WTC: Were the buildings up to code?

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You are being silly now. How would you know it would fall straight down unless it's EXACTLY the same as WTC7? How would they know which are the strategic floor joints without spending months on computer analysis? And if they knew it, then why would they do it at all? Just to satisfy Truthers? What you are suggesting would cost millions. Why would someone do that?

Again, there is NO UPSIDE for anyone to spend money to satisfy Truthers.

Because they have been accused (rightly or wrongly) of a criminal act of covering up and lying to the entire world to justify two wars, millions of lives and billions of dollars . . . convincing a nation to pass the Patriot Act . . . need I go on . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Because they have been accused (rightly or wrongly) of a criminal act of covering up and lying to the entire world to justify two wars, millions of lives and billions of dollars . . . convincing a nation to pass the Patriot Act . . . need I go on . . .

Yes, you need go on.

What is the criminal act they are accused of, exactly?

Who is accusing them of this criminal act?

What is the evidence of this criminal act?

Why don't these people bring a court case?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
You claim that you've proven them wrong, yet you won't release your proof. Why not?

If I do it, then nothing changes.

If you do it, then EVERYTHING CHANGES, so why not?

You claim that you've proven them wrong, yet you won't release your proof. Why not?

No, I don't claim that. I said that I modelled one of the tower collapses from photographs for some renderings and calculations. Nist abandoned their so-called investigation at the point of collapse initiation. So I looked at something Nist didn't bother to. It's quite different. But it's interesting that you'll chastise me for not releasing my data - when you say little about that in favour of Nist - and you quote their incomplete report continually.

If I do it, then nothing changes.

That's quite a telling comment. How could you know if anything changes - unless you do it?

If you do it, then EVERYTHING CHANGES, so why not?

See answer 1.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
From Mick
. . . What is the criminal act they are accused of, exactly?

Who is accusing them of this criminal act?


What is the evidence of this criminal act?


Why don't these people bring a court case?

They are accused of intentionally withholding evidence of a criminal act of which they are obligated to release to the proper authorities. . .

The lunatic fringe citizens of the US and the world are accusing . . .

The evidence . . . is failure to supply critical information that prevents proper investigation ie the data used to accomplish the WTC7 simulation

At least one Court case was attempted that I know of . . . one filed with John Lear on the petition to the court . . .
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
From Mick
. . . What is the criminal act they are accused of, exactly?

Who is accusing them of this criminal act?


What is the evidence of this criminal act?


Why don't these people bring a court case?

They are accused of intentionally withholding evidence of a criminal act of which they are obligated to release to the proper authorities. . .

The lunatic fringe citizens of the US and the world are accusing . . .

The evidence . . . is failure to supply critical information that prevents proper investigation ie the data used to accomplish the WTC7 simulation

At least one Court case was attempted that I know of . . . one filed with John Lear on the petition to the court . . .

There's more than a few court cases ongoing. For what that will get.

One just needs to remember that it took years of petitioning through the courts (and that with the added weight of the corporate giant The New York Times on board) by victims' families, just to get the oral histories (eyewitness accounts of first responders) recorded by the FDNY released to the public - and even after the court ordered the release, there were still redacted parts. Why? It's a very simple question, and a good example of what the barriers to the truth really are. Every inch has to be fought over. Why? Who's afraid of the truth? I'm not.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
There's more than a few court cases ongoing. For what that will get.

One just needs to remember that it took years of petitioning through the courts (and that with the added weight of the corporate giant The New York Times on board) by victims' families, just to get the oral histories (eyewitness accounts of first responders) recorded by the FDNY released to the public - and even after the court ordered the release, there were still redacted parts. Why? It's a very simple question, and a good example of what the barriers to the truth really are. Every inch has to be fought over. Why? Who's afraid of the truth? I'm not.
I have no doubt we are not being told the whole story . . . Why? National Security and public safety issues . . . wonderful cover for those who wish to withhold what they deem embarrassing or indictable . . .
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I have no doubt we are not being told the whole story . . . Why? National Security and public safety issues . . . wonderful cover for those who wish to withhold what they deem embarrassing or indictable . . .


Modern day camouflage. Lots of arses (asses) getting covered - lots of lies - lots of money - lots still to know.

A concerted effort to hide such simple things as the testimony of the public servants present, tells of others (the hiders) hiding their crimes by all means at their disposal. And the means at their disposal appear to be robust. What can be deduced?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
See answer 1.


Answer 1 seems to be "why should I, if NIST does not". But I asked why you DON'T release your data. I'm not chastising you, I'm asking why.

I wish NIST would release their data.

I don't make a simulation myself because I don't suspect foul play enough to invest time and energy in checking it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
From Mick
. . . What is the criminal act they are accused of, exactly?

Who is accusing them of this criminal act?


What is the evidence of this criminal act?


Why don't these people bring a court case?

They are accused of intentionally withholding evidence of a criminal act of which they are obligated to release to the proper authorities. . .

The lunatic fringe citizens of the US and the world are accusing . . .

The evidence . . . is failure to supply critical information that prevents proper investigation ie the data used to accomplish the WTC7 simulation

At least one Court case was attempted that I know of . . . one filed with John Lear on the petition to the court . . .


And because of this they should try a full scale replicate of the WTC7 fire?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Answer 1 seems to be "why should I, if NIST does not". But I asked why you DON'T release your data. I'm not chastising you, I'm asking why.

I wish NIST would release their data.

I don't make a simulation myself because I don't suspect foul play enough to invest time and energy in checking it.
Sounds exactly what they hoped for when they devised the cover story . . . isolate, divide and marginalized opposition and inquiry
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
And because of this they should try a full scale replicate of the WTC7 fire?
If you are asking me . . . Yes. . .
Now let me ask you an honest question Mick. . if you felt there was some type of coverup would you not be suspicious of the convenient excuses being offered by the authorities like . . . we can't release the simulation data?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Originally Posted by Mick

Answer 1 seems to be "why should I, if NIST does not". But I asked why you DON'T release your data. I'm not chastising you, I'm asking why.

I wish NIST would release their data.

I don't make a simulation myself because I don't suspect foul play enough to invest time and energy in checking it.


Sounds exactly what they hoped for when they devised the cover story . . .

Perfectly put.

And if you can't be bothered, M, who would be?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If you are asking me . . . Yes. . .
Now let me ask you an honest question Mick. . if you felt there was some type of coverup would you not be suspicious of the convenient excuses being offered by the authorities like . . . we can't release the simulation data?

Of course. EVERYTHING someone says about a topic becomes suspect if you believe they are lying to you about it.

But I'd need some suspicion of some type of coverup first. From why I've seen the NIST reports are a perfectly plausible explanation of what happened.

Lee tells us they are not. He laughs at how ridiculous the idea is. He says you don't have to be a genius to see it's wrong. Yet he's totally unable to explain why. He refuses to produce any numbers that disagree with the official story, just claims it's wrong.

That, I find vastly more suspicious.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Of course. EVERYTHING someone says about a topic becomes suspect if you believe they are lying to you about it.

But I'd need some suspicion of some type of coverup first. From why I've seen the NIST reports are a perfectly plausible explanation of what happened.

Lee tells us they are not. He laughs at how ridiculous the idea is. He says you don't have to be a genius to see it's wrong. Yet he's totally unable to explain why. He refuses to produce any numbers that disagree with the official story, just claims it's wrong.

That, I find vastly more suspicious.
Seems like a totally unprecedented event where three out of three buildings collapsed almost totally in the same day where critical data has been denied to the public is enough for me alone . . .
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Seems like a totally unprecedented event where three out of three buildings collapsed almost totally in the same day where critical data has been denied to the public is enough for me alone . . .

Yes, and not that they just collapsed, but the manner of the collapses.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What good is the simulation by either of you if you lack the data from NIST?

You can make reasonable estimates based on known facts, and then verify the basic principles of the collapses.

The physical structure of the buildings are known, there's quite a bit of data out there. The missing data is the connection models, so you'd have to create approximations of them.

http://code.google.com/p/nist-wtc7/source/browse/#hg/LS-DYNA Model wo Conn Models

What access to data does NIST have that AE911 does not? They have the data they created for the connection models, but AE911 could create their own connection models, and open source them so people could verify them.

Again, why has nobody attempted this? They just get all huffy about NIST, but don't do anything about it.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Answer 1 seems to be "why should I, if NIST does not". But I asked why you DON'T release your data. I'm not chastising you, I'm asking why.

I wish NIST would release their data.

I don't make a simulation myself because I don't suspect foul play enough to invest time and energy in checking it.

I don't mean to be too provocative here but it does seem to me that if you feel there would be any benefit to your argument, 'that NIST is accurate', then it would be worthwhile to you in terms of substantiating your position and secondly eradicating scepticism from CTers. Win win as it would presumably cut down on the amount of time you are spending trying to convince people, unsuccessfully, that NIST is right.

Plus the best bit is you get to indulge your passion of debunking in a creative and substantive manner as well as using your expertise in your chosen profession.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You can make reasonable estimates based on known facts, and then verify the basic principles of the collapses.

The physical structure of the buildings are known, there's quite a bit of data out there. The missing data is the connection models, so you'd have to create approximations of them.

http://code.google.com/p/nist-wtc7/source/browse/#hg%2FLS-DYNA%20Model%20wo%20Conn%20Models

What access to data does NIST have that AE911 does not? They have the data they created for the connection models, but AE911 could create their own connection models, and open source them so people could verify them.

Again, why has nobody attempted this? They just get all huffy about NIST, but don't do anything about it.
I would suspect that creating or verifying NIST's simulation is technically beyond but a few rare individuals . . . I not being one . . . those with the knowledge and capacity probably would not want to be associated with such a task and/or fearful their results would be ridiculed and criticized beyond belief . . . sounds like a job for a disinterested third party contractor . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I would suspect that creating or verifying NIST's simulation is technically beyond but a few rare individuals . . . I not being one . . . those with the knowledge and capacity probably would not want to be associated with such a task and/or fearful their results would be ridiculed and criticized beyond belief . . . sounds like a job for a disinterested third party contractor . . .

Yes it does. So AE911 should collect money and pay someone.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't mean to be too provocative here but it does seem to me that if you feel there would be any benefit to your argument, 'that NIST is accurate', then it would be worthwhile to you in terms of substantiating your position and secondly eradicating scepticism from CTers. Win win as it would presumably cut down on the amount of time you are spending trying to convince people, unsuccessfully, that NIST is right.

Plus the best bit is you get to indulge your passion of debunking in a creative and substantive manner as well as using your expertise in your chosen profession.

No, really it wouldn't. It would probably take me at least a year of nearly full time work to do. Then all I would have would be a model that people would pick at for the next ten years saying I fudged the numbers somehow.

My position is that I don't see a reason to doubt the NIST reports. I can't really substantiate that more. You can't get less than no reasons to doubt something.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
You can't get less than no reasons to doubt something.

I can't subscribe to there being no reason to doubt. IMO there are many reasons and just to mention a few:
Unprecedented collapse.

Virtually own footprint

Near free fall speed.

The simulation looks unrealistic. i.e to suggest that there was an internal collapse on one side with no visible effect on the exterior of that side.

In fact visible signs of the collapse first presented on the facade of the other side.

No 'compression puffs' prior to the exterior collapse, which using pancaking theory, there should have been.

No, there are definitely reasons to doubt... that's even without getting into all the political motivation possibilities.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, If it would take a year . . . how much would charge for such a job???

I don't think I'm really qualified, so I don't know. Let's say it would cost $100K. Couldn't AE911 raise that? What exactly are they spending their $434,526 revenue on? Richard Gage's $80,652 salary? $36K in travel and lodging. $32K in "event production". Looks like he's a full time 9/11 salesman now.

View attachment 2010-261532493-07c3d3aa-9.pdf



I suspect that they are really not interested in the facts. They just want to keep spinning it as long as possible. That's why they won't actually do any real science.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I can't subscribe to there being no reason to doubt. IMO there are many reasons and just to mention a few:
Unprecedented collapse.

Virtually own footprint

Near free fall speed.

The simulation looks unrealistic. i.e to suggest that there was an internal collapse on one side with no visible effect on the exterior of that side.

In fact visible signs of the collapse first presented on the facade of the other side.

No 'compression puffs' prior to the exterior collapse, which using pancaking theory, there should have been.

No, there are definitely reasons to doubt... that's even without getting into all the political motivation possibilities.

Things fall down. Of course they will end up in virtually their own footprint. It's impossible for a large steel framed building to topple over. It's not rigid enough.

Near free fall speed matches the NIST report.

Simulations are approximations. The important thing is that it demonstrated the mechanism by which the building collapsed, not the cosmetics.

There would be far fewer compression puffs because WTC7 din not pancake. It collapsed from the bottom down. I'd imagine there would be a lot of "puffs" at the bottom, but nobody could see it. You saw the dust cloud though.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I don't think I'm really qualified, so I don't know. Let's say it would cost $100K. Couldn't AE911 raise that? What exactly are they spending their $434,526 revenue on? Richard Gage's $80,652 salary? $36K in travel and lodging. $32K in "event production". Looks like he's a full time 9/11 salesman now.

View attachment 2010-261532493-07c3d3aa-9.pdf



I suspect that they are really not interested in the facts. They just want to keep spinning it as long as possible. That's why they won't actually do any real science.
It is hard to disagree with your assessment . . . seems they should proceed with some investigations, simulations, and so forth . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Pay special attention to the seconds mark 0:50 in this video . . . seems to me to be a steel or steel reinforced concrete building did not fall in its footprint . . . maybe not unlike WTC 7 . . . failure from bottom . . .

 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
But I'd need some suspicion of some type of coverup first. From why I've seen the NIST reports are a perfectly plausible explanation of what happened.

Lee tells us they are not. He laughs at how ridiculous the idea is. He says you don't have to be a genius to see it's wrong. Yet he's totally unable to explain why. He refuses to produce any numbers that disagree with the official story, just claims it's wrong.

That, I find vastly more suspicious.

I've gone all round the houses with you, M, on various elements of the argument here, and neither of us is changing our mind. I don't want to spend ages more chasing tails always just out of reach.

The reason I laugh at some of the explanations is that they are laughable. Such contortions of logic are really not necessary.

Wtc 7 was 'really a building within a building' (what does that mean?), it collapsed internally first, then the 'skin' fell - here look at this computer model - just like that....where the hell is Occam? You forgot to mention that after all that 'internal bit fell first', 'skin' after - it looked exactly like a controlled demolition. It appears obvious to me that the whole deal was done backwards - we saw what we saw - as did everyone else - and then, avoiding the most likely explanation, Nist went on to create a model which fitted what was observed as closely as they could, neglecting to share vital information relating to how they reached their conclusion. In fact, not 'neglecting to share', but proactively denying access to the critical input. Yes, I laugh because it's laughable. And also to make a point: that it's not so difficult to see that something is wrong with the explanation, no need for round the houses arguments, just a bit of nous and a pair of decent eyeballs required.

Were the buildings up to code? Ofcourse they were, they were way beyond the minimum. The only possibility they weren't would be in the actual qualities of the make-up of the structural elements themselves - and I haven't seen anything to suggest that wasn't the case. Builders, architects and engineers simply do not take those kind of chances - and that goes double for such a visible, prestigious construction project as wtc. It's a non-starter.

On simulations:

It would probably take me at least a year of nearly full time work to do. Then all I would have would be a model that people would pick at for the next ten years saying I fudged the numbers somehow.

Well - there's your answer why I wouldn't do it, even if I had the equipment. My design softwear and two design computers would struggle a bit with that. Not to mention the lack of data to input - it would be so much easier if Nist would just release their input figures and then they could be checked to see if they are viable or not.

And you know, the release of performance data of commonly used building materials cannot 'jeopardize public safety'. Like I said before - it's the opposite - if Nist are right then they must release the data so engineers can see what happened and make design adjustments, or the same thing could happen again - if no-one gets to see the reasons, then how can adjustments be made? That really could 'jeopardize public safety'. It's a no-brainer.
You mentioned that maybe people could see where to place bombs, if such data were released. But who needs bombs? Just start a fire. The potential 'bomb placing' argument is just a red herring, it's not a valid reason because if someone were committed enough to go to those lengths, surely they could acquire the target building plans and hire an engineer to point them at the right spot. Moot point, anyway, as all you need is a few fires and it comes straight down a few hours later.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Wtc 7 was 'really a building within a building' (what does that mean?),

It means that Saloman Brothers did extensive construction to the top 19 floors, removing three of them to create double height floors. The building was designed so this is possible, but it still makes the building more complex. Then there's the fact that it was built over an existing electrical substation, which meant the footing of the building was not even, and a system of transfer trusses was built to redistribute the load. All of which makes things a bit more complex to model.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/19/r...uilding-within-building-cost-200-million.html
''We really had a time constraint,'' explained Gedale B. Horowitz, a senior executive director of Salomon. ''And we were driven very much by technology. We had to find a building that could accommodate our needs, including major-sized trading floors.''Much of the new electrical, air-conditioning and mechanical equipment will serve three double-height trading floors. To create the extra height, workers are removing most of three existing floors, using jackhammers to demolish concrete slabs and torches to remove steel decking and girders beneath the concrete.
After the girders are cut into sections small enough to fit into a construction elevator they will be sold as scrap for about 4 cents a pound.
In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.
''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.
Content from External Source
Interesting to note the comment on redundancy there. Of course on the remodeled floors, that redundancy was removed. And in the area that led to collapse, much more than portions of single floors was removed. Eventually enough was removed so the structural integrity was affected so much it led to collapse.


And also to make a point: that it's not so difficult to see that something is wrong with the explanation, no need for round the houses arguments, just a bit of nous and a pair of decent eyeballs required.

If it's not so difficult, why can every single engineer in the world see it? Why can't you explain it?


Were the buildings up to code? Ofcourse they were, they were way beyond the minimum. The only possibility they weren't would be in the actual qualities of the make-up of the structural elements themselves - and I haven't seen anything to suggest that wasn't the case. Builders, architects and engineers simply do not take those kind of chances - and that goes double for such a visible, prestigious construction project as wtc. It's a non-starter.

I agree.

Well - there's your answer why I wouldn't do it, even if I had the equipment. My design softwear and two design computers would struggle a bit with that. Not to mention the lack of data to input - it would be so much easier if Nist would just release their input figures and then they could be checked to see if they are viable or not.

I wasn't asking you to do it. I was asking you to release the work you said you have already done.

And you know, the release of performance data of commonly used building materials cannot 'jeopardize public safety'. Like I said before - it's the opposite - if Nist are right then they must release the data so engineers can see what happened and make design adjustments, or the same thing could happen again - if no-one gets to see the reasons, then how can adjustments be made? That really could 'jeopardize public safety'. It's a no-brainer.
You mentioned that maybe people could see where to place bombs, if such data were released. But who needs bombs? Just start a fire. The potential 'bomb placing' argument is just a red herring, it's not a valid reason because if someone were committed enough to go to those lengths, surely they could acquire the target building plans and hire an engineer to point them at the right spot. Moot point, anyway, as all you need is a few fires and it comes straight down a few hours later.

I think NIST should release the data, it's unfortunate from a debunking perspective that they do not. But their somewhat paranoid reasons are understandable, given the overly cautious nature of anti-terrorism. That does not mean they are right - just that I can see how people would arrive at that decision from a jobsworth point of view.

And I really think if terrorists wanted to bring down a building then setting fires is hardly a practical method compared to bombs. It's a little hard to disable a sprinkler system, the fire alarms, then set some fires, and let them burn for hours without anyone noticing.
 

Clock

Senior Member.
From what I've read, the buildings were all reeking of asbestos... not sure if it's important to this discussion, though.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
From what I've read, the buildings were all reeking of asbestos... not sure if it's important to this discussion, though.
I think it has been mentioned as a motive for demolition . . . was much cheaper than asbestos remediation . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes, those illustrate that for a building to topple over, it needs to be a relatively small reinforced concrete building with short spans. Here's a simplified schematic:

Wow! Seems that would very easy to scale model and demonstrate in reality . . . and I don't mean on a table top either . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Wow! Seems that would very easy to scale model and demonstrate in reality . . . and I don't mean on a table top either . . .

What do you mean then? Build some buildings and try to push them over?

And isn't it pretty obvious by looking at it? You could do the math, but it does not really seem needed. It's just torque. The long spans are, well, longer, so when a turning force is applied to them there's huge torque on the connections and then the connection break. The building is also a lot bigger than the small examples you show, so that also results in way more force.

And with the WTC compared to your toppling buildings, it's more like this:

 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top