9/11 was an inside job

[Nous]

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

So why wasn't NIST able to show that their hypothesis about WTC7 resulted in the building collapsing like WTC7 did--straight down, at nearly free fall speed? Where NIST's simulation ends, the WTC is beginning to fall over (in the direction where the building was most severely damaged.)

 

[Nous]

Of course it can.
It's just that creep doesn't cause corrosion.

I have, but apparently not to your satisfaction.

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

If you are able to substantiate any of your claims or show that any of my claims or any claims I've quoted are false, you will begin by providing a link.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you are able to substantiate any of your claims or show that any of my claims or any claims I've quoted are false, you will begin by providing a link.

What did you think of the link (regarding Building 7's failure) that I provided?
Do you have any opinion of the information & speculation I stated?
(Btw, I was an architecture major before switching to mechanical engineering.
I'm no expert, but I can understand arguments you'd present.)

 

[Nous]

What did you think of the link (regarding Building 7's failure) that I provided?

Nothing at that link accounts for how the asymmetrically damage WTC7 building suddenly fell at nearly free fall speed mostly into its footprint as a result of scattered office fires. Right?

 

[Nous]

So why wasn't NIST able to show that their hypothesis about WTC7 resulted in the building collapsing like WTC7 did--straight down, at nearly free fall speed?

Gee, I wonder if this question is just going to be left hanging?

 

[Revoltingest]

Nothing at that link accounts for how the asymmetrically damage WTC7 building suddenly fell at nearly free fall speed mostly into its footprint as a result of scattered office fires. Right?

The article stated that the building did not fall near "free fall" speed.
It also addressed how the fire caused thermal expansion of the steel structure.

Gee, I wonder if this question is just going to be left hanging?

See above.
The question has a false premise.
But if it had fallen that fast, the demolition rigging would've had to been extremely
extensive, covering multiple posts on all floors. That couldn't have been hidden
from management, maintenance or occupants.

 

[Nous]

The article stated that the building did not fall near "free fall" speed.

For about 2.5 seconds, the building fell at a speed indistinguishable from free fall speed. What happened to the resistance?

It also addressed how the fire caused thermal expansion of the steel structure.

But we can assume that the anonymous person(s) who made that claim would be like NIST, unable to show that that hypothesis had any basis in fact or would produce a building falling like WTC7, suddenly, at nearly free fall speed, straight down into its footprint. Right?

 

[Revoltingest]

For about 2.5 seconds, the building fell at a speed indistinguishable from free fall speed. What happened to the resistance?

But we can assume that the anonymous person(s) who made that claim would be like NIST, unable to show that that hypothesis had any basis in fact or would produce a building falling like WTC7, suddenly, at nearly free fall speed, straight down into its footprint. Right?

Dueling website claims about speed, eh?

1) If the building were rigged for demolition, how did this escape
the notice of occupants, maintenance & management?

2) Do you maintain that government is competent enuf to accomplish
this without a hitch, & without a snitch (with so many people involved)?

3) Are the government conspirators so powerful that they
got NIST to lie about the collapse's cause & rate of collapse?
Ref....
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
Page 45 shows the fall took 40% longer than "free fall".

 

[Nous]

 

[Nous]

Dueling website claims about speed, eh?

The difference is your website provides no source for its claim and doesn't substantiate its claim in any way.

1) If the building were rigged for demolition, how did this escape
the notice of occupants, maintenance & management?
2) Do you maintain that government is competent enuf to accomplish
this without a hitch, & without a snitch (with so many people involved)?

Hypothesis non fingo. My conclusions are deduced from the evidence.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

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"?

Have you not been paying attention?

The towers didn't go "all at once". They collapsed downward.

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

Yes, I would have thought that abundantly obvious.

Hoffman provides this photo:

A photo that doesn't show any evidence for explosions.

Chapter 2 of FEMA's Report notes that the debris field was 400-500 feet from the base of the Towers:

Yes, and gives ample explanation as to how that is possible. (500 ft is also not that impressive, considering the size of the towers.) It explains how the towers stored more than 4x10^11 joules of potential energy - the weight supported by the structure comprising 8x10^9 joules at the top, and that would inevitably destroy itself should that structure become compromised. It even outlines exactly what I said:

"As the large mass of the collapsing floors above accelerated and impacted on the floors below, it caused an immediate progressive series of floor failures, punching each in turn onto the floor below, accelerating as the sequence progressed ... Perimeter walls of the building seem to have peeled off and fallen directly away from the building face .. The perimeter walls broke apart at the bolted connections, allowing individual prefabricated units that formed the wall or, in some cases, large assemblies of these units to fall to the street and onto neighboring buildings below."

"Review of the videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. This is consistent with the observations of debris patterns from the 91st floor ... This is also supported by preliminary evaluation of the load carrying capacity of these columns"

Furthermore in images of the impact site, you can clearly see that the beams bend inward, especially where the left wing would have cut into them. They do not bend outward, as they would have with an explosion.

Did you even read the article that you linked?

 

[Revoltingest]

The difference is your website provides no source for its claim and doesn't substantiate its claim in any way.

I also quoted the NIST report.

Hypothesis non fingo. My conclusions are deduced from the evidence.

You presented the opinions of others, but
didn't deduce or "fingo" anything yourself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I'm speaking from my general knowledge as a civil engineer. While I work in transportation now, I've had formal training in metallurgy, structural steel design, and building science, and I used to work in fire protection engineering.

... but you don't need any of that to know that if you add energy to a system at a greater rate than energy is being removed from the system, the temperature of the system increases.

Harping on about "open air burning temperatures" is a big red flag that you don't understand even the basics of the subject at hand. When heat is radiated at a surface - like walls, floors, and ceilings - energy is reflected back toward the heat source. When you raise the temperature of those surfaces - as happens when a building structure absorbs heat from a fire - those surfaces themselves radiate heat into the space. All of this energy being redirected back into the space increases the temperature of the space. How much it increases the temperature depends on factors like the size, shape, and materials of the room.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

If you don't, then any discussion of evidence is going to be pointless. It's not my job to educate you on basic thermodynamics, and we aren't going to have a productive discussion if you're approaching things with a lot of wrong assumptions.

 

[Nous]

I'm speaking from my general knowledge as a civil engineer. While I work in transportation now, I've had formal training in metallurgy, structural steel design, and building science, and I used to work in fire protection engineering.

... but you don't need any of that to know that if you add energy to a system at a greater rate than energy is being removed from the system, the temperature of the system increases.

Harping on about "open air burning temperatures" is a big red flag that you don't understand even the basics of the subject at hand. When heat is radiated at a surface - like walls, floors, and ceilings - energy is reflected back toward the heat source. When you raise the temperature of those surfaces - as happens when a building structure absorbs heat from a fire - those surfaces themselves radiate heat into the space. All of this energy being redirected back into the space increases the temperature of the space. How much it increases the temperature depends on factors like the size, shape, and materials of the room.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

If you don't, then any discussion of evidence is going to be pointless. It's not my job to educate you on basic thermodynamics, and we aren't going to have a productive discussion if you're approaching things with a lot of wrong assumptions.

So you are arguing that you are unable to account for the findings from which it is deduced that the temperatures in the WTC buildings on 9/11 were much higher than those produced by open-air office-materials fires. Is that correct? Those findings include multitudes of iron spherules, requiring temperatures of more than 2700 F. See the findings and Table 1: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

 

[Stevicus]

Dueling website claims about speed, eh?

1) If the building were rigged for demolition, how did this escape
the notice of occupants, maintenance & management?

How does anything escape people's notice in a large building open to the public? People can find ways to blend into the background, infiltrate, disguise themselves as a work crew. Any number of possible ways.

2) Do you maintain that government is competent enuf to accomplish
this without a hitch, & without a snitch (with so many people involved)?

Why not? We're talking about the same government that set up the supersecret Manhattan Project with thousands of workers. Yet they still kept it a secret. It was the same during the Cold War. Lots of secrets kept by the government, even to this day. Why is that so hard to believe?

3) Are the government conspirators so powerful that they
got NIST to lie about the collapse's cause & rate of collapse?

I would suggest this to be a red herring, along with the entire argument about how the buildings collapsed. All the talk about architecture and structural engineering is all very fascinating, but it doesn't prove or disprove thing one about who done it.

 

[Nous]

The towers didn't go "all at once".

For the 2 Towers there was a rapid onset of their explosions downward, and for WTC7 there was a sudden onset of the drop of the building. Right? Do you need further videos to confirm those facts?

A photo that doesn't show any evidence for explosions.

Do you need to inform yourself of the series of squibs that preceded the downward-moving explosions of the Towers?

Yes, and gives ample explanation as to how that is possible. (500 ft is also not that impressive, considering the size of the towers.) It explains how the towers stored more than 4x10^11 joules of potential energy - the weight supported by the structure comprising 8x10^9 joules at the top, and that would inevitably destroy itself should that structure become compromised. It even outlines exactly what I said:

"As the large mass of the collapsing floors above accelerated and impacted on the floors below, it caused an immediate progressive series of floor failures, punching each in turn onto the floor below, accelerating as the sequence progressed

NIST rejected FEMA's "floor pancaking" hypothesis. Do you know why?

How did "the large mass of the collapsing floors" begin so as to crush the larger, more massive portion of the Towers if there was no sudden impact? Have you ever seen "another" building crush itself from the top down (than the top portion self-crush) due to scattered fires and asymmetrical structural damage?

Imagine a Mac truck and fully load trailer standing up on its rear gate. Then image a Volkswagen Beetle nose-to-nose with the Mac truck. And the Beetle somehow begins pounding the nose of the Mac truck. What does Newton's 3rd law say will happen to the Beetle?

 

[Nous]

You presented the opinions of others, but
didn't deduce or "fingo" anything yourself.

Correct. I feigned no hypothesis about anything. The experts have already deduced the important conclusions from the evidence. I merely provide their information.

You haven't explained what happened to the resistance of the mass of WTC7 when it was dropping at free fall speed.

And you haven't explained why NIDT was unable to show that its unreasonable worse-case scenario did not produce a simulation that even vaguely resembles the dropping WTC7.

 

[Nous]

How does anything escape people's notice in a large building open to the public? People can find ways to blend into the background, infiltrate, disguise themselves as a work crew. Any number of possible ways.



Why not? We're talking about the same government that set up the supersecret Manhattan Project with thousands of workers. Yet they still kept it a secret. It was the same during the Cold War. Lots of secrets kept by the government, even to this day. Why is that so hard to believe?




I would suggest this to be a red herring, along with the entire argument about how the buildings collapsed. All the talk about architecture and structural engineering is all very fascinating, but it doesn't prove or disprove thing one about who done it.

Well done, Stevicus.

 

[Nous]

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

Yes, I would have thought that abundantly obvious.

So who do you claim was the lone perpetrator who crashed 4 jetliners into buildings and the ground on 9/11, killing everyone on board?

You don't know what a conspiracy is, do you? See the OP here: Where oh Where Have People Gotten Their Freakish Ideas about Conspiracies?

 

[Revoltingest]

So you are arguing that you are unable to account for the findings from which it is deduced that the temperatures in the WTC buildings on 9/11 were much higher than those produced by open-air office-materials fires. Is that correct? Those findings include multitudes of iron spherules, requiring temperatures of more than 2700 F. See the findings and Table 1: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

You've said.....

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.

So my addressing the technical aspects of the proffered evidence & analysis wouldn't allow discussion.
So instead, let's consider the cromulence of your source.
Picking the first expert cited, Steven E Jones, let's see how qualified he is.
Ref....
Steven E. Jones - Wikipedia
An excerpt....

Jones has published several papers suggesting that the World Trade Center was demolished with explosives, but his 2005 paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" was his first paper on the topic and was considered controversial both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor.[39] Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty;[40] shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts on whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[41] Jones further presented and defended his research before peers at the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters on 7 April 2006 at nearby Snow College.[42] Jones maintained that the paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication within a book "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out" by D.R. Griffin.[43] The paper was published in the online "Journal of 9/11 Studies", a journal co-founded and co-edited by Jones for the purpose of "covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001." The paper also appeared in a volume of essays edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott.[44]

The Wikipedia article continues with more examples of fellows distancing themselves from his claims.

What does this mean?
We have options.....
1) He is right, & the majority of the scientific community, including NIST & his colleagues, are wrong.
2) He is right, & the majority of the scientific community, including NIST & his colleagues, are co-conspirators in a vast Machiavellian fraud.
3) He is wrong.