patrick.net

bob2356 says

Thermal expansion of the floor beams is what the official report says caused the structural failure.

Which is neatly explained in NIST FAQ: "Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed. "

And this is exactly what I said:

Heraclitusstudent says

Yep, and there is a chain reaction of dominos falling, pushing and pulling other parts. At the end of that hidden progression inside the building, the dozens of outer shell columns - so far intact and still supporting the shell - are all suddenly destroyed at the same instant and start to free fall.

Got it. Thanks!

Tampajoe says

And how do you explain the airplanes that hit the towers?

Come on now. We all know the airplanes are to blame. We all know terrorists couldn't setup a complete demolition of buildings.

Heraclitusstudent says

Come on now. We all know the airplanes are to blame. We all know terrorists couldn't setup a complete demolition of buildings.

Hahaha. So, now the terrorists set up the explosives beforehand and then flew the planes into the building anyway? And waited hours after the planes hit before setting off the explosives? Is this your theory?

Are we trying to determine what "could" have happened? Or what DID happen? I can come up with all sorts of things that "could" have happened.

Tampajoe says

Hahaha. So, now the terrorists set up the explosives beforehand and then flew the planes into the building anyway? And waited hours after the planes hit before setting off the explosives? Is this your theory?

Do I think Al Qaeda setup explosive in the towers? Probably not.
Do I think Al Qaeda was happy to fly planes into the buildings? Apparently they were.
In fact I certainly don't have a theory. I don't need a theory in the absence of more information.

Tampajoe says

I can come up with all sorts of things that "could" have happened.

Exactly. If you want to discuss what people could do and what they could want to do, there is just an infinite number of variations that are at least plausible.
And since you know basically nothing outside the mere surface of facts that actually transpired to you, just asserting "Nah.... they would never do that..." is empty... It's void of meaning as an argument.
Basically you have ZERO argument on the side of conspiracy are just silly.

Heraclitusstudent says

And since you know basically nothing outside the mere surface of facts that actually transpired to you, just asserting "Nah.... they would never do that..." is empty... It's void of meaning as an argument.

Basically you have ZERO argument on the side of conspiracy are just silly.

huh? I know that two planes hit the buildings. I know that there were uncontrolled raging fires in many buildings for up to 7-8 hours. I know there were Al Qaeda terrorists on the planes. Those facts are undisputed, yes?

Then we have several reports that detail the best explanation for what happened that fits the facts. Obviously there was nobody in the building that saw the mechanical failure and can give eye witness testimony as to exactly how the various buildings collapsed. All you can do is analyze the event and find the best theory that fits the evidence and data.

That theory has been presented. You are saying it's wrong, but you have, as yet, failed to detail exactly which parts of the reports you find flawed and offered your scientific analyses to show where the report's authors are incorrect. You've just done a bunch of hand waving.

To help, here would be an example of what you should be doing. On page xx of the NIST report, they claim a force of x would be sufficient to cause failure of y. Then provide calculations showing either their force was wrong or why that force wouldn't be sufficient.

Heraclitusstudent says

Do I think Al Qaeda setup explosive in the towers? Probably not.

And fyi--if you think the answer to that question is "probably not" then you're not fit to be questioning anything concerning this topic. The probability that Al Qaeda was able to install explosives in the precise manner to create a controlled demolition of both building is basically zero. Not to mention that the explosives somehow survived the initial plane crash and subsequent raging fire for several hours. The correct answer is to that question is a definitive no.

Hater says

The NIST report was not science, it was fabricated on the assumption that the towers (all 3) were brought down by fire caused by impacting airplanes.

Good-it should be easy to show their errors then. Please enlighten me.

(but don't forget that there was a wee bit of structural damage too.)

Hater says

bob2356 says

a team of crack military people running in and out of the building ripping out the walls to pack thermite (it takes 100lbs of thermite to destroy a beam the size used in WTC7) around the beams without any one of the thousands of people on the scene seeing them at all. Running through active blazing fires with explosives, planting the explosives, while somehow keeping the fire from damaging the explosives and detonators for as long as it took to get them all in place.

Bob, Bob, Bob...

How much do you get paid to perpetuate this BS?

You are not familiar with the concept of sarcasm I see.

Heraclitusstudent says

bob2356 says

Thermal expansion of the floor beams is what the official report says caused the structural failure.

Which is neatly explained in NIST FAQ: "Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed. "

And this is exactly what I said:

Heraclitusstudent says

Yep, and there is a chain reaction of dominos falling, pushing and pulling other parts. At the end of that hidden progression inside the building, the dozens of outer shell columns - so far intact and still supporting the shell - are all suddenly destroyed at the same instant and start to free fall.


Got it. Thanks!

What you said is ridiculous. You can see in the video things progressively collapse inside the building. So what do you think happened to the outer shell when hundreds of tons of debris fell inside of it and hit the bottom? Feel free to explain how the relatively light outer shell will contain all this debris landing at high speed. I'd love to hear it.

Not to mention, if you had all those explosives in the building....

A. why bother with the planes? Hijacking planes, crashing them adds a hell of a lot of needless complexity to the plan
B. Fires would have seriously screwed up the wiring/timing/controls for the explosions.
C. why wait so long, and let all the people on the 90 lower floors escape?
D. why bother with control at all? cut a few beams on one side, and let it go sidedays... take out several NYC blocks.

Anyone with rudimentary intelligence knows the conspiracy people are all mentally ill and/or very stupid.

Tampajoe says

huh? I know that two planes hit the buildings. I know that there were uncontrolled raging fires in many buildings for up to 7-8 hours. I know there were Al Qaeda terrorists on the planes. Those facts are undisputed, yes?

Yes, this is the surface of facts. The part of the iceberg that is seen.

Tampajoe says

You've just done a bunch of hand waving.

Like for example the NIST to describe in its FAQ "How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?" the fall of the facade by: "Finally, the entire façade collapsed."
Now that's hand waving.

Or NIST showing a computer model video that is (1) incomplete (doesn't show the collapse of the shell) (2) doesn't fit what is observed (shows some large deformation of the shell that didn't happen)www.youtube.com/embed/PK_iBYSqEsc

Or first denying that there was free fall "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural component below it". Then later admit it that free fall happened while still maintaining a model that is hardly compatible with free fall: an object that has no structural component below it.

Pardon my short fact check list.

WTC7 was all but empty after the second tower fell.

Police are actively keeping people away from the danger zone.

Fire fighters and rescue personnel have the run of the place for seven hours.

Not enough water pressure to control the fires.

World Trade Center complex building contains offices of the Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, and the IRS.

Deepcgi is the only one who thinks we can and would take those seven hours to make a clean levelling of the building and all its contents. And that if we didn't, we should have. Check.

Deepcgi is also the only one who is not surprised that even the staunchest US patriots would want to contain the information that an all but empty 21st century building could be leveled within seven hours - given what just happened only thousands of feet away.

If I were the new Homeland Security Department I wouldn't hire many of today's "intellectuals" who can't think out-of-the-box.

Does deepcgi also think it's possible to wire a building with an out of control fire across several floors with explosives for a controlled demolition?

Tampajoe says

And how do you explain the airplanes that hit the towers? I've asked this several time with no answers from any of the conspiracists. Was that part of the government plan? Was Al Qaeda working with our government?

On the first part, I'm not going to re-iterate what is already in the source material that started this thread. I don't do babying, keep your head in the sand at your own peril. As to this insignificant point, yes, according to government reports, different agencies where aware of the terrorists, and trained them to fly the planes. As to the last, if we funded and founded Al Qaeda during the Russian/Afganistan war, what do you think?

http://www.wanttoknow.info/050407hijackersmilitarytraining911.shtml

Why is your question irrelevant? Goes back to you with hands in ears(or over eyes), ignoring root cause of why building collapsed.

Who has more reason to lie here, who has something to gain? And since this is in the past, who did gain, significantly by this act, and who lost? DHS, Patriot Act, NSA, Federal Borders, TSA, endless war on "terror". None of it would have ever existed without 911.

Tampajoe says

Like I said earlier, common sense doesn't trump science. An event like 9/11 will always have some things happen that are extremely unusual. That's how life is.

You advocate science, then say "It's all a mystery, wooo. Who can fathom the unexplainable, ooohhh." What a crock of shit. You don't want to understand why(a stance extremely antagonistic to science). You have SCIENTISTS TELLING YOU planes collapsing a building is BS, and you try to advocate SCIENCE!?!?

We need to print out your comment, put it on a t-shirt, and slap it on every woolly-headed, conformist. You ARE the poster child of everything we're saying.

NuttBoxer says

Goes back to you with hands in ears(or over eyes), ignoring root cause of why building collapsed.

Ignoring? It's been explained several times on here, on popular mechanics website, NIST website, among many, many others. It's well documented. Who's ignoring it?

NuttBoxer says

You advocate science, then say "It's all a mystery, wooo. Who can fathom the unexplainable, ooohhh."

You misunderstood. It's not a mystery at all. Science HAS explained it. The point was that you can't look at it and say--hmm, that just doesn't look quite right. You have no frame of reference to compare it with because it never happens. Common sense doesn't work. But, experts have modeled it and have shown how/why it happened.

Hater says

Can we see the input of the models? Or would it jeopardize public safety?

I don't know--have you asked?

Hater says

Rhetorical question, the NIST model is contrived and STILL does not match what is observed

Of course it's contrived. The goal was to try to find a set of circumstances that would lead to the observed event. Did you think there was someone in the building taking meticulous notes and measuring stresses and temperatures throughout the building and noting all the damage so that a model could be built after he died?

Hater says

We make scientific models to explain what is observed. If the model does not fit what is observed, the model is wrong.

OK great--exactly where is the model not matching what was observed?

Hater says

Office fires imploding steel framed buildings has never happened but many buildings have been imploded by explosives.

blah, blah, blah.

Has anyone considered dual solar flares???

Hater says

The part where the buildings exploded instead of collapsing.

That has been explained many, many times.

Puffs Of Dust

Claim: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/#puffs

Hater says

They did not pancake. They exploded!

Yes, I think you may have mentioned that.

Tampajoe says

Science HAS explained it.

Tampajoe says

You have no frame of reference to compare it with because it never happens.

I did misunderstand, you don't know what science is. You see one of the fundamental rules of science is for something to be scientific it has to be repeatable, with a well defined set of conditions. What you've described is what is known as an act of God. But we all know God had nothing to do with this, so you have effectively acknowledged you're conversion to the religion of government. Praise big brother!

NuttBoxer says

You see one of the fundamental rules of science is for something to be scientific it has to be repeatable

This is not true. Chaos theory shows that near neighbor starting conditions can lead to diverging results.NuttBoxer says

with a well defined set of conditions.

The WTC starting conditions are not well defined.

NuttBoxer says

I did misunderstand, you don't know what science is. You see one of the fundamental rules of science is for something to be scientific it has to be repeatable, with a well defined set of conditions. What you've described is what is known as an act of God. But we all know God had nothing to do with this, so you have effectively acknowledged you're conversion to the religion of government. Praise big brother!

Not at all. Computer models have reproduced the same event which is basically repeating the event with a defined set of conditions.

Hater says

If "progressive collapse" is so common that it could happen three times in one day, why has it never happened before or since 9/11/2001?

Rhetorical question for those that believe the official story of pancakes. Sock puppets need not respond.

Have we ever had another case of similarly constructed buildings being hit by fully fueled commercial airliners?

Tampajoe says

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM.

Tampajoe says

OK great--exactly where is the model not matching what was observed?

Keep repeating the same obvious questions. That will help.

Herc--

Large deformations are observed in reality. Like you were told earlier--the video is from a long way away and distorts the actual distances. The picture you posted above almost certainly doesn't match the same instant as the model, but you can still see the deformation.

Tampajoe says

Large deformations are observed in reality. Like you were told earlier--the video is from a long way away and distorts the actual distances. The picture you posted above almost certainly doesn't match the same instant as the model, but you can still see the deformation.

Then by all means, post a frame that shows a deformation as large as seen on the model...
Btw the scale of the model on this picture is actually smaller than the left side. It still shows a much larger deformation.

You have to be extremely disingenuous to claim you see the same deformations.

On one side you have a building going mostly straight down keeping its shape. On the other side you have a building totally twisted and that appears ready to fall to the side.

Heraclitusstudent says

This was already explained to you as well. Why do you keep posting the name garbage after it's been explained to you?

Tampajoe says

This was already explained to you as well. Why do you keep posting the name garbage after it's been explained to you?

No explanation that makes the slightest sense has been provided. Compressed air doesn't go down through 10 floorings to shoot out of 1 window.

Once again you have to be extremely disingenuous to pretend the contrary.

Heraclitusstudent says

No explanation that makes the slightest sense has been provided. Compressed air doesn't go down through 10 floorings to shoot out of 1 window.

OK I give. You clearly don't want to listen or learn. Go on believing what you will.

YesYNot says

This is not true. Chaos theory shows that near neighbor starting conditions can lead to diverging results.

What's the definition of a theory? Not proven right...

YesYNot says

The WTC starting conditions are not well defined.

The conditions in which steel structures of that size can be weakened to the point of collapse are. And none of them include burning jet fuel.

Tampajoe says

Computer models have reproduced the same event

A computer model can be programmed to output any response the programmer desires. Including muting the laws of physics and chemistry. And why would we look to a simulation over real world, documented evidence from WELL before the event ever transpired? Your lack of comprehension regarding the importance of source material not being supplied by parties with a vested interest is astounding.

NuttBoxer says

What's the definition of a theory? Not proven right...

No, dumbass. that is what the word "theory" means when your friend says he has a theory why the rose bushes are dying...

that is NOT what the word theory means in science. If you weren't a complete moron, you'd know that....

NuttBoxer says

What's the definition of a theory? Not proven right...

Here's some reading for you: https://ncse.com/library-resource/gravity-its-only-theory

Anyway, chaos theory, like gravity is easily observable. It's why weather is unpredictable long term, but climate is not. It can be seen in very simple systems with only a few variables. All you need is some non-linearity.

Hater says

If there are too many variables to predict the weather for tomorrow how you can predict the climate in the future?

This is not the place to debate climate change.
There are obvious reasons why averages are more stable and easily predictable than individual events, and YesYNot is absolutely right that an exact chain of event is not purely repeatable in physics.
But this fact is also profoundly irrelevant to fall of the buildings in question.

YesYNot says

Anyway, chaos theory, like gravity is easily observable. It's why weather is unpredictable long term, but climate is not. It can be seen in very simple systems with only a few variables. All you need is some non-linearity.

From Wikipedia:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

However, you cannot simply invoke Chaos Theory to explain away the WTC collapse. Specifically the contradictions to several fundamental laws of physics and chemistry.

NuttBoxer says

However, you cannot simply invoke Chaos Theory to explain away the WTC collapse.

I invoked Chaos theory to point out that your statement here did not necessarily apply: "You see one of the fundamental rules of science is for something to be scientific it has to be repeatable, with a well defined set of conditions.."

The concept that we learn from chaos theory is that you don't necessarily need a big shift in starting conditions to get dramatically different results. And you can see this behavior in systems with a few simple equations, like predator / prey population dynamics. So, you don't need the type of complexity that you get with global weather patterns to see it.

This might be relevant in the case of WTC 7, because the structure prior to the fires and any collision damage was known. However, by the time of the collapse, no one knew the starting conditions. One would have to know the state of all of the structural members, and that is simply not known. One could simulate what would happen to the building if some event occurred (such as shearing a particular beam) if all of the other components were intact. However, if you don't know the states of thousands of components, predicting the results is pretty much a guessing game. HS keeps making the assumption that all of the components remained as designed, but there's no data on that. In any case, the statement that beams would have to disappear or something is stupid. They just have to shear due to some combination of heat and new forces caused by any number of the other 1000 structural members not doing what they were designed to do.

Hater says

Controlled demolition explains all of the observations of the 3 towers exploding.

Anyone who even gives ONE POST credence to 911 being controlled demolition is too fucking stupid to ever talk to about anything. I'm not sure they could even clean a cat litter box with instructions given as pictures.

1. A controlled demolition is extremely difficult. It requires complex gear, wiring, expertise and tons of time to set up.
2. An uncontrolled demolition is not that difficult. It requires a big bomb, near structural elements. done. Any good high school physics student could do it.
3. control is utterly useless for terrorist purposes... knock the building sideways, take out more people down several new york blocks.
4. If they had bombs in the buildings, why bother with planes? adds useless complexity and potential failure points to the plot.
5. If they had bombs in the builidng, why wait 90 minutes to blow it up? allowed 50,000 people to escape.
6. the items necessary for a controlled demolition would have been compromised in a fire.
7, at any moment during the (months) of installing a controlled demolition, the plan could, and certainly would have been compromised.

Basic simple logic utterly refutes any controlled demolition, and that is the reason I conclude anyone who gives it even 1% of credence is very stupid. Its solid logic.