The official story (NIST) offers a lot of scientific proof.
I would be willing to bet that you have never read it.
This makes sense, since the official story is a conspiracy theory without scientific proof, still, I wouldn't dare generalize people based solely on their thoughts on 911.
The official story (NIST) offers a lot of scientific proof.
I would be willing to bet that you have never read it.
I would.
In general this has been my experience. That's why you are something of an anomoly to me. From what I have seen, you are too smart for this crap.
That is what saddens me.
Anyways, back to this question.
If you don't know, then simply say so, and we can continue, but please try to answer it.
Then why are you saying it couldn't have in this very thread using closely cropped, out of time context pictures of a section of the building that had no fire?I have always said that the Tower 1 and 2 collapse could have happened just the way the official report says it did
Make up your mind.
Sorry you’re taking this so personal RG. Physicists’ are sleuths; they simply take the data that is available at the time and form mathematical models based on assumptions. When you get new data available, like the leaking of architectural designs that prove the NIST and FEMA reports bogus, new assumptions have to be made, it would be easier if FEMA or NIST or some government agency released all the information they knew about the floor designs, core structure, steel frames, elevators, yada...yada...yada of Towers 1,2 and 7, but it's been 6 years almost and that still hasn’t happened, so for now, 911 and it's official explanation are nothing but a conspiracy theory and you’ve generalized yourself into a intellectual corner of your own making.Having never really done well in school, they generally gravitate towards something that offers them some modi of intellectual self-iden y.
This is why they drone on and on about "research" and reading and keeping an open mind, and all the other things that lend genuinely intelligent people some credibility when it comes to talking about topics.
It is simply to make up for their own (generally unacknowledged) shortcomings, that they accuse others of lacking what they themselves lack, however unconsious they are of those shortcomings.
It is, I think, on an emotional level, akin to the jealosy that athletically untalented people feel towards gifted athletes.
On some level, they KNOW they aren't doing good critical thinking, or good fact-checking, and that they are being intellectually dishonest. This is why the first thing they charge debunkers with are a lack of these very things. If they don't possses these qualities, then no one else does either. This again plays into the pseudo-intellectual trapping that they like to wrap themselves in. If they can delude themselves consiously into thinking that they are honest seekers of truth, then they can easily dismiss others who don't agree with themselves as being deceived, or worse, deceivERs.
I guess the internal line of reasoning there is that "if I am smart and honestly seeking the truth, and I have come to position X, then anybody who doesn't agree with X, MUST be dishonest, stupid, and deceitful."
My 2 cents.
I tell you this stuff is like a religion.
Hyper-conservative christians do the exact same thing when you question little eccentricities in the bible. For them giving ONE inch means that they must actually start to question everything else, and that their faith in their holy books (or in this case websites) was mis-placed.
Is that like the "intellectual corner" you were in when you joked about the Virginia Tech student?
I'm not taking this very personally, other than to be offended when CTer theory is so shaky that it insults my intelligence.
I DO hate it when people lie to me, and the CTer websites do exactly that. Not that our darling government hasn't done, and isn't doing the same, but this lot is as bad, if not worse than the GOP.
In your rush to hate this administration, you have sucked this stuff up. Dude, there are PLENTY of reasons that the people in charge are venal and evil without having to make up.
The difference is we have a fairly complete working theory about the perpetrators, methods, motives and mechanisms involved in all aspects of all the 9/11 attacks.so for now, 911 and it's official explanation are nothing but a conspiracy theory and you’ve generalized yourself into a intellectual corner of your own making.
What do you have?
What is your complete working theory about the perpetrators, methods, motives and mechanisms involved in all aspects of all the 9/11 attacks?
Let's hear it.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 04-25-2007 at 02:43 PM. Reason: bad cut
Have you ever read a book on intelligence ops RG? Do you know what poison pills are?DO hate it when people lie to me, and the CTer websites do exactly that. Not that our darling government hasn't done, and isn't doing the same, but this lot is as bad, if not worse than the GOP
No one is blaming the administration, well, except for Mouse. That's a straw man argument RG.In your rush to hate this administration, you have sucked this stuff up. Dude, there are PLENTY of reasons that the people in charge are venal and evil without having to make up.
Heh, the very definition of a strawman argument is distoring someone elses beliefs.
In this case a strawman argument would be if I restated what YOU believed and distorted that.
This is simply me stating what I believe, namely that the CTer movement is as big of a bunch of liars as the Bush administration.
Yes, and it's much more intellectually honest to generalize everyone who does not believe what you believe as wackos, liers, and con-men.
Actually, you are thinking of the phrase "poisoning the well", in which an effort is made from the inside of a movement to discredit that movement.
There is YOUR intellectual corner.
If there is a big conspiracy, they would be motivated to do just that. Post a bunch of easily debunkable crap on the internet, so that anybody who is half-way intelligent would see how much bull is out there and conclude that the entire movement is looney.
SO
If the truth movement has been infiltrated in this manner, Dan, how do YOU know what is real and what is meant to be easily debunkable?
How does mouse know?
IF there is a conspiracy, and someone like mouse believes the most outlandish, illogical crap and spreads that around, THEN either:
1) Mouse works for the conspiracy
or
2) Mouse is too stupid to tell reality from the fabricated fantasy of the infiltrators.
Which is it mouse? Evil or stupid?
Originally Posted by Nbadan
I have always said that the Tower 1 and 2 collapse could have happened just the way the official report says it did
You're right about that stout. He would have had to have read the report to say such a thing.
By the by, here is how the official report plays out the initial collapse, essentially the same for both buildings based on my reading of the NIST report. Feel free to read the thing and correct this with a better understanding if you so choose.
Airliner impacts building. Collision injects fire and initial fuel into an office environment filled with other fuel, such as plastic, paper, and furniture, in addition to literally knocking the thin coating of spray on insulation from the structural steel. Simultaineous fires start in multiple floors of the building in wide sections of those floors, in addition to weakening the structure.
In the damaged sections, you have the remaining load bearing structure taking up the extra load from the portions that were destroyed from the collision.
Add to this extra load stress per column (both inner and outer), additional lateral (sideways) stresses are placed from expanding trusses exposed to heat. With the additional load, and weakened by fire, the hottest columns start exhibiting "plasticity" and begin to sag, pulling on the connecting floor, and pulling the face of the building inwards at the floor/wall joints.
Eventually, some part of the buildng gives way, and this instantly places more stress on the remaining structure, itself nearing limits of load/stress capacity. This results in a rather rapid collapse of nearby sections and simple physics do the rest.
Did the structural steel melt? No. You don't have to even get close to melting point to get loss of strength. Medieval blacksmiths didn't have near the ability to melt iron or steel, but could get it hot enough to work with hammer and anvil into swords, armor, horseshoes, and all manner of things.
Steel loses about 20% of its load bearing capacity at 300C, and some portions of the fires were hotter than that.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 07-10-2008 at 09:23 AM.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a do ent from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any do entation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well do ented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-25-2007 at 03:34 PM.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.
NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of do ents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System
NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-25-2007 at 03:34 PM.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.
The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-25-2007 at 03:35 PM. Reason: (formatting for readability)
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?
No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.
These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-25-2007 at 03:35 PM. Reason: readability and link to NIST faq page
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
5. Why were two distinct es—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?
The seismic es for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The es began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-25-2007 at 03:36 PM. Reason: (readability and link addition)
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
As do ented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-25-2007 at 03:36 PM. Reason: (formatting for ease of readability)
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
8. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a 'raging inferno' in the WTC towers?
Both the NIST calculations and interviews with survivors and firefighters indicated that the aircraft impacts severed the water pipes that carried the water to the sprinkler systems. The sprinklers were not operating on the principal fire floors.
However, there were ample sources of the water in the stairwells. The water pipes ran vertically within the stairwells. Moreover, there would have been copious water from the broken restroom supply lines and from the water tanks that supplied the initial water for the sprinklers. Thus, it is not surprising that evacuating occupants encountered a lot of water.
Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building. On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-25-2007 at 03:37 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)