patrick.net

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.

truth will find you says

3. control is utterly useless for terrorist purposes... knock the building sideways, take out more people down several new york blocks.

I like your post except for this. It's impossible for a building of this size and construction to fall sideways. Gravity and physics wouldn't allow it.

Hater says

But it can fall straight down?

Yes and that's pretty much how it did fall. And it was a pancake collapse which is exactly what structural engineers and physics said it should, once the initial collapse of the columns near the impact point allowed the upper portion of the towers to impact the lower portion.

Hater says

Do you believe that "fire induced progressive collapse" caused concrete to be pulverized into dust?

What are you babbling about? Look at any of the thousands of cleanup pictures. It's not dust, it's rubble which is exactly how concrete breaks apart.

Hater says

But it can fall straight down?

Why wouldn't it fall straight down? What force would make it fall sideways?

It fell roughly straight down, because of gravity. Were you expecting it to fall over sideways like a rigid and structurally sound tree after someone cuts out a huge notch on one side to make room, cuts it from the other side to make a hinge, and then pounds wedges into the cut to slowly start it moving in the right direction?

Hater says

If you removed the middle of a large tree would the remaining top fall and "pile drive" or "pancake" the intact bottom of the tree into splinters and sawdust? Or would the top of the tree hit the intact bottom and fall to the side?

The Twin Towers aren't trees, they were mostly air. Trees are almost completely solid and so can't collapsed into themselves. They way the floors trusses are attached to the support columns, a progressive pancaking is to be expected if a large enough section of building collapses onto a lower floor, especially if its been weakened for a prolonged fire. Once d) happened in your diagram, there was no other result but pancaking of all the floors.

YesYNot says

It fell roughly straight down, because of gravity.

As far as I can tell pancaking in the 2 towers was at least conceivable and it's not where the discussion focus should be. WTC7 is the problem.

A steel column is in fact like a tree trunk: a massive vertical structure that supports everything above. Buildings have redundant such support. WTC7 had at least 19 columns in the outer shell.
- If 1 column fails and collapse, it would NOT fall vertically right in the path where it is supposed to support the building. It would in fact push other elements to the side.
- If it fails in that fashion, then it cannot free fall. By definition. To free fall vertically a column would have to be absolutely destroyed probably in multiple places.
- If one column, or 2, or 5 fail, then you may get a partial collapse followed or not by more collapse.
Add all this together: a progressive collapse cannot lead to 19 columns suddenly all starting to free fall vertically - at the same instant.

There is something very wrong with that picture. And nothing in what you guys bring up here does anything to explain it.

YesYNot says

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.

It's not, because in order to be a theory, it still has to be repeatable, as I mentioned, and as the scientific theory definition states, which Chaos "theory" falls under. What you want to say is unknown would be pretty easy to figure out as the composition of the airplane and building before collision is known, as well as the speed on impact, and the amount of damage that could cause. We also know, thanks to chemistry, that fire had NO PART in the collapse, as it would NEVER reach the heat needed to create any instability that could lead to collapse. I'm pretty sure we also know that a plane of that size, and with that impact, was insufficient to cause collapse.

So we're left with sound principles of physics and chemistry, or you and every detractors "unknown" phantasms. Welcome to the church of the Big Brother!

Hater says

Does this look like a pancake?

You all need to learn about dynamic and static loads. The top of the towers falling onto the first floor before the impact experienced a dynamic load that completely surpassed what it was designed to support and so it failed and fell. Repeat for each floor below it as the dynamic load increased for each successive floor that failed. Structural engineers really aren't surprised by the buildings falling once the tops fell down a floor or two. The initial surprise was that the columns failed allowing the tops to fall, but they figured that out. The funny thing is, to cause this kind of failure via explosives, you would only need to take out most the columns on one or perhaps two floors and then gravity would do the rest.

And yes, a very high speed pancaking with ejection of material on the way down, which by the way heavily damaged WTC 7, which along with burning for hours caused it to collapse.

That link you posted is a good source of mis-information.

NuttBoxer says

It's not, because in order to be a theory, it still has to be repeatable, as I mentioned, and as the scientific theory definition states, which Chaos "theory" falls under.

First a theory of why a building collapsed is not the same as a scientific theory. It's just a proposed explanation, and it doesn't have to be reproducible (no one will reproduce a building collapse). Nor does a scientific theory need to be reproducible (no one will reproduce the big bang to prove the theory).

Once you have an airplane hit a building and a fire burn in the impacted floors, it is indeed hard to know all the factors and judge - based on intuition alone - what should happen.
WTC7 however looks very suspicious.

NuttBoxer says

We also know, thanks to chemistry, that fire had NO PART in the collapse, as it would NEVER reach the heat needed to create any instability that could lead to collapse

By "we", you must mean people who aren't at all versed in chemistry. Or materials science. Because heat absolutely weakens steel. You only need to get 50% of melting point to see significant reduction in strength.

Proving you are a fucking retard. Over and over again. case closed.

Hater says

Pancake?

Yeah, the lower part of the building has started pancaking the floor slabs. The top level is falling on top of them. The outer columns and debris are spewing outward as would be expected. I can only ask if you are a complete idiot or not but the answer appears clear that you are.

Hater says

Tho official story is that the smaller lighter top crushed the heavier stronger bottom

Maybe you should think, that's not going to happen, about the fact that each floor weighed over 2000 tons. The smaller LIGHTER top weighed over 60,000 tons. You can crush a lot of things with 60,000 tons falling on it. Like the next floor down, then the next floor below that, then the next floor below that, for 60 floors. Wow, that would look exactly like your video, who would have guessed? What a concept.

Heraclitusstudent says

and it doesn't have to be reproducible (no one will reproduce a building collapse).

But buildings have collapsed before, and we do know, based on science, what conditions can cause steel to become unstable. Echoing the same lazy "It's all a mystery", rather than looking at expert testimony and eye witness accounts is the strategy of fools who can't face the music.

NuttBoxer says

But buildings have collapsed before, and we do know, based on science, what conditions can cause steel to become unstable. Echoing the same lazy "It's all a mystery", rather than looking at expert testimony and eye witness accounts is the strategy of fools who can't face the music.

I think that describes the conspiracy theorists quite well. Science explains what happened pretty easily once the conditions that existed prior to the collapse are understood.

Hater says

Find some counter examples to prove me wrong.

How about you find me an example of a similarly constructed building hit by a fully fueled commercial jet that survived?