9/11 was an inside job

[Lyndon]

You didn't enjoy the music video???

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I notice that they revamped their site. You used to be able to easily get to that petition they describe and see just how many of their "architects and engineers" were landscape architects, computer engineers, and other disciplines that aren't relevant to the question of what happened on 9/11.

It's been a few years since I saw their list, but the last time I did, I noticed that structural engineers were remarkably scarce on it.

Well, just fyi.
I’m a retired structural engineer.
1974 UC Berkeley.
But back then we used slide rules.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, just fyi.
I’m a retired structural engineer.
1974 UC Berkeley.
But back then we used slide rules.

Wait - you're a structural engineer and you take this "9/11 Truth" nonsense seriously? Really?

 

[Lyndon]

Actually when you study into it, its the mainstream story that appears to be nonsense, like the wings of the plane severing steel girders, and the nose of the plane coming out the other side of the WTC building, utter nonsense.

 

[Nous]

See basic google search.

Exactly what facts do you claim have "debunked" the facts I noted in post #12 about the Harrit et al. findings of nanothermite in the WTC disaster dust, or the evidence of temperature much higher than office fires in the buildings?

 

[Nous]

How was it supposed to collapse?

The computer simulation on the right is as close as the NIST was able to come in getting WTC7 to fall according to their crazy, baseless hypothesis of "thermal expansion". Obviously NIST wasn't able to get the simulation to collapse at nearly free fall speed at any point, as WTC7 did.

Have you ever seen a controlled demolition of such a building resemble the WTC collapse?

If you watch controlled demolitions, they don't really look like the WTC collapse. They either collapse from the bottom

No one here has claimed that any of the WTC buildings were demolished in exactly the same manner as buildings usually are in controlled demolitions.

or with multiple, visible/audible explosions.

So all you need are visible squibs and evidence of explosions?

The explosions are also very loud.

How loud is nanothermite burning through steel?

So why don't you try accounting for the facts noted in #12? There are a lot of facts cited in that post?

 

[Nous]

Structural integrity is a thing. If the frame goes even slightly, the whole thing topples down and breaks as it goes.

I assume you are unable to account for how the steel frames of the 3 WTC buildings suddenly "went" all at once.

And what exactly are you claiming caused the huge structural and core columns to shoot out 500 from the Towers?

And, for the upper portion of WTC7 (for instance) to drop at free fall speed or nearly free fall speed, there simply has to be no resistance from the lower steel structure of the building. Right? Why wasn't there any resistance from the lower portion of the steel structure? What happnened to it?

 

[Nous]

Let's look one of many technical claims.....

Who here is familiar with metalurgy? I'm no expert, but perhaps we'll establish
some common ground about that aspect of the buildings' failure modes.

What is the significance of intergranular melting (molten material outside grain boundaries)?

Here is Appendix C of the FEMA Report: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf The "significance" of A36 is that, assuming nothing hotter than ordinary office-materials fires in WTC7, there is no account for the "severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel".

Or is intergranular melting (at a temp lower than the bulk melting temp) simply
one of the components of the lower temperature failure mode known as "creep"?

Cite the evidence that "creep" produces "oxidation and sulfation with subsequent intergranular melting" of the near-surface microstructure.

 

[Nous]

The group of people who deny ISIS to be terrorist ,do believe that 9/11 is an inside job, just not kidding.

You know I hate categorizing people so I will not name the group.

One group who disputes the official conspiracy theory of the events of 9/11 is Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: AE911Truth — Architects & Engineers Investigating the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11 - Home There are 2,200 such professionals who agree that "there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7."

Another group is Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, who publish the Journal of 9/11 Studies: Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

You probably don't need to concern yourself with any other groups besides these two.

 

[Nous]

There is also definitive evidence of temperatures in the burning WTC buildings much higher than are produced by burning office materials.

No, there really isn't.

A fire in an office building isn't "burning in open air." Heat is reflected by walls, floors, and ceilings. As long as the energy being added to the system is greater than the system's ability to shed energy (by conduction, radiation, or convection), the temperature will increase.

What are you trying to argue here? First you claim that "there really isn't" evidence of temperatures in the burning WTC buildings much higher than are produced by burning office materials. Then you eventually make a claim that "the temperature will increase".

Do this:

Account for all of the facts regarding temperatures in the WTC buildings quoted in #12. If you dispute any of those statements, then provide your evidence of their falsehood.

After that, cite all of the evidence you know regarding temperatures in the burning WTC buildings, and make your deductions from those facts.

 

[Nous]

The fire started from falling debris from the Towers.
World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest
https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Quote where either the PM or NIST claim that fires in WTC7 "started from falling debris"

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I assume you are unable to account for how the steel frames of the 3 WTC buildings suddenly "went" all at once.

Well, see, when the structural beams had a plane crash into them, they became structurally unsound. From there the top collapses and the building below suffers increasing damage from everything collapsing down. It's really not that hard to figure out.

And what exactly are you claiming caused the huge structural and core columns to shoot out 500 from the Towers?

500 what? Are you referring to the debris from the building hitting the ground and having nowhere to go but out? Funny thing how dust and small particles get carried on the resulting winds caused by an entire building pulverizing itself.

And, for the upper portion of WTC7 (for instance) to drop at free fall speed or nearly free fall speed, there simply has to be no resistance from the lower steel structure of the building. Right? Why wasn't there any resistance from the lower portion of the steel structure? What happnened to it?

Last we checked, gravity and inertia is still a thing.

 

[Nous]

Well, see, when the structural beams had a plane crash into them, they became structurally unsound. From there the top collapses and the building below suffers increasing damage from everything collapsing down. It's really not that hard to figure out.

So "you are unable to account for how the steel frames of the 3 WTC buildings suddenly "went" all at once."

Are you trying describe something like the "pile driver" idea, where the upper smaller portion of the building pounds and pounds the lower, larger and sturdier portion of the building until it is crushed, then the upper portion self-crushes?

500 what?

500 feet. Sorry about that.

Are you referring to the debris from the building hitting the ground and having nowhere to go but out?

No, the ejection of huge beams 500 feet from the Towers: 9-11 Research: Shredding of Steel

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

So "you are unable to account for how the steel frames of the 3 WTC buildings suddenly "went" all at once."

Are you trying describe something like the "pile driver" idea, where the upper smaller portion of the building pounds and pounds the lower, larger and sturdier portion of the building until it is crushed, then the upper portion self-crushes?

If you take a bowling ball and support it by a tower of toothpicks that weigh three times what the ball weighs, then compromise some of those supports, it's going to crash down through the whole thing.

No, the ejection of huge beams 500 feet from the Towers: 9-11 Research: Shredding of Steel

That site looks like a conspiracy theory site, and doesn't offer much in the way of proof. However have you ever seen an avalanche or a rock slide? Some pretty big chunks of ice and rocks get hurled out from the sheer force of the descent - and without explosions, too.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here is Appendix C of the FEMA Report: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf The "significance" of A36 is that, assuming nothing hotter than ordinary office-materials fires in WTC7, there is no account for the "severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel".
Cite the evidence that "creep" produces "oxidation and sulfation with subsequent intergranular melting" of the near-surface microstructure.

I never said that creep produces "oxidation....", because it doesn't.
Rather than link someone else's long read, I prefer that posters
present their own analysis. And claims regarding temperature
need the temperature specified more precisely than "high".

 

[Nous]

The fire started from falling debris from the Towers.
World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest
https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Quote where either the PM or NIST claim that fires in WTC7 "started from falling debris"

Sorry, Frank. I misunderstood what you were saying. You're right, the fires in WTC7 are said to have been caused by falling debris. I do not dispute that fires were ignited in WTC7 by falling debris.

Now all we need is a coherent hypothesis as to why that asymmetrically damaged building suddenly collapsed at free fall speed into its footprint. Scattered office fires don't account for any of that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, Frank. I misunderstood what you were saying. You're right, the fires in WTC7 are said to have been caused by falling debris. I do not dispute that fires were ignited in WTC7 by falling debris.

Now all we need is a coherent hypothesis as to why that asymmetrically damaged building suddenly collapsed at free fall speed into its footprint. Scattered office fires don't account for any of that.

An asymmetric load & resulting local failure can indeed cause a uniform progressive catastrophic failure
of an entire structure if the failure mode involves energy being added uniformly during collapse.
Risk factors are: Numerous floor levels & connections with little flexibility, little energy absorption
capacity, & little displacement tolerance. Notwithstanding the apparent uniformity of the floors
collapsing, I'd wager that the very top floor failed asymmetrically. Thereafter, things smoothed out.

I'm just speculating, but others have delved into analysis.
Ref....
Failures - World Trade Center - WTC 7

 

[Nous]

So "you are unable to account for how the steel frames of the 3 WTC buildings suddenly "went" all at once."

Are you trying describe something like the "pile driver" idea, where the upper smaller portion of the building pounds and pounds the lower, larger and sturdier portion of the building until it is crushed, then the upper portion self-crushes?

If you take a bowling ball and support it by a tower of toothpicks that weigh three times what the ball weighs, then compromise some of those supports, it's going to crash down through the whole thing.

So what can we conclude from your non-analogies other than that you are unable to account for how the steel frames of the 3 WTC buildings suddenly "went" all at once"?

That site looks like a conspiracy theory site

So do you claim that the events of 9/11 were not the product of a conspiracy?

and doesn't offer much in the way of proof.

Hoffman provides this photo:

What do you think are those things being pointed to?

Chapter 2 of FEMA's Report notes that the debris field was 400-500 feet from the base of the Towers: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf And Figure 1-7 in Chapter 1 shows exterior columns located outside the debris field: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

 

[Nous]

I never said that creep produces "oxidation....", because it doesn't.

So "creep" doesn't account for any of the findings that need to be accounted for?

Rather than link someone else's long read, I prefer that posters
present their own analysis.

I prefer that posters substantiate their claims.

I don't have my own analysis on any matter here. I don't have any unique opinions. I mere quote the experts who have examined and account for the evidence.

And claims regarding temperature
need the temperature specified more precisely than "high".

See Table 1 for the approximate minimum temperatures required to account for the findings noted in the paper: Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction. (I assume you will be satisfied by the adverb "extremely".)

 

[Revoltingest]

So "creep" doesn't account for any of the findings that need to be accounted for?

Of course it can.
It's just that creep doesn't cause corrosion.
Elevated temperatures (the cause) increase susceptibility to both creep & corrosion.

I prefer that posters substantiate their claims.

I have, but apparently not to your satisfaction.

I don't have my own analysis on any matter here. I don't have any unique opinions. I mere quote the experts who have examined and account for the evidence.

And I had specific issues with the quoted 'expert' claims.

See Table 1 for the approximate minimum temperatures required to account for the findings noted in the paper: Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction. (I assume you will be satisfied by the adverb "extremely".)

The table does indeed list temperatures for various things.
Which ones do you find significant?