patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

Since our official conspiracy theorist is no longer posting,

I was quite sure he was carted off to Atascadero and had his internet privileges revoked?

Latest? This is the same old stuff. And unsurprisingly so given that it was written by two 9-11 conspiracists.

Now that a conspiracy theorist is a cunt hair away from the Presidency, might as well go to 9/11. For now, he wants to blame HRC and Obummer for ISIS. If it were politically expedient, he'd be going after the Bush admin.

I never understood how the controlled demolition folks explain away the 2 planes that millions of people saw hit the towers. Did Al Qaeda coordinate with the US government?

Tampajoe says

how the controlled demolition folks explain away the 2 planes that millions of people saw hit the towers

Not sure they contest that part.
It's normally not up to them to explain exactly what happened.

Heraclitusstudent says

Not sure they contest that part.

It's normally not up to them to explain exactly what happened.

It would seem useful to actually offer an alternate theory as to what happened, but you are correct. Conspiracy theorists don't ever present an actual explanation--they just try to sow doubt.

Tampajoe says

It would seem useful to actually offer an alternate theory as to what happened, but you are correct. Conspiracy theorists don't ever present an actual explanation--they just try to sow doubt.

An alternate theory can only be based on speculations and therefore doesn't help anyone.

In this case the facts and physical impossibilities talk for themselves. For example a fire simply cannot cause the fall of the WTC7 as it was filmed happening, and therefore it requires a strong explanation from a 9/11 Commission, which never happened.

Conspiracy theories fester where the lack of explanation exists and the further lack of transparency feeds them.

Heraclitusstudent says

In this case the facts and physical impossibilities talk for themselves. For example a fire simply cannot cause the fall of the WTC7 as it was filmed happening, and therefore it requires a strong explanation from a 9/11 Commission, which never happened.

Conspiracy theories fester where the lack of explanation exists and the further lack of transparency feeds them.

You mean where people don't want to find the explanation if it doesn't feed into their conspiracy theory. Your statement that it cannot fall from fire is based on what exactly? What makes you more of an expert than NIST, for example?

Heraclitusstudent says

In this case the facts and physical impossibilities talk for themselves

Incorrect. There are no facts which contradict the Commission report or its conclusions. The Commission does NOT say a fire was the only cause of WTC7 collapsing.

Conspiracy theorists conveniently leave out the actual facts when it doesn't suit their purpose. Conspiracy theories fester where they can further an agenda. There is no amount of transparency that will ever satisfy someone like Gary. Or the 50% of Trump supporters that still believe Obama was born in Kenya despite him showing his birth certificate for everyone to view.

Rashomon says

You mean where people don't want to find the explanation if it doesn't feed into their conspiracy theory.

No explanation on the fall of the WTC7 has been provided by authorities fitting the observed facts.
But of course some people are happy to believe whatever they are told and simply don't want to look any further.
It's simply too threatening.

I blame 911 on the Realtor's. They wanted the commission on a new building.

Tampajoe says

Incorrect. There are no facts which contradict the Commission report or its conclusions. The Commission does NOT say a fire was the only cause of WTC7 collapsing.

They provided no explanations that explains how this building could fall symmetrically and in free fall. These are facts.
Even their secret model based on bizarre assumptions failed to replicate these facts.

Heraclitusstudent says

No explanation on the fall of the WTC7 has been provided by authorities fitting the observed facts.

But of course some people are happy to believe whatever they are told and simply don't want to look any further.

It's simply too threatening.

That's only if you ignore the official report from NIST of course. And your other comment is a very tired old line. I guess you and your conspiracist pals are just very special.

The photo you used at the beginning of this is a classic example of the stupidity of the conspiracists. The building is already collapsing in that photo and yet your like argue that rather than it being an example of out-venting caused by the massive downward pressure from the collapse, it is in fact one of a set of utterly random detonations in apparently random locations in the building. Go figure.

Rashomon says

That's only if you ignore the official report from NIST of course.

The NIST report provided no explanation compatible with videos.

Heraclitusstudent says

The NIST report provided no explanation compatible with videos.

Let me guess, Youtube conspiracist videos. The report gave a perfectly coherent explanation. The same can't be said for the conspiracists out there.

When will this bullshit stop?

Two planes flew into buildings for gawd's sake

Rashomon says

The report gave a perfectly coherent explanation.

Ok maybe I missed it.
- time t :we have a building redundantly supported by dozens of steel columns
- time t+1: all beams suddenly disappear, stop supporting the building, and it free falls vertically, without being pulled on 1 side or an other.
Show me the explanation.

Heraclitusstudent says

Rashomon says

The report gave a perfectly coherent explanation.

Ok maybe I missed it.

- time t :we have a building redundantly supported by dozens of steel columns

- time t+1: all beams suddenly disappear, stop supporting the building, and it free falls vertically, without being pulled on 1 side or an other.

Show me the explanation.

Steel can melt.

Heraclitusstudent says

Ok maybe I missed it.

- time t :we have a building redundantly supported by dozens of steel columns

- time t+1: all beams suddenly disappear, stop supporting the building, and it free falls vertically, without being pulled on 1 side or an other.

Show me the explanation.

Try reading the report.

Rashomon says

argue that rather than it being an example of out-venting caused by the massive downward pressure from the collapse

"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.

Or maybe a column is exploding to the side under the pressure. But then again it seems bizarre it occurs on a few locations, leaving the floor above and the side beams unaffected.

Its strength and local nature seem very bizarre.

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