9/11 media happenings
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
But the analyses and people you refer to have no issue with that analogy - because consider that the floors collapsed pretty much instantaneously. The question was over what is 'near free-fall speed' in case you missed it.editor said:Well there's a sound basis to refute hard scientific analysis from highly qualified professionals: a scene from a Hollywood movie.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I take issue with your Klingon klaim kloki (see? kloki...like cloak...cloaking device...ahfergeddit)...I reckons it wuz dem pesky Romulans...
liampreston
Spend time, not money
From the WTC attacks to Jackie Chan. Jazzzz... I love you. No, really, you're fantastic....
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Fuck it. I just started to write out the difference between dynamic and static loads, but I realised I don't actualy know it well enough to explain clearly.
Could someone pleaase explain the importance of E=MV^2 and F=MA when considering the supporting ability of the bottom 2/3rds of the towers please?
Could someone pleaase explain the importance of E=MV^2 and F=MA when considering the supporting ability of the bottom 2/3rds of the towers please?
Ooooh, promising ...Jazzz said:
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
WrongJazzz said:
The words "fish" and "barrel" aren't just being hinted at here, they're flashing in 8ft high neon letters
I wasn't saying that a floor could take the weight of the entire WTC above it no matter how it was placedbeesonthewhatnow said:Wrong
The words "fish" and "barrel" aren't just being hinted at here, they're flashing in 8ft high neon letters
But I conceded the issue about dust/rubble size leading to slower collapse times is not clear cut, far stronger is the proposition that the central steels could not have collapsed without recourse to CD - which I note no-one has had a go at, fancy it bees?
This discussion became focused on the reasons for and the manner of the collapse of WTC towers one and two. It has clarified certain things for me. Firstly, according to NIST, the towers could theoretically have been destroyed by the planes and the subsequent fires
As a construction student, I enjoyed the discussion between The Architect, and the Pocket Scientist, about the whole CD theory.
The NIST report apparently shows that the buildings could have been brought down by a fire alone. It is astonishing that even after a short time, of a comparatively low temperature fire, these massive, over engineered steel framed buildings could give way easily. The result- two 110 storey buildings collapse suddenly and completely.
Without investigating whether NIST’s asumptions about conditions and so forth where sound, I accept that this scenario could happen in the NIST described manner.
Building 7
Regarding WTC Building 7, it is even more astonishing that a third, 47 storey building could collapse so suddenly and completely. This one has always troubled me. It was completely overlooked in the 9/11 commission report, whilst the FEMA report gave it this brief mention.
Chapter 8 of its report had this to say about building 7:
‘World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.’
Despite not knowing specifically how, the official government version maintains that it was fire that caused the collapse of building 7.
A clear indication that there are big questions to be answered. Since then, I have seen in the Popular Mechanics piece the photograph of Building 7 with extensive damage, and read the transcript of the Fireman describing the large amount of damage, and his concerns at the time about its overall stability .
Some of you may recall that I posed two questions:
1. What caused the collapse of Building 7?
2. Why where the hi-jacked planes not intercepted by the airforce?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What caused the collapse of Building 7?
As this interests me and likely a few others on this thread, lets look at what NIST says in its FAQ section:
‘14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?
When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7... as follows:
• An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
• Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
• Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.’
The last update at the website in December is that the investigation is ongoing.
Given the contradictions, and lack of any conclusive answer, I remain open minded that this tower could have been brought down by a controlled demolition.
I also remain in an open mind about the towers 1 and 2, although I accept the possibility of NIST’s theory.
=================================================
Popular Mechanics on the WTC Building 7
The main and most expansive authority on the collapse on Building 7 then is perhaps the popular mechanics article 9/11 Debunking the Myths.
It is interesting to note that building 7 did not collapse via the top-down 'pancake' collapse that NIST argues for the twin towers. Rather from the bottom up. So the pancake theory does not apply here.
Videos of Building 7's Collapse
If Nist’s initial proposal is correct, this ‘progressive total collapse’ would be an entirely unique occurrence.
278 kyzer soze- Kyzer Soze, I noted your earlier post and intend to dig it out again and analyse it. Sounds interesting, I agree with what you say here.
As a construction student, I enjoyed the discussion between The Architect, and the Pocket Scientist, about the whole CD theory.
The NIST report apparently shows that the buildings could have been brought down by a fire alone. It is astonishing that even after a short time, of a comparatively low temperature fire, these massive, over engineered steel framed buildings could give way easily. The result- two 110 storey buildings collapse suddenly and completely.
Without investigating whether NIST’s asumptions about conditions and so forth where sound, I accept that this scenario could happen in the NIST described manner.
Building 7
Regarding WTC Building 7, it is even more astonishing that a third, 47 storey building could collapse so suddenly and completely. This one has always troubled me. It was completely overlooked in the 9/11 commission report, whilst the FEMA report gave it this brief mention.
Chapter 8 of its report had this to say about building 7:
‘World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.’
Despite not knowing specifically how, the official government version maintains that it was fire that caused the collapse of building 7.
A clear indication that there are big questions to be answered. Since then, I have seen in the Popular Mechanics piece the photograph of Building 7 with extensive damage, and read the transcript of the Fireman describing the large amount of damage, and his concerns at the time about its overall stability .
Some of you may recall that I posed two questions:
1. What caused the collapse of Building 7?
2. Why where the hi-jacked planes not intercepted by the airforce?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What caused the collapse of Building 7?
As this interests me and likely a few others on this thread, lets look at what NIST says in its FAQ section:
‘14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?
When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7... as follows:
• An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
• Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
• Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.’
The last update at the website in December is that the investigation is ongoing.
Given the contradictions, and lack of any conclusive answer, I remain open minded that this tower could have been brought down by a controlled demolition.
I also remain in an open mind about the towers 1 and 2, although I accept the possibility of NIST’s theory.
=================================================
Popular Mechanics on the WTC Building 7
The main and most expansive authority on the collapse on Building 7 then is perhaps the popular mechanics article 9/11 Debunking the Myths.
It is interesting to note that building 7 did not collapse via the top-down 'pancake' collapse that NIST argues for the twin towers. Rather from the bottom up. So the pancake theory does not apply here.
Videos of Building 7's Collapse
If Nist’s initial proposal is correct, this ‘progressive total collapse’ would be an entirely unique occurrence.
278 kyzer soze- Kyzer Soze, I noted your earlier post and intend to dig it out again and analyse it. Sounds interesting, I agree with what you say here.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
EddyBlack said:
You'd expect them to collapse in slow motion and then stop part way?
As for WTC7, how the hell you demolish a building that's not only on fire, surrounded by debris and is already unstable i do not want to even imagine.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
I'd say that it was visually stunning but logical, buildings subject to forces not intended don't last too well. The use of astonishing with your other adjectives irritated me.EddyBlack said:
Could you back this up? As far as i know it'd be a fairly normal one. Namely that if you pull out a single support the entire structure can and will collapse.
I did read your post, but other than that last line i didn't manage to find a point to it.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Ok, here's the point: Your first few paragraphs seem to be written along the lines of "i don't belive it" despite the half baked "i'll take their word for it for now but only because they are the NIST" comments. You refer to a conspiraloon website as your reference and all told stink of conspiraloon.EddyBlack said:
Now, that the point has been clarified, care to explain to me how progressive collapse is a unique effect only seen once in the whole wide world when WTC 7 collapsed?
Oh, and i too would still like to know the point of #374.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Bob_the_lost said:
I would expect the WTC towers collapse to be unique as the building design was unique. WTC7 was built in the same was as the other two towers.
In a conventional building where the floor space is cluttered with supporting columns if you take a column out the load is easily redistributed but with the ladder like construction of the WTC towers if you take a column out your in big trouble.
editor said:
Bob's post count is a side issue relating to the seemingly hasty and pointless posts he makes. Implying I'm a lunatc and generally being a bit over the top.
I was attempting to present a bit of info' on Building 7. So yes, I boiled down NIST, Popular Mechanics and FEMA as best I could via a cut and paste frenzy, attempting to show what the experts reckon.
You ask what am I saying, its all there in plain English, I know it goes on a bit and will not interest many, but there you go. Here is a condensed version with cut and paste sections removed:
'This discussion… has clarified certain things for me. Firstly, according to NIST, the towers could theoretically have been destroyed by the planes and the subsequent fires.
The NIST report apparently shows that the buildings could have been brought down by a fire alone. It is astonishing that even after a short time, of a comparatively low temperature fire, these massive, over engineered steel framed buildings could give way easily. The result- two 110 storey buildings collapse suddenly and completely…I accept that this scenario could happen in the NIST described manner.
Regarding WTC Building… Despite not knowing specifically how, the official government version (FEMA) maintains that it was fire that caused the collapse of building 7.
A clear indication that there are big questions to be answered. Since then, I have seen in the Popular Mechanics piece the photograph of Building 7 with extensive damage, and read the transcript of the Fireman describing the large amount of damage, and his concerns at the time about its overall stability .
Given the contradictions, and lack of any conclusive answer, I remain open minded that this tower could have been brought down by a controlled demolition.
I also remain in an open mind about the towers 1 and 2, although I accept the possibility of NIST’s theory.
It is interesting to note that building 7 did not collapse via the top-down 'pancake' collapse that NIST argues for the twin towers. Rather from the bottom up. So the pancake theory does not apply here.'
If Nist’s initial proposal is correct, this ‘progressive total collapse’ would be an entirely unique occurrence.
-------------------------------------------------
Now the last statement is probably the most interesting. Bob asked for the source, it was off that scholars for 911 website. I went out on a limb that it would be true, I wouldn't know how to verify such a thing, any ideas anybody how to verify either way the truth of this one.
I suppose I was hoping the architect or the pocket science would speak to it...
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
No, normally you have to charge it, then press the button. Then again who cares about reality?Jazzz said:
EddyBlack: Using scholars for 911 as a source is a very, very iffy concept. That they get things right is more due to luck than thanks to thourough research.
I belive there is sufficent evidence to say that a controlled demolition is incredbily unlikely. The motive is iffy, the practicalities of it next to impossible and the evidence presented is laughable added into a plot that Tom Clancey (hell, Clive Cussler) wouldn't even touch and it's incredible that so many people do belive it. As such i consider your stand that both theories are possible and should be considered as such, rather stupid. Akin to the creation vs evolution in schools arguement. It could be that a giant lizard/man is guiding the world and put dinosaur bones in the rock to confuse and test us. Probably isn't though.
Back to the same old stuff! Probably mentioned this on a previous thread, hopefully repetition might convince you!
When the supporting framework failed the top of the towers collapsed pretty much as a complete section, They descended about 8 to 10 stories before striking the lower sections. When this happens then the lower section experiences an impulse. The forces are much, much higher than the static loadings that they've been designed for. Imagine propping up a cricket stump with the point on a concrete floor, then hit the top with a sledgehammer. It shatters, it's simply not intended to withstand the forces involved. There doesn't need to be an accumulation of debris before each floor collapses, the whole structure was essentially jackhammered into the ground.
The design using central steel columns would actually aid the destruction of the building because the first few impulses propagate down the columns and weaken the lower levels of the structure (maybe looking like the lower levels had been demolished using charges!). Not only that but the central columns are assembled from a number of sections bolted or rivetted together. The impulses sever bolts, especially if there's any slight misalignment, the forces involved go right through the roof. Alot of the debris showed clean seperation between adjacent components
Images from NIST presentation
Molten metal - Take a bit of metal and beat the hell out of it with a lump hammer for 5 minutes, then try and pick it up, you won't be able to because it's too hot to touch. The forces involved in the explosions, the fires and the collapse would have resulted in extremely high temperatures, potentially to the point when metals themselves start to burn. Given the various alloys present this would look alot like thermite reactions. There were pockets of high temperatures that caused problems throughout process of clearing the debris.
The content of the debris - Take a desk up 3 or 4 storeys and chuck it off the roof, imagine what happens when it strikes the floor? It shatters and becomes unrecognisable. In the WTC the furniture in the lower stories would have been crushed by the debris from above, the furniture from the upper stories wiould have been destroyed on impact or crushed by debris. Even once it was on the ground it would have been coated in the debris from the roof and outer cladding of the top of the building and covered in dust. It simply would not have been recognisable.
There is simply NO evidence to support any other hypothesis, there is NOTHING that can't be explained by simple application of a bit of common sense and an understanding of the processes involved.
When the supporting framework failed the top of the towers collapsed pretty much as a complete section, They descended about 8 to 10 stories before striking the lower sections. When this happens then the lower section experiences an impulse. The forces are much, much higher than the static loadings that they've been designed for. Imagine propping up a cricket stump with the point on a concrete floor, then hit the top with a sledgehammer. It shatters, it's simply not intended to withstand the forces involved. There doesn't need to be an accumulation of debris before each floor collapses, the whole structure was essentially jackhammered into the ground.
The design using central steel columns would actually aid the destruction of the building because the first few impulses propagate down the columns and weaken the lower levels of the structure (maybe looking like the lower levels had been demolished using charges!). Not only that but the central columns are assembled from a number of sections bolted or rivetted together. The impulses sever bolts, especially if there's any slight misalignment, the forces involved go right through the roof. Alot of the debris showed clean seperation between adjacent components
Images from NIST presentation
Molten metal - Take a bit of metal and beat the hell out of it with a lump hammer for 5 minutes, then try and pick it up, you won't be able to because it's too hot to touch. The forces involved in the explosions, the fires and the collapse would have resulted in extremely high temperatures, potentially to the point when metals themselves start to burn. Given the various alloys present this would look alot like thermite reactions. There were pockets of high temperatures that caused problems throughout process of clearing the debris.
The content of the debris - Take a desk up 3 or 4 storeys and chuck it off the roof, imagine what happens when it strikes the floor? It shatters and becomes unrecognisable. In the WTC the furniture in the lower stories would have been crushed by the debris from above, the furniture from the upper stories wiould have been destroyed on impact or crushed by debris. Even once it was on the ground it would have been coated in the debris from the roof and outer cladding of the top of the building and covered in dust. It simply would not have been recognisable.
There is simply NO evidence to support any other hypothesis, there is NOTHING that can't be explained by simple application of a bit of common sense and an understanding of the processes involved.
editor
hiraethified
So by keeping your 'open mind' could you list the technical and scientific flaws that you've located in the expert analysis by NIST, and elaborate why three separate independent academic institutions failed to find anything amiss with their findings?EddyBlack said:
Really. So perhaps you may enlighten me:EddyBlack said:
a. exactly how this was achieved
b. why no-one seems to have noticed
c. the complete lack of hard evidence
Just watching this presentation, extremely good, even if it does show you shouldn't let academics loose with IT!
One point that comes out is that the free-fall collapse would have taken 9.21 seconds, it actually took about 9 seconds so was virtually unimpeded. It also explains why
Excellent academic presentation
One point that comes out is that the free-fall collapse would have taken 9.21 seconds, it actually took about 9 seconds so was virtually unimpeded. It also explains why
Excellent academic presentation
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
