patrick.net

Strategist says

Steel can melt.

One column can melt. Or 2 or 5. Certainly not dozens of columns precisely at the same instant.

Rashomon says

Try reading the report.

Says the guy who is too lazy to read it.
If you had read it you would know it doesn't explain this.

Heraclitusstudent says

"Out venting" means the compression of floors pushes out the air on 1 floor. Only it happens on floors that are visibly (on the picture) not compressed - yet. And curiously on only 1 window for an entire floor.

Why? It happens in a handful of places at different times. There's obviously different structures there with different pressure being exerted. It doesn't take the compression of an entire floor to cause that. You, however, believe they are detonations. Totally random detonations on different floors of a building that is already collapsing. Explain that.

Heraclitusstudent says

Says the guy who is too lazy to read it.

If you had read it you would know it doesn't explain this.

I have read it. It gives a thorough explanation of the processes involved. It's a 130 page document. A bit more thorough and scientifically supported than a Youtube video or some random bloke on the internet trying to pick holes.

Rashomon says

Heraclitusstudent says

"Out venting" means the compression of floors pushes out the air on 1 floor. Only it happens on floors that are visibly (on the picture) not compressed - yet. And curiously on only 1 window for an entire floor.

Why? It happens in a handful of places at different times. There's obviously different structures there with different pressure being exerted. It doesn't take the compression of an entire floor to cause that.

"Out venting" refers to the air pressure. The floor pancakes and compresses the air in it. The entire floor. Then the windows explode to release this pressure.
In the case displayed, the floor is not compressed. There is no increased pressure of the air in this floor.
Even if there was, then why aren't other windows also exploding?

I certainly don't claim to know what happened. But this is not explained away by vague references to "out venting". You need to be more specific.

Rashomon says

I have read it. It gives a thorough explanation of the processes involved. It's a 130 page document. A bit more thorough and scientifically supported than a Youtube video or some random bloke on the internet trying to pick holes.

Sure, then go ahead and explain it for our edification.

Heraclitusstudent says

"Out venting" refers to the air pressure. The floor pancakes and compresses the air in it. The entire floor. Then the windows explode to release this pressure.

In the case displayed, the floor is not compressed. There is no increased pressure of the air in this floor.

What? Air can obviously be forced down the internal structure of the building from the collapsing structures above.

Heraclitusstudent says

One column can melt. Or 2 or 5. Certainly not dozens of columns precisely at the same instant.

Actually, NO, a steel column won't melt in a jet fuel fire. However, the yield point of steel drops a lot when it is heated, and several of the supports were cut by the initial plane crash, so the remaining ones were already supporting much more load than they were designed for, and off of center, (remember, the building was supported by columns near its exterior, NOT central ones... Oh FFS, of course you don't know that!!!)

www.youtube.com/embed/Kl0tHx36RRQ

The conspiracy points are too fucking stupid to believe, to anyone with a real science background. But then again, given the average complete level of stupidity of commenters on this particular website, I need to re-evaluate just how stupid the average american may be!

Rashomon says

What? Air can obviously be forced down the internal structure of the building from the collapsing structures above.

Right. Air was forced like 20 floors down to destroy that particular window?
You believe in Santa Klaus?

Heraclitusstudent says

Sure, then go ahead and explain it for our edification.

That's a typically moronic Ironman or Gary comment. Read the report done by experts. You can skip most of it and read chapter 4. Pretty much a girder by girder explanation. I said I read it. I didn't write it. You can also read it strangely enough.

truth will find you says

Actually, NO, a steel column won't melt in a jet fuel fire. However, the yield point of steel drops a lot when it is heated, and several of the supports were cut by the initial plane crash

We are talking of WTC7. No plane crashes there.
Fire, or complicated step by step domino effect cannot explain dozens of columns simultaneously failing at the same instant.

Heraclitusstudent says

Right. Air was forced like 20 floors down to destroy that particular window?

You believe in Santa Klaus?

Multiple floors were collapsing. What kind of pressure do you think that creates? But please, feel free to explain your utterly random detonation theory.

Heraclitusstudent says

Fire, or complicated step by step domino effect cannot explain dozens of columns simultaneously failing at the same instant.

That's specifically NOT what the report states. You obviously should actually read it.

Rashomon says

Read the report done by experts.

FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.”
NIST, meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to November 2008. As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”

NIST report and press conference: [Fire did indeed inflict enough column damage to destroy the building through a previously undocumented collapse sequence of thermal expansion. "Anyone who has run a tight jar lid under water to help loosen it knows that the metal expands when it gets hot," Sunder said. "Heat also causes steel to lose strength and stiffness. Thermal expansion occurs at temperatures much lower than those required to reduce steel strength and stiffness." The report found that as WTC 7's steel beams expanded in the heat, numerous structural connections throughout the building failed. That weakened the structure even before the collapse of any vertical columns.]

"previously undocumented collapse sequence of thermal expansion" = BS.
Thermal expansion doesn't remove dozens of columns from under a building everywhere at the same instant.

Rashomon says

Heraclitusstudent says

Fire, or complicated step by step domino effect cannot explain dozens of columns simultaneously failing at the same instant.

That's specifically NOT what the report states. You obviously should actually read it.

"Instead, NIST’s final report provides an elaborate sce-
nario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the
thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoin
ing girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder
then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor
failures, which, combined with the failure of two other
girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left
a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to
buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated
the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the
exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior col-
umns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period
a
nd the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3].
NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omit
-
ting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its
computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these
errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably
impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to
its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model
(see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead
showing large deformations to the exterior that are not
observed in the videos and showing no period of free
fall. "

This is a complicated step by step domino effect that fails to explain what was observed.

Why don't you quote the actual report? You just said it was a simultaneous collapse. So now it's a progressive collapse? You mean as the report stated? And as you seem to think that explanation fails to explain what was observed, please feel free to explain what you think was observed (presumably from your carefully selected Youtube videos and years of not doing any research on the topic).

Rashomon says

Heraclitusstudent says

Right. Air was forced like 20 floors down to destroy that particular window?


You believe in Santa Klaus?

Multiple floors were collapsing. What kind of pressure do you think that creates?

Probably no air pressure at all 20 floors below these floors that are in fact collapsing (and the windows of which are already destroyed so the air can escape.)
Do you think air travels through 20 floors and explodes at 1 particular window?
This doesn't make physical sense.

Rashomon says

You just said it was a simultaneous collapse. So now it's a progressive collapse?

What is observed is indeed a simultaneous collapse.
The explanation is a progressive collapse.

One doesn't fit the other.

Heraclitusstudent says

Probably no air pressure at all 20 floors below these floors that are in fact collapsing (and the windows of which are already destroyed so the air can escape.)

Do you think air travels through 20 floors and explode at 1 particular window?

Sure, why not? And it wasn't one place was it? And the windows weren't broken on the floors where there was out-venting. It makes perfectly reasonable sense, unlike your alternative.

As for WTC7, look at this NIST Youtube video as you like them so much. Just the actual bit where the building collapses will do. That clearly shows a progressive internal collapse.

www.youtube.com/embed/PK_iBYSqEsc

Heraclitusstudent says

What is observed is indeed a simultaneous collapse.

The explanation is a progressive collapse.

Utter nonsense. The above video clearly shows a progressive collapse. Look at what happens to the structures at the very top of the building. They disappear into the internal structure of the building in a progressive manner. Seriously, do you deny that?

Hater says

How much does the government pay sock puppets?

Yawn. So people are sock puppets now because they prefer facts to unsubstantiated and invariably ludicrous conspiracy theories?

Rashomon says

Just the actual bit where the building collapses will do. That clearly shows a progressive internal collapse.

This video shows the entire frame of the building collapsing together symmetrically, simultaneously. And in free fall.
This is exactly what cannot happen if you have a chain reaction. One part would pull the other to the side.

Also the fraction of a second advanced on the inside of the building is typically what happens on a controlled demolition.

This video shows exactly this: the entire set of columns in the front of the building suddenly and simultaneously stop all resistance and let the building fall vertically in free fall. There is no chain reaction. There is no pull on one side, or to the back. It's free fall, and vertically.

Steel columns do not stop all resistance suddenly. They do not coordinate with the neighbor beams. There are basic laws of physics that apply.

Heraclitusstudent says

This video shows the entire frame of the building collapsing together symmetrically, simultaneously. And in free fall.

This is exactly what cannot happen if you have a chain reaction. One part would pull the other to the side.

No, it doesn't. It shows a progressive internal collapse across the building from left to right on that video and then the entire structure coming down. Do you or do you not deny that?

Rashomon says

No, it doesn't. It shows a progressive internal collapse across the building from left to right on that video and then the entire structure coming down. Do you or do you not deny that?

Absolutely not. The entire floors stay horizontal. Fall vertically. The right side with the left side. Not pulled to the back or to the side.
Again if there was a progression and columns were pulled by something else, THEY WOULD NOT FALL VERTICALLY. They would be pulled to the side or back, because they would still resist.
Here the videos clearly shows the exact opposite. ALL RESISTANCE STOPS SUDDENLY AND SIMULTANEOUSLY.
The fall is vertical. And it's a free fall. Showing no resistance.
Watch again.

Rashomon says

And the windows weren't broken on the floors where there was out-venting.

This sentence doesn't make sense.

Heraclitusstudent says

Rashomon says

And the windows weren't broken on the floors where there was out-venting.

This sentence doesn't make sense.

Yes, it does. The pressure broke a window. The windows weren't already broken.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is an American non-profit[1][2] organization of architects and engineers who dispute the results of official investigations into the September 11 attacks, including the 9/11 Commission Report.[3][4]

Founded in 2006, the group demands that the United States Congress pursue "a truly independent investigation" into the September 11 attacks as they believe government agency investigations into the collapse of the World Trade Center have not addressed what it calls "massive evidence for explosive demolition."[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth#cite_note-KGO-4

www.youtube.com/embed/OQgVCj7q49o

www.youtube.com/embed/1l-8PFk8j5I

Heraclitusstudent says

Absolutely not. The entire floors stay horizontal. Fall vertically. The right side with the left side. Not pulled to the back or to the side.

Then it's not worth discussing it any further with you because you are denying the evidence of your own eyes. Look again at the structures at the very top of the building. They collapse inwards progressively, taking out many of the internal supporting structures of the building and leading to the collapse of the rest of the building.

Indiana Jones says

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is an American non-profit[1][2] organization of architects and engineers who dispute the results of official investigations into the September 11 attacks, including the 9/11 Commission Report.[3][4]

Yes, and a great many of those who signed have very little or no expertise on the matter, but hey I guess using those two words (architects and engineers) sucks in the target audience.

Rashomon says

And the windows weren't broken on the floors where there was out-venting.

This sentence doesn't make sense.

Yes, it does. The pressure broke a window. The windows weren't already broken.

No but they were probably broken on the floors that were in fact pancaking.
If you want to believe compressed air travels down through 20 flooring to break 1 particular window instead of laterally to a window on the same floor that is pancaking, then you have no sense of reality and nothing will convince you.
I just find these violent lateral explosions very suspect.

Heraclitusstudent says

No but they were probably broken on the floors that were in fact pancaking.

You don't say. Those aren't the parts circled in the picture though, are they?

Rashomon says

Then it's not worth discussing it any further with you because you are denying the evidence of your own eyes.

The entire floor stays demonstrably horizontal on the video as it falls. The right side falls together with the left.
That alone is contradicting the official explanation.
I think you are the one denying the obvious here.

Rashomon says

Look again at the structures at the very top of the building.

You are referring to the top that collapses a fraction of a second before the rest.
1 - this is typically happens in a controlled demolition to ensure the building falls on itself
2 - it doesn't pull the rest, otherwise the building would fall backward as the front columns would still be standing. This doesn't happen.
3 - if it was pulling the rest, the symmetry also couldn't be explained. One side would be pulled then the other.

Ok, this entire thread is just one more to show that many of the posters on patrick.net are fucking stupid and or mentally ill...

curious2 says

As the upper floors fall several meters, accelerating to ramming speed, the lower floors have zero chance of stopping them. A tractor trailer hitting a bicycle continues without slowing down, just as a high-speed train would continue through that tractor trailer as if it weren't even there. The upper floors weighed many times more than a train, and they accelerated to 200km/hour.

This is a very reasonable explanation.
There are just a couple of issues with it:

- The first is that you are talking of the twin towers whereas my main objection is with the WTC7 which was not hit by an airplane but collapsed instantly to free fall.
- The second is that the fall didn't accelerate instantly to 200km/h. One floor fell for 3-4m, and admitting it gathered enough force to destroy the floor below it would at least have been slowed . The towers frame made it pretty much a rigid tube that was designed to be hit by a plane, and beams likely had a security factor 2-4 in how much they could support. All this means the fall should not be a free fall and the resistance should show up in the acceleration downward being slower than gravity.
The problem is it doesn't.

curious2 says

Posting obvious junk about a topic that hurts people is a jerk move.

Many of these hurt people are the one asking for more information and pointing at gaps in the official thesis.
Emotionally, the least that can be done is to provide total transparency. Even if we don't understand we should say it. We should provide all elements including remains of the columns. Instead we got stonewalling and destruction of the evidence. This is not great EQ. And this fodder for conspiracy theorists.

Ironman says

According to many people here, conspiracy theories are what Repubs are involved in all the time, specially with Hillary.

Frankly most republicans conspiracy theories, like death panels, Kerry shot himself to get a medal and become president, Obama is not American, are absolute crap and not worth more than 2 secs attentions.

Heraclitusstudent says

You are referring to the top that collapses a fraction of a second before the rest.

1 - this is typically happens in a controlled demolition to ensure the building falls on itself

No, what happens in a controlled demolition is a series of very loud detonations in a controlled manner, something which clearly did not happen in this event, or perhaps you'd care to share a video of said necessary detonations. And the top doesn't just collapse. It progresses right across the structure - a vertical progression across the entire east side of WTC7 - as stated in the NIST report. The report is very clear about the extent of the buckling and collapse of these parts that then led to a global collapse. Nothing you state counters what they reported unless you somehow think you are more of an expert than those people who spent many thousands of hours researching what happened.

Rashomon says

And the top doesn't just collapse. It progresses right across the structure - a vertical progression across the entire east side of WTC7 - as stated in the NIST report. The report is very clear about the extent of the buckling and collapse of these parts that then led to a global collapse.

You still haven't explained why the entire front (and side seen in an other video) of the building, a line of steel columns, just collapsed in free fall without being pulled back or left or right. And the NIST model in your video doesn't show it either.

www.youtube.com/embed/kqG6v7KZ_s8

Rashomon says

what typically happens in a controlled demolition is a large series of very loud detonations in a controlled manner, something which clearly did not happen in this event

no explosions?

www.youtube.com/embed/4GY0yWXGaKs

I know Dr Steven Jones AND his son. I took advanced physics and electromagnetism classes from them in the early 90's. (And those Maxwell's equations were a bitch for an art guy like myself I can tell you).

He's a pure scientist. It was career suicide to pursue nanothermitic materials in the WTC7 dust. There IS NOT a more conservative university as tightly connected to the intelligence community's recruiting efforts as BYU. (I know because they tried to recruit me). Dr Jones is villified from all sides for following the evidence on this one. He's a brave man and a meticulous scientist.

If many other Manhattan high rises have those nanothermitic red chips naturally lurking regularly throughout the structures, I would highly advise against roasting chestnuts too close to heating oil sources ANYwhere on that bloody island.

After personally speaking with Dr Jones, a US Senator, some highly-placed career intelligence officers, and a pair of active duty army engineers, if someone wanted a building to drop into a tidy pile of dust for careful disposal (of say sensitive national security data, documents or other invaluables better destroyed than dug through by firefighters and construction workers), with today's modern and even "surgical" but very expensive incendiaries, it would not take weeks or even days to place charges.

Consider a totally different possibility. If you had tech as nasty as nanothermite, a budget far beyond a common building detonation crew at your disposal in the event of disaster, and you had to destroy a building in a tidy manner before thousands of civilian construction workers spend months and years digging through it, would you use it and then tell the public? Even the most honorable patriot would keep that under his hard hat.

If for no other reason than to stick up for a stalwart man who was all but crucified for following his IQ rather than his paranoia, I had to at least toss this out.

By all means let's keep arguing the science...it's loads of fun, but don't be naïve enough to think we don't have the tech to bring down a building in a matter of hours (leaving nothing but nasty little red, green and gray chips behind ...hidden in mountains of dust and debris).