Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[WildCat]

I said one column, not one charge.

Oooh, is this where you finally reveal your theory that is "better than NIST's"?

Of course it isn't, because you were lying about having a theory any more complicated than a Superfriends cartoon.

 

[Mancman]

you assume that it was rigged before 9/11.

afaik was Column 79 accesable from the garage.
and according to Danny Jovenko, it would have been possible to rigg even alot more than just one column.
so you could rigg that one column after the tower collapses.

How would they know that cutting column 79 would collapse the whole building?

How would this account for the motion of the building seen before any column failure? (Motion caused by the internal floor collapse)

 

[WildCat]

Go read the patents how those devices work........

Hint: Hot gases

What devices?

Hint: if you point to that patent which cuts steel "up to 1/2" in diameter" you will get the laughing dog.

 

[X]

Yeah, they say you can analyze a supposed straight down, from the top, gravitational collapse of a very tall man made structure without knowing the distribution of steel and concrete in the structure.

Even though the NIST said that info was necessary just to analyze the airliner impact:

2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations

Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.

[/INDENT]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5D.pdf page 74

The conservation of momentum is SO UNSCIENTIFIC.

psik

Please explain how an analysis of impulse excitations during airplane impact can be used to tell what is required for an analysis of the collapse.

I fail to see the relevance.

It would help if you had a quote from a section of the NIST report that actually relates to the collapse, instead of one dealing with something completely different.

 

[Baylor]

If NIST concludes that WTC 7 was brought down by the weakening of one column, Column 79, then that's the only column that would need to be rigged with explosives in the CD scenario.

In other words, if global collapse can occur by the failure of one column, then CD can be accomplished by the demo of this one column, as well.

Then the truthers would have to give up nearly every claim they hold near and dear. (i.e. "Symmetrical Collapse" and "Virtual Free Fall.")

 

[Dave Rogers]

I was not aware of this. Can you supply a reference please?

I don't have one handy, but there have been several threads discussing it. Can anyone else help out here? The request was for a reference to other buildings damaged by debris from WTC7. I believe the Verizon building and 30 West Broadway suffered some damage.

I understand that Steven Jones has built and tested thermate devices that slice through a steel column in seconds, so there is quite a high degree of control required. However, I would still suspect that conventional explosives were used to trigger the actual collapse and that the thermate devices were merely for weakening the steel in advance.

One video has been posted which claims to show a thermate device cutting through a piece of steel rebar; the device is very much larger than the bar. Patents exist from about 2005 for devices to cut up to a 1" steel column with a ceramic device, again very much larger than the column. It seems obvious that a thermal technique would require longer to sever a larger column, as the maximum temperature difference is fixed by the temperature achieved by thermate combustion, and the heat has to be conducted through a greater difference.

(Steven Jones isn't involved in either of these as far as I know.)

Since conventional explosives melt at well below the temperatures achieved by thermate, if both were used, then the explosives would have to be well separated from the thermate. In effect, they'd have to trigger the collapse by severing a different part of the column to the part that had been weakened by thermate. Therefore, we're back to a requirement that the explosives would have to collapse the columns unaided, hence deafening everybody within half a mile even if only one column was destroyed. Your scenario therefore replaces one impossibility (either silent explosives or precisely controlled thermate) with either two impossibilities (explosives that survive thermate temperatures, and silent explosives) or an impossibility and an irrelevance (silent explosives and thermate that doesn't actually cause the collapse). Note that there's no point in weakening the structure distant from the collapse initiation zone; it's well-enough understood that once the collapse begins, it can't be stopped.

Note, also, that there's no known way of even weakening a column the size of WTC7 column 79 using thermate.

The NIST report halts at the point of collapse, saying, in effect that the fall after that is too unpredictable.

You're conflating the WTC1/2 report with the WTC7 report, which does model the collapse. It's debatable how well the model reproduces observations, but this isn't a reason to assume CD; as far as I know nobody's modelled a CD collapse accurately either, and the NIST model does generally reporduce the observation that WTC7 only tilted a relatively small angle as it fell.

The other was the sound of the blasts, which they modeled based on an assumption that explosives would be placed in a tenanted floor of the building rather than in a basement location, and that only loud high velocity explosives could have been used.

Only high velocity explosives can create an intense enough shockwave to sever steel, and since they work by creating a shockwave, they cannot be anything other than loud. This is an important point; being able to sever steel and being very loud are not independent properties, they are different aspects of the same property. Therefore, quiet explosives that sever steel cannot possibly exist.

As for basement locations, WTC7 was built over an electricity substation that was entirely above grade. It didn't have any basement locations.

If NIST concludes that WTC 7 was brought down by the weakening of one column, Column 79, then that's the only column that would need to be rigged with explosives in the CD scenario.

Which is why, presumably, NIST studied the audible effects of an explosive charge that would only sever column 79, and found that it would have created enough noise to cause permanent hearing impairment to anyone within half a mile. Even the limited possibility you're discussing has been eliminated.

Dave

 

[leonAzul]

Ultra short version:
If WTC7 was not a controlled demolition, why does it look like one?

Because that is what it looks like when a building collapses, regardless of initial cause.

 

[DC]

Because that is what it looks like when a building collapses, regardless of initial cause.

when that is true, why does the NIST FEA not look like a CD?

 

[leonAzul]

when that is true, why does the NIST FEA not look like a CD?

1) Because a FEA is a mathematical model of critical conditions, and not a molecule by molecule representation of an event.

2) Because the focus of this particular analysis is on emergent and preventable conditions that initiated the collapse, in order to recommend changes in building codes that might better prevent such collapses in the future.

 

[DC]

1) Because a FEA is a mathematical model of critical conditions, and not a molecule by molecule representation of an event.

2) Because the focus of this particular analysis is on emergent and preventable conditions that initiated the collapse, in order to recommend changes in building codes that might better prevent such collapses in the future.

LS-Dyna is so precise, the automobile industrie is using it for crashtest, to see the bahavior of their car in a crash. And it is very precise, not just approximate prezise. the software is very accurate.

they used it to find the collapse mechanism, not to test the code changes.

 

[CliveHill]

To CliveHill, welcome. I believe at the moment you are the only Truth Movement member here asking reasonable questions... so good on you.

Thank you.

1. The collapse was not simultaneous. As you should be aware, the core preceded the perimeter by several seconds. While the perimeter wall did fail more or less at once, and this is not too surprising given the design. I answered a similar question early in this thread in this post, which you probably haven't seen due to the large size of this thread and frequent bad behavior of posters therein. I should remark that the post above was written before the NIST WTC 7 report, but is materially consistent with their findings.

I have skimmed that post and downloaded the wgite paper it refers to , which I intend to read later.
I will just comment on one concern that struck me, you seemed to say that a taller building would require a greater hinge action in order to tilt, surely the opposite is true?

2. You need to be careful defining "virtual free fall." We know the collapse was not actually in "free fall," so how different is enough?

I applied the same technique to measure the roofline of the WTC1 collapse and found it to be around 7 m/s², quite a significant force is needed to reduce the acceleration of so much mass by 2m/s², so I thought it significant that the upper section of WTC1 had this and WTC7 did not.

I can't respond to this unless you give me more detail. Nothing in the NCSTAR1A appears "dishonest" to me.

They stated that the first 18 floors took 5.4 seconds to fall.

The witness statements regarding "explosions" and "shockwaves" are of neither, as video of the phenomena demonstrate. Just loud noises and structural flexure, nothing at all unpredicted.

Charges large enough to sever structural elements are insanely loud. Ever been to the rifle range? Take that and add about 40-60 dB. There is no way the video could have failed to capture those sounds, yet it did. That alone closes the book on CD by explosives.

I have indeed been to rifle ranges.
The witness reports of the 'explosions' they heard are not that detailed.
Phrases such as 'a massive explosion', 'a sound like a clap of thunder' and 'a real ba-boom' are not easily interpreted as necessarily being less than 130dB.
Are you aware that the world record belch is almost 120dB?

 

[R.Mackey]

Thank you.
I have skimmed that post and downloaded the wgite paper it refers to , which I intend to read later.
I will just comment on one concern that struck me, you seemed to say that a taller building would require a greater hinge action in order to tilt, surely the opposite is true?

No. Think of it like this -- as a structure gets taller, its moment of rotational inertia scales roughly as the square of its height. This means it takes an increasingly high force to get it turning in the first place. A tall structure is simply not designed to rotate, and so it will tend to buckle or crumble in the middle before it can support this force.

This is why a short structure, say an aluminum rod a meter long, can topple over with ease, but a very tall one -- even strengthened to match its height -- like a radio tower tends to bend in the middle rather than just topple.

Same principle applies to WTC 7. It was very tall and couldn't rotate as a unit anyway. Any rotation it experienced meant cross-ties and bracing would pull free, further reducing columns' ability to resist buckling. And the sheer height makes those buckling forces irresistible.

I applied the same technique to measure the roofline of the WTC1 collapse and found it to be around 7 m/s², quite a significant force is needed to reduce the acceleration of so much mass by 2m/s², so I thought it significant that the upper section of WTC1 had this and WTC7 did not.

See the thread with Gregory Urich's comments. The main reason the Towers collapsed slower was because there was momentum transfer high in the air, between the upper and lower blocks. In other words, the Towers didn't all start falling at once, and the inertia of the lower blocks absorbed a good amount of the velocity. This doesn't happen in WTC 7. It all starts falling more or less at the same time, and as a result, there is no momentum transfer except at the ground. It's perfectly normal given the difference in phenomenology.

They stated that the first 18 floors took 5.4 seconds to fall.

And..? Where do we start the clock?

I have indeed been to rifle ranges.
The witness reports of the 'explosions' they heard are not that detailed.
Phrases such as 'a massive explosion', 'a sound like a clap of thunder' and 'a real ba-boom' are not easily interpreted as necessarily being less than 130dB.
Are you aware that the world record belch is almost 120dB?

I was not aware of that, and it sounds horrifying...
I trust this is 120 dB at 1 meter, you didn't specify. NIST describes a sound 130 dB at 1 kilometer. To match that, you would need approximately the entire population of New York City belching, at that volume, in unison.

A demolition charge is not like a clap of thunder. What you hear is essentially a shock wave, a very, very sharp CRACK much like a rifle shot or a sonic boom. There is no conceivable way this sound could have been muffled. It would have appeared on virtually all of the recordings near the event, to say nothing of the very sensitive detectors described by Protec that even captured the air motion from the collapses.

It is also extremely unlikely that, had a demolition taken place, there would have been only a single charge. Anything of this complexity should have had redundancy and a good margin of safety built into its design. I would expect to hear many charges go off -- and this noise is unmistakable, multiple shocks in rapid succession. Nothing else sounds like that. The only other alternative, from a mission success standpoint, is to put in a single very large explosive, big enough that precise placement or optimal structural weakening was not a factor. I trust you can see the problem with this approach as well.

 

[Brainache]

Another point about an explosive big enough to sever that collumn is that the pressure wave would also shatter most if not all the windows in the buildings around GZ.

Did that happen?

 

[leonAzul]

LS-Dyna is so precise, the automobile industrie is using it for crashtest, to see the bahavior of their car in a crash. And it is very precise, not just approximate prezise. the software is very accurate.

they used it to find the collapse mechanism, not to test the code changes.

No doubt because they have prepared the car with sensors to acquire accurate data.

Now that would be evidence: if it could be proven that the NIST had prepped the buildings with motion sensors in anticipation of the collapse :-/
[/ot]

 

[Baylor]

Thank you.
I have indeed been to rifle ranges.
The witness reports of the 'explosions' they heard are not that detailed.
Phrases such as 'a massive explosion', 'a sound like a clap of thunder' and 'a real ba-boom' are not easily interpreted as necessarily being less than 130dB.
Are you aware that the world record belch is almost 120dB?

This is no belch we're talking about. A shaped charge focuses all its energy in one direction, otherwise the steel won't cut. This process is known as the Munroe Effect, which generates pressure exceepding 21,000 MPa, or 3,000,000,000 psi. Which, of course, would be unmistakable anywhere, let a lone downtown Manhattan with the whole world watching. I've yet to see the TM even attempt to solve this problem.

 

[jhunter1163]

Fiterman Hall, across Vesey Street from WTC7, was severely damaged by debris from WTC7.

 

[Baylor]

Ultra short version:
If WTC7 was not a controlled demolition, why does it look like one?

.

Well, 1) a controlled demolition IS a progressive collapse. The technical term for a CD is "explosive-induced progressive collapse". But that doesn't sound sexy. 2) This did not look/sound like a controlled demolition. I've been to several (notice my city). One can clearly see column 79 fail as it brought the rest of the structure with it.

In short, all controlled demolitions are progressive collapses. Not all progressive collapses are controlled demolitions. Hope I cleared that up for you.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Since conventional explosives melt at well below the temperatures achieved by thermate, if both were used, then the explosives would have to be well separated from the thermate.

You do know there is such a thing as a thermite bomb.

Also you might want to look up oil pipe companies, they have been using chemical and mechanical cutters for years.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Please explain how an analysis of impulse excitations during airplane impact can be used to tell what is required for an analysis of the collapse.

I fail to see the relevance.

It would help if you had a quote from a section of the NIST report that actually relates to the collapse, instead of one dealing with something completely different.

The mass of a car affects its behavior in accelerating from a standing start but it also affects the behavior in a sharp turn. Inertia is inertia. The height of the center of mass is probably more important in the turn than in the straight line acceleration but mass affects both. Similar things apply to the World Trade Center. The inertia of a large mass is relevant regardless of direction from which force is applied.

I have searched the NCSTAR1 report for "weight distribution", "mass distribution", "distribution of weight" and "distribution of mass". They talk about the distribution of the weight of the airplane more than they do about the building. I have only found two instances discussing the distribution in the building and neither is about the collapse. One is about the impact which I quoted about and the other is about the effect of the wind which is a lateral force like the plane.

It is certainly curious that they do not bring this up in relation to the collapse in a 10,000 page report especially when they claim to be "World renowned experts" on building collapses. ROFLMAO

Why is NIST doing this investigation?
NIST scientists and engineers are world-renowned experts in analyzing a building’s failure and determining the most probable technical cause.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.htm

That report on suspended ceilings is the only place I found the use of the term "center of mass". I still don't understand why they bothered researching the ceilings. The only video I have seen of a 9/11 survivor talking about stuff falling from the ceiling was in the basement and that report doesn't contain the word basement. WHAT A FARCE!

psik

 

[Travis]

You do know there is such a thing as a thermite bomb.

Also you might want to look up oil pipe companies, they have been using chemical and mechanical cutters for years.

You are aware that a thermite cutter is extremely ungainly and needs to be attached directly to what it is to cut and produces an enormous amount of light when it is activated?

You knew all that right?