9/11: Is this photo consistent with a progressive collapse?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm more than happy to debunk bunk wherever I find it. However you seem to be suggesting that there should automatically be the same amount of bunk (and hence debunking) to both support and deny your argument. I'm afraid I've generally found a lot more bunk on the conspiracy theorist side of most argument. Certainly that's the case with 9/11. On the one site there's the official story, which contains almost no bunk beyond minor errors, and on the other side there's the conspiracy theories, with their wild ideas of nano-thermite, "pyroclastic flow", terrible understanding of physics, and intimations perfectly executed mind-bogglingly risky plans.

I mean, if you were to look at the OS, then what would you say was the biggest piece of bunk in there?

Alternatively, if you look at my debunking, or any 9/11 debunking, then what was one thing that is wrong?

I previously commented on how even handed I thought you were re the 'Iranian connection', and I was pleasantly surprised by that but I do not see that even handedness as being the norm. eg, you cite as evidence backing the OS, things like strawman videos where the 'conspiracy theorists' are plainly out of their depth or possibly patsies.... demolitions which have no relevance to the towers are promoted as 'evidence' underpinning the OS and 'valid physics' which explain the inexplicable or a n instance where a roof collapses is put forward as proof positive that the towers fell according to the OS and yet when the many buildings, similar to the towers survive hours or days of intense fire, they are dismissed as 'apples and pears', incomparable because of this or that.

No I am sorry Mick, I see that the only way of justifying the OS is by use of double standards.
 
I'm more than happy to debunk bunk wherever I find it. However you seem to be suggesting that there should automatically be the same amount of bunk (and hence debunking) to both support and deny your argument. I'm afraid I've generally found a lot more bunk on the conspiracy theorist side of most argument. Certainly that's the case with 9/11. On the one site there's the official story, which contains almost no bunk beyond minor errors, and on the other side there's the conspiracy theories, with their wild ideas of nano-thermite, "pyroclastic flow", terrible understanding of physics, and intimations perfectly executed mind-bogglingly risky plans. I mean, if you were to look at the OS, then what would you say was the biggest piece of bunk in there?Alternatively, if you look at my debunking, or any 9/11 debunking, then what was one thing that is wrong?
Mick, seems by definition you hold the superior ground . . . a conspiracy theory, if it had anything but speculation and a bit of indirect or circumstantial evidence would no longer be a conspiracy theory. You are always attacking soft targets . . . and since that is true you should bend over backward IMO to engage in polite debate . . . many on this forum, however, don't think the way you do . . .
 
Mick, its your site your rules, but I do not agree that no adverse information was removed. All the stuff about police brutality and the systemic use of torture was legitimate.. out there stuff... which deserves debate IMO even if it gets slightly warm. I thought it was a bit heated but I would not classify it as impolite. But as I say thats just my opinion and it is your site

1) No adverse information was removed, and if they were, they re-explained themselves.
2) Nothing about the police brutality thread was removed, not sure what you're talking about.
3) The "impoliteness policy" here on Metabunk is necessary in order to stay on topic, and not to concentrate on 'who said what about who'. Plus, it makes Mick's life easier to run his site. Besides, it is unprofessional and unnecessary.

P.S. This is partly the reson why the thread was put in the 'other' category: people veering off topic, and talking about something completely different!
 
Mick, seems by definition you hold the superior ground . . . a conspiracy theory, if it had anything but speculation and a bit of indirect or circumstantial evidence would no longer be a conspiracy theory. You are always attacking soft targets . . . and since that is true you should bend over backward IMO to engage in polite debate . . . many on this forum, however, don't think the way you do . . .

I attack bunk. I primarily attack the claims of direct evidence. I'm not attacking the vague parts of conspiracy theories, I'm attacking the things that are claimed NOT to be vague. Claims like "Building 7 should not have fallen a free-fall speed", or "the fires did not burn very long". That's what I debunk.

Sure, I also point out when there's no direct evidence behind a particular theory. But that's because people often claim that there IS direct evidence. So that's a specific claim.

I'm not taking sides. If something is incorrect, I'll point it out. If there was something incorrect in the OS, I'd point that out.
 
I attack bunk. I primarily attack the claims of direct evidence. I'm not attacking the vague parts of conspiracy theories, I'm attacking the things that are claimed NOT to be vague. Claims like "Building 7 should not have fallen a free-fall speed", or "the fires did not burn very long". That's what I debunk.

Hence the name Metabunk?

If there was something incorrect in the OS, I'd point that out.

Sorry if I sound stupid here, but what is the OS?
 
1) No adverse information was removed, and if they were, they re-explained themselves.
2) Nothing about the police brutality thread was removed, not sure what you're talking about.
3) The "impoliteness policy" here on Metabunk is necessary in order to stay on topic, and not to concentrate on 'who said what about who'. Plus, it makes Mick's life easier to run his site. Besides, it is unprofessional and unnecessary.

P.S. This is partly the reson why the thread was put in the 'other' category: people veering off topic, and talking about something completely different!

Perhaps there was some glitch then because when I looked earlier, I was not even on the thread... but I am back on now and so is the content so that's all good and hopefully all are happy.

I value the politeness policy, even though I fell foul of it myself once and I think Mick does an admirable job on that score. It is difficult as these are emotive issues and it is inevitable that some friction arises. But hey, we are all adults here and we choose to discuss these topics.
 
I previously commented on how even handed I thought you were re the 'Iranian connection', and I was pleasantly surprised by that but I do not see that even handedness as being the norm. eg, you cite as evidence backing the OS, things like strawman videos where the 'conspiracy theorists' are plainly out of their depth or possibly patsies.... demolitions which have no relevance to the towers are promoted as 'evidence' underpinning the OS and 'valid physics' which explain the inexplicable or a n instance where a roof collapses is put forward as proof positive that the towers fell according to the OS and yet when the many buildings, similar to the towers survive hours or days of intense fire, they are dismissed as 'apples and pears', incomparable because of this or that.

No I am sorry Mick, I see that the only way of justifying the OS is by use of double standards.

I try not to put forward things as "proof positive". I'm a debunker, not a rah-rah supporter of the official story.

There's a vast amount wrong with the various conspiracy theories. I do not see those kind of errors in the OS. If they are there, then I'd be happy if someone point them out.

Anyway, much as I love to discuss things in depth, I'm about to set off to visit family for the holidays, so updates will be sporadic (still there, just longer delays) until the new year.
 
I try not to put forward things as "proof positive". I'm a debunker, not a rah-rah supporter of the official story.

There's a vast amount wrong with the various conspiracy theories. I do not see those kind of errors in the OS. If they are there, then I'd be happy if someone point them out.

Anyway, much as I love to discuss things in depth, I'm about to set off to visit family for the holidays, so updates will be sporadic (still there, just longer delays) until the new year.

Yep, Happy Hols to all. Guess it will go quiet for a bit on here for a while.

Just wanted to share this though as I thought it very interesting and relevant as pilots are discussing the possible effects of a modern jet liner hitting the WTC nearly a year prior to the event, including hypothesizing on the difference between the Empire State crash and the El Al incident. Just some food for thought:)

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/336291/4/

[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica,Arial][SIZE=-1][FONT=ARIAL,]If a 707 or a 757 slammed into the World Trade Center, it might be much more damaging than the case of the B-25 bomber that crashed into the Empire State Building.

For one thing, unlike the Empire State Building, which has more heavy concrete, the World Trade Center is made more of steel and glass - this may mean far greater structural damage due to the impact and flying glass shards and debris raining down on the people below. There could be a possibility of toppling if the 707 or the 757 came in at a high enough speed. Both of these planes are larger and heavier than a B-25 bomber, so this means a greater force of impact. I'm no [FONT=inherit ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]expert[/FONT][/FONT] on building structure or air crashes, but it would no doubt be far worse than the Empire State Building disaster.

It is very doubtful any passengers or crew would have survived such a grim scenario. Also, there are probably more people per floor in the World Trade Center compared to the Empire State Building, so casualties in the building will likely be much higher.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if the authorities would have a strict exclusion zone preventing any large airplanes, especially commercial airliners, from getting too close to Manhattan, so that there would be no repeat of the Empire State Building crash.

Other large buildings have been crashed into by large airliners, like the El Al 747-200F that crashed into an apartment complex in Amsterdam several years ago.
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My concept of the OS (Official Story) is . . . it is a plausible stretch . . . under the conventional understanding of the facts and political sensitivities it is the story we have . . . but just like any historical event . . . those in power write the history . . . some people don't believe it is complete and exactly how everything happened, is not, and will not every be known . . . many feel the investigation should be reopened and much more money should be spent to model (scale model of tower(s) and reenactment) and test whether the theories are correct. . .
 
For what its worth, I think the El Al crash poses some serious questions regarding the 9/11 OS of the Towers and also the Pentagon.

Virtually the same plane, full fuel tanks, possible highly flammable or explosive cargo (see 1 of 5).

This is 2 of 5, the actual crash and immediate effects:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=pAuMwfTCGls&NR=1

Interesting case . . . I am sure there are too many dissimilar facts to compare directly; however, raises enough questions to open the investigation into TWC again and this time properly go beyond computer simulations . . . I would love to spend a few hundred millon or a couple of billion to solve many of the questions about the most tragic and compelling crime of the centuries . . .
 
Bit off topic but interesting so hope I won't get too much flack. Seems there were toxic chemicals on the El Al flight:

http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.nerdcities.com/guardian/Pentagon/Bijlmer/bijlmer.htm

Ah, has 911 review in link so I'm ok

flight 1862 (a Boeing 747-200F), crashed into a 12-story apartment block in the Amsterdam suburb of Bijlmer. At least thirty nine people on the ground, and all four people aboard the aircraft, were killed. During the following months, some eight to nine hundred people, including local residents and rescue workers, complained of health problems. For years, Israel and friends put pressure on the Dutch government to hush up details of the crash, especially, the contents of the cargo. However, in October 1998, Avner Yarkoni, a senior officer with El Al, revealed that the downed aircraft contained barrels of dimethyl methylphosphonate and the government was finally forced to set up a committee to investigate. It was eventually determined that the health problems were due to the airline illegally carrying dangerous chemicals, and a large quantity of depleted uranium, from the United States to Israel. It is worth noting, that among the 10 tonnes of chemicals aboard the plane, were hydrofluoric acid, isopropanol and the dimethyl methylphosphonate mentioned above, three of the four components needed for the manufacture of the lethal nerve gas Sarin
Content from External Source
 
Things that bother me. The investigators didn't feel the need to follow the money, which is the opposite of what you do when investigating a crime. They also didn't follow national standards, removing evidence from the scene of the crime, they didn't even test for any explosive residue as they came to conclusions before even finalizing their claims. Classification of CCTV footage which would have caught the Pentagon event. Of course then there's the huge rise in cancer and other illnesses for first responders which debunks that claim ' government would never hurt it's own citizens ' argument since the govt said the air was safe, fully aware the asbestos would be in the air. They didn't seem to have any problem with FBI agents being prevented from following Bin Laden, whoever made that decision should have lost their job. In fact a lot of people should have lost their job and none did.

I mean look at this, they had ample opportunity to take out Bin Laden


1996-2001: On multiple occasions spies give detailed reports on bin Laden's location. Each time, the CIA director or White House officials prevent bin Laden's elimination.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/dec/05/opinion/oe-scheuer5

1996-2001: Federal authorities are aware for years before 9/11 that suspected terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden are receiving flight training at schools in the US and abroad. One convicted terrorist confesses that his planned role in a terror attack was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/30/national/main510607.shtml

2000-2001: 15 of the 19 hijackers fail to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. Only six are interviewed. All 15 should have been denied entry to the US.http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130051

2000-2001: The military conducts exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets causing mass casualties. One target is the World Trade Center (WTC), another the Pentagon. Yet after 9/11, over and over the White House and security officials say they're shocked that terrorists hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

Spring 2001: A series of military and governmental policy documents is released that seek to legitimize the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil and gas. One advocates presidential subterfuge and hiding the reasons for warfare "as a necessity for mobilizing public support."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/25/1040511092926.html

May 2001: For the third time, US security chiefs reject Sudan's offer of thick files on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. A senior CIA source calls it "the worst single intelligence failure in the business."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/30/terrorism.afghanistan2

June-Aug 2001: German intelligence warns the CIA that Middle Eastern terrorists are training for hijackings and targeting American interests. Russian President Vladimir Putin alerts the US of suicide pilots training for attacks on US targets. In late July, a Taliban emissary warns the US that bin Laden is planning a huge attack on American soil. In August, Israel warns of an imminent Al Qaeda attack.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html

July 4-14, 2001: Bin Laden reportedly receives kidney treatment from Canadian-trained Dr. Callaway at the American Hospital in Dubai. Dr. Callaway declines to comment. During his stay, bin Laden is allegedly visited by one or two CIA agents.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism

July 26, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft stops flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment. Ashcroft walks out of his office rather than answer questions about it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52982,00.html

Aug 6, 2001: President Bush receives an intelligence briefing warning that bin Laden might be planning to hijack airliners. Titled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," the briefing specifically mentions the WTC. Yet Bush later claims it "said nothing about an attack on America."
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-11/politics/911.investigation_1_intell igence-memo-bin-pdb?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Sept 10, 2001: A number of top Pentagon brass suddenly cancel travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns. Why isn't this news spread widely?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2001/09/12/we-ve-hit-the-targets .html

Sept 11, 2001: Data recovery experts extract data from 32 damaged WTC computer drives. The data reveals a surge in financial transactions shortly before the attacks. Illegal transfers of over $100 million may have been made through WTC computer systems immediately before and during the 9/11 disaster.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41004,00.html

Sept 11, 2001: Hours after the attacks, a "shadow government" is formed. Key congressional leaders say they didn't know this government-in-waiting had been established.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/01/attack/main502530.shtml

Sept 11, 2001: Six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners make a tape recording describing the events within hours of the attacks. The tape is never turned over to the FBI. It is later illegally destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentI d=A6892-2004May6

Anyone that incompetent deserves to go up in front of a judge and explain why they're so stupid and how they got into such important job roles that are meant to protect peoples lives.
 
Can you pick the thing that bothers you the most to start the discussion as it relates to the topic of 'Is this photo consistent with a progressive collapse?' As has been said previously (and repeatedly), mass dumping of off topic points (Gish gallops) are not helpful.
 
I will try to answer adequately without 'rambling or going off topic', as I feel a simple 'no' is inadequate and unhelpful. I also feel, without giving too much personal information, it is helpful if we could each understand each others motivation to some extent. I feel it helps to make sense of the whole and lets be honest... motivation is the key to everything.

So, books such as 1984, Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies, did resonate with me at some level at a young age but I did not fully grasp the import of such works, merely ascribing them to 'comments' on socialism etc. So no I was not a conspiracy advocate from that but merely perhaps 'slightly more alive to political motivations' than some.

Naturally, life dictates one must buckle down with nose to the grindstone so to some extent one tends to be more accepting of 'the realities of life', bearing out Maslow's Pyramid theory. So in short, I was, like most, 'asleep' up to about a year or 2 after 9/11. I just thought like most people, listened to the same mockingbird media, held normal concerns but 'got on with life'.

Initially I dismissed the theories that were starting to emerge about 9/11 and cover ups and political machinations. I thought it would be easy to disprove all this CT stuff but the more I looked the more I uncovered. 9/11 was my 'major wake up call', my 'red pill' if you like. I admit, I clung on to the belief that there was no merit to the conspiracy theories for quite some time after the facts lead me to intellectually believe otherwise.

I, like most, found it difficult and extremely uncomfortable to entertain that 'our leaders', the leaders of the 'free west' could be as devious, power hungry and manipulative as 'the tyrants we opposed'. And I will concede that possibly they are not as bad, but the evidence proves they are not that dissimilar.

And then we come to the internet, the great library of instantly accessible information, which allowed everyone access to hitherto 'not generally available information'. A product of DARPA no less... given freely for the benefit of mankind.

Kinda blows my theories out of the water doesn't it! Maybe not, perhaps the turn it would take was not envisaged or perhaps the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. e.g

http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/12/starbucks-twitter-campaign-uk-highjacked/
Hijacked Starbucks Twitter Campaign in the UK Ends Up an Epic Cluster F-F-F Frappuccino

Content from External Source
Which leads us to this site and it's motivation. Is it simply 'just some guy with an interest in debunking', if so then why not debunk the bunk on both sides?

Why is it I am unsurprised when a thread that reflects badly on authority and does not fit with the officially promoted perception, gets side tracked to the 'off topic and ramblings' section. And even worse it gets drastically edited to remove adverse information and legitimate comments. It just appears the 'CT shooter did not use an assault rifle', thread was too embarrassing.

Eulogy,and I don't wish for involvement in your argument with Mick,but thanks for taking the time to explain.
 
There is still a big elephant in the room which hasn't really been addressed in this thread.

What happened here?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg

We have talked about WTC 7 quite a bit . . . The NIST finally released their finds months after the report on WTC 1&2 . . . through their computer simulations they determined that the heat from the uncontrolled fires caused by the lack of water to fight the fires . . . Weakened the expansion fittings of a critical support column which failed and along with the other compromised support beams (due to heat fatigue despite the fact they were insulated against heat damage) brought down the entire structure as though it was wired for demolition . . . so move along please . . . there is nothing to see here . . .
 
there is still a big elephant in the room which hasn't really been addressed in this thread.

What happened here?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwordrtc0qg

No it hasn’t Unregistered member I agree.

The reason for this is because they want to focus on the image in post number one and not become confused with building seven.

Of course the real reason behind this is the control of public opinion. The alternative media correctly point out the injustice of mainstream media being controlled and manipulated and they produce cartoons and images like this.

media-puppet-string.jpg
"Mainstream Media"



They don’t for one moment consider that the same criminals who are controlling mainstream media are also controlling the alternative media, and so images like this equally apply to them.

media-puppet-string.jpg
" Alternative Media"


What about the big elephant in the room you mentioned unregistered member? The elephant continues to sit in the comfiest chair while those who were responsible for these monstrous acts continue to control all sides of public opinion.
 
No, not compromised by heat fatigue. By tons of debris from the towers taking out key columns, which supported the weight of the penthouse.

Oh yeah, I must be wrong...the government obviously did it...says the conspiracy buffs who weren't there, never saw any of the debris and who aren't qualified to make statements of fact about subjects they have never studied.

you're right..nothing to see here.
 
Sigh.... Building 7 has been debunked a long time ago. CT believers need to start coming up with new theories, tsk.

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.

Excerpts from Mark Roberts "World Trade Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement"

Yes, that worker certainly does say they’re getting ready to “pull” building six. Then we have a quote from Luis Mendes, from the NYC Department of Design and Construction:
“We had to be very careful about how we demolished building 6. We were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.”
Interesting. They needed to be sure that building 6 came down in a “controlled” way. But wait a second: the video clip that Alex Jones presents – the clip that’s shown on all the conspiracist websites –ends abruptly at this point. Huh? Where’s the money shot? Why’d they cut it there?


Here’s why:
[FONT=&amp]Because the following scene shows how building 6 was “pulled”: with cables attached to the hydraulic arms of four excavators, not with explosive charges.

[/FONT]
image002.jpg


[FONT=&amp]“We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they’re pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables.”[/FONT]
Narrator Kevin Spacey: “The use of explosives to demolish World Trade Centers 4, 5 and 6 was rejected for fear workers would risk their lives entering buildings to set the charges.”

image004.jpg

Why do they pull that part of the documentary out of the conspiracy story? This is yet another example of outright deception by the so called "truth" movement and its leaders like Alex Jones. They draw their stories around the truth like a child drawing around their hand.

Something that conspiracy theorists forget is the amount of fire burning from building 7. Here's a few pics that show the amount of smoke shooting out of the buildings:

WTC7_Smoke.jpg

wtc7swd.jpg

This is what a firefighter, who was there on that day, had to say:

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Larry Silversteen, who owned the building at the time had this to say:


"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

This is what his spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, had to say:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

Is that enough info for you? I believe the big white elephant out lasted his welcome.

(P.S. What Silversteen means by pulling, it means "Get the hell out of there!"

Thanks http://www.debunking911.com/index.html



 

Attachments

  • wtcc.jpg
    wtcc.jpg
    229.2 KB · Views: 378
No, not compromised by heat fatigue. By tons of debris from the towers taking out key columns, which supported the weight of the penthouse.

Oh yeah, I must be wrong...the government obviously did it...says the conspiracy buffs who weren't there, never saw any of the debris and who aren't qualified to make statements of fact about subjects they have never studied.

you're right..nothing to see here.
Seems you didn't read the final report . . . NIST clearly states they believe the fires alone were sufficient to have caused the entire collapse . . .

In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm
Content from External Source
I
 
Oh, why did the building fall the way it did, well these pictures are self explanatory:

WTC7graph.jpg

this is the damage that WTC7 was enduring, and what it would have looked like:

pull.h1.jpg
 
I'm quite sad to see you using this phrase George, despite your often ponderous posts you usually manage to rise above the condescending language prevalent amongst CT believers.
You would have rather I said I didn't think computer simulations made by taking what you think happened and back engineering them to fit the result of a collapsed building is convincing . . . I need more than that . . . this requires much more . . . if you don't, good for you . . . I am not convinced . . .
 
You would have rather I said I didn't think computer simulations made by taking what you think happened and back engineering them to fit the result of a collapsed building is convincing . . . I need more than that . . . this requires much more . . . if you don't, good for you . . . I am not convinced . . .

Not at all,I wasn't commenting on your conclusions,just the change in tone this thread seems to be eliciting in you.
 
Not at all,I wasn't commenting on your conclusions,just the change in tone this thread seems to be eliciting in you.
Interesting observation . . . I try to be calm and balanced with most people but don't have the same patience with what I feel is institutionalized stupidity . . . everyone has a weak point . . .

PS . . . I am not a CT believer . . . I think a covert stratospheric sulfur injection program has a 30% chance of being possible . . .
 
Yes, I want a scale model built by a disinterested third party to recreate the computer simulation . . .

This is what the popular website Popular Mechanics had to say about WTC 7 :
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

[h=1]World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest[/h] [h=2]Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.[/h]

"Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires."


Yet, at 5:20 pm, 7 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2), WTC 7 rapidly fell in on itself. Since WTC 7 housed Secret Service and CIA offices, conspiracy theorists claimed that the building was destroyed in a controlled demolition in order to obliterate evidence of the U.S. government's complicity in the terrorist attacks. "It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved," stated actress and TV personality Rosie O'Donnell of ABC's The View in March 2007. "For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said.


Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.

The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.


wtc-nist-lg.jpg

After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.


Here, a video shows what happened in clearer detail:

 
As I said where is the scale model ???. . . computer simulations are nice but simply not conclusive . . . many people in this country and many in the world simply don't believe the official story . . . it took NIST seven years to publish this plausible story . . .

NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation ReportFor Immediate Release: November 25, 2008
http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm
Content from External Source
 
Scale is a tricky thing. What exactly do you think should be done? How big? What materials?

Unless you actually build a full sized replica, then what exactly would a scale model tell you?
 
Scale is a tricky thing. What exactly do you think should be done? How big? What materials?

Unless you actually build a full sized replica, then what exactly would a scale model tell you?
What ever a couple of billion dollars could buy from a disinterested third party . . . I expect to gain the same data that a model airframe gets you in a wind tunnel . . . or scale model of a bridge to test for stress points, load capacities, tensile strengths, etc . . .
 
Scale is a tricky thing. What exactly do you think should be done? How big? What materials?

Unless you actually build a full sized replica, then what exactly would a scale model tell you?

Not to mention the amount of money for such a project to be coordinated, to exactly replicate the way how WTC 7 fell to the floor. It's not really worth it for something that has already been debunked.
 
What ever a couple of billion dollars could buy from a disinterested third party . . . I expect to gain the same data that a model airframe gets you in a wind tunnel . . . or scale model of a bridge to test for stress points, load capacities, tensile strengths, etc . . .

It's not worth it. It's like those people who keep on repeating that people need to re investigate 9/11. It's useless, and it's been done to death already.
 
Mick, I think you should just rename this thread and call it 9/11. I believe that it is a nice overview regarding various topics on 9/11, because, let's face it, the thread is 22 pages long, we are not talking about progressive collapse much anymore.
 
It's not worth it. It's like those people who keep on repeating that people need to re investigate 9/11. It's useless, and it's been done to death already.
It is a matter of opinion . . . IMO 9/11 is the single most destructive issue tearing apart this country and creating distrust in the world . . . not since the Vietnam and Korean Wars has there been such distrust created . . . it is time to put it to rest . . . the investigations to many people were whitewashes . . .
 
What ever a couple of billion dollars could buy from a disinterested third party . . . I expect to gain the same data that a model airframe gets you in a wind tunnel . . . or scale model of a bridge to test for stress points, load capacities, tensile strengths, etc . . .

Wind tunnels are still used because fluid flow is computationally very expensive. But do engineers still build scale models of bridges for anything other that aesthetics? I think you'll find that computer models are used now because they are FAR more accurate and useful. Only individual assemblies are tested at near full size.

You would be a lot better off trying to create an open-source computer model.

But could you describe exactly what it would take to remove your suspicion? Who, for example, would you trust to run the tests? What would have to be demonstrated in order for you to be convinced that WTC7 was not deliberate demolition.
 
It is a matter of opinion . . . IMO 9/11 is the single most destructive issue tearing apart this country and creating distrust in the world . . . not since the Vietnam and Korean Wars has there been such distrust created . . . it is time to put it to rest . . . the investigations to many people were whitewashes . . .

I don't think so. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are a very small part of the country. I would be very surprised if the number of people who REALLY suspect controlled demolition was above 1%.

The divisive issues in this country are taxes, abortion, and gun control.
 
Mick, I think you should just rename this thread and call it 9/11. I believe that it is a nice overview regarding various topics on 9/11, because, let's face it, the thread is 22 pages long, we are not talking about progressive collapse much anymore.

22 pages, 877 posts, is not "a nice overview" :) I think the title will stay, as there is quite a lot of discussion about progressive collapse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top