got moving, nothing below was strong enough to hold it up, so it was nearly freefall at that point. But look carefully at the video and you'll clearly see that the building above where the plane hit falls as an intact mass, taking out each floor below it in turn.
you do realize that you're talking about the wrong building, right?
No plane hit WTC7, the building in question here.
You can't take the sky from me...
The Madrid building fire was also faught for many hours. The WTC7 fire was not.
Funny how you get so picky when your theories are being contradicted, yet fail to mention relevant details which contradict you.
Such as the fact that the WTC7 fire was fought, until the firemen were evacuated and told people to get back because the building was going to collapse.
Ah, people who tell me I ignora facts when they're the ignorants one, why don't you all just die already? Do the world a favor.
You can't take the sky from me...
I got modded troll too. I understand. :-)
It'll happen everytime you imply that the US could do anything un-good.
And most likely it's happen after the convo has died down. There's people trolling with modpoints, sad, but true.
You can't take the sky from me...
Yeah because we know that the impact of an airplane flying as fast as it was going had no effect on the structural integrity of the core.
We know this because that is how it was engineered:
February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It
Edit event
In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the Twin Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, âoeOur analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.â But, he says, âoeThe building structure would still be there.â [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993] The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: âoeThe buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707â"DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.â
You can't take the sky from me...
"We're talking about WTC7."
47 stories, about five times the height of the building pictured. Everything else I said about the weight of a building going up exponentially with height remains the same.
Now, is there anything else you're too lazy to look, or do you wish to continue feeling self-important?
WTC7 was where the evidence in the case of the Enron trial was stored.
That is, by far, the most insane of all the conspiracy theories I have read. Simply because it involves the usage of a time machine. The Enron collapse came long after 9/11. Sorry dude, you are crazy. By definition.
How could criminals possibly know that they have to destroy evidence of their crimes!
So you didn't even understand what was written, proving that you in fact are mentally handicapped. The statement is that evidence for the Enron trial was stored at WTC. Since there was no trial, no investigation or in any other way a reason to collect (or therefore store) evidence. If there no evidence collected, how can it be stored anywhere?
That's unpossible!
Eh... the word you are looking for is impossible.
they couldn't know where the detailed records of their intricate crimes were located,
There was no trial, no investigation and no evidence to store anywhere. Dang, you are retarded!
You're mentally retarded, conviced that people with an IQ above yours are simply crazy, by definition.
My underwear has a higher IQ than you do.