'What about building 7'?

[ozeco41]

I'm not so sure about this. I'm fairly sure NIST started their investigation on 9/12. Although un-official, they had people on site from the beginning....

You are right - my quick comment a bit off target - BUT the overriding realities IMO are still:
1) Never was, never has been reason to consider CD; AND
2) If anyone had seen anything suspicious about the steel many would have seen it and someone would have blown the whistle.

If they saw something suspicious, they would have reported it. Back to the "truthers", NIST did not report it because they were "in on it"....

Sensible comments from truthers are rare events. And in 2014 far less frequent than "back in the day" say 2006-7-8---9 when there were still some "genuine truthers" around. I may be wrong and he is a "special case" but I think T Sz genuinely believes his delusions. He's the only remaining one I accept as truther on face value - and a sad case IMO. Have no opinion about Dadeets - haven't discussed seriously with him since his very early days on internet and he only came across as "half hearted" back then. It may have been a front at that time.

"Truthers" don't actually accuse anyone. They're just trying to "connect the dots" by "asking questions".

Among their other evasive tricks. My "twin hypotheses" of "most truthers cannot think - that is why they became truthers" are IMO relevant. I keep intending to OP a thread but I think it is too late and too "psychological" for the three forums I terrorise.

Time to turn of the lights and A/C and find some new hobbies. It's been a good one - technically centre mainstream of my expertise and no doubt from the outset that "we were on the winning side" so has been a fertile ground for explaining things - preceded by the necessary learning and working it out for myself to satisfy my own standards. The boundary overlap confusions Bazantian abstract models v what really happened probably the most contentious area. Certainly much confused as I found to my dismay recently when I presumed most of us were by now singing off the same sheet of music.

Understanding "cascade failure" of Twins collapse initiation probably the most complex technical bit. "We" still haven't got that one clear.

Well I have but the rest of you wouldn't believe me - even if I could explain a complex 4D event (3D plus time/dynamics) in mere words. Wth my penchant for mega-words it would exceed the posting limit by several times.

 

[beachnut]

JSanderO,

I'm quite surprised you are so nonchalant about this. They left out steel plate stiffeners and lateral support pieces at the critical point that would have prevented the failure they claimed happened.

To say they lacked real world data...they had the drawings! Why would they selectively leave out critical items that just so happened to allow their simulation to produce a collapse?

Read about the missing stiffeners and lateral support here:

http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-5/

Wow, guess consensus 911 has no qualified structural engineers on this point. But feel free to make a rational point, you have no point; just talk.

With the support of less than 0.1 percent of all engineers, 911 truth fails for the 13th year, on a solid goal of infinite fail - because you have no evidence.

Sad thing, consensus 911 has no rational structural engineers to help explain why the claims are silly. 911 truth followers take maked up nonsense, can't explain why it matters, and claim CD. 911 truth followers offer no evidence; Only a bunch of failed opinions. Can't wait for the lies to fly on Flight 93, or 77. Get busy proving, or get busy retracting the implied lies. NASA must be so proud of your anti-government, anti-intellectual stand on 911.

911 truth essentially says the FAA, NTSB, FBI, ARMY, NAVY, USAF, NIST are all in on 911. 911 truth, such a silly movement of woo.

Where do 911 truth guys hide the overwhelming evidence; if true would be the biggest Pulitzer Prize in history (but newspapers need reality based evidence not nonsense from a failed movement). Funny, you have nothing, and here we are typing fast in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories section of a skeptic forum and 911 truth has failed, consensus 911 has failed to provide evidence for irrational claims.

911 truth has failed - it took, what, a year to get a Pulitzer for Watergate, and 911 truth claims big time evidence in their 13th year of really dumb claims with zero evidence.

Why can't you explain what your point is? What did the CD in your fantasy, thermite, or silent explosives?

 

[ozeco41]

...Sad thing, consensus 911 has no rational structural engineers to help explain why the claims are silly.

That is my assessment - hence my advice to Dadeets to seek advice from one or more engineers who are competent to assess WTC 9/11 matters.

 

[dadeets]

Dadeets,

That report was authored by Jonathan Barnett, who I have talked to personally about the whole sufidized steel question. You are right about this: " Their first concluding statement was, "The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation." " (BTW what does this have to do with melting steel in bulk quantities?)

What does this have to do with melting steel? According to the NY Times article in Nov 2001, Dr. Jonathan Barnett said of the steel specimen, "appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures." My comment is 'evaporated' goes way beyond 'melted' in terms of temperature.

Your question to Dr. Barnett, "could thermite have done it?" Well, my answer is, there is no evidence of thermite at WTC7. The dust samples studied by the international team were collected very early after the Twin Towers collapsed.

 

[beachnut]

911 truth quote mines NY Times to make up vaporized steel, More Woo

What does this have to do with melting steel? According to the NY Times article in Nov 2001, Dr. Jonathan Barnett said of the steel specimen, "appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures." My comment is 'evaporated' goes way beyond 'melted' in terms of temperature.

Your question to Dr. Barnett, "could thermite have done it?" Well, my answer is, there is no evidence of thermite at WTC7. The dust samples studied by the international team were collected very early after the Twin Towers collapsed.

What a load of BS.

I can't believe 911 truth quote mines the NY Times as if it is the truth, a work of science. A reporters work, and total BS when we read the report, the study done on the "mystery steel". I have worked with newspaper reporters, they don't get it right all the time, and they have to make a story...

Big clue, the NY Times article comes first, claims of vaporized steel and other BS - then the steel WAS studied. Appendix C is the real study of the steel, and it was found to be exposed to temperatures up to 1000 C, not melting, not higher than 1000 C, thus you failed to read Appendix C, or you have other issues.

The steel was only up to 1000C. End of your fantasy world. You can't vaporize steel at 1000C, so you have made up nonsense by not taking the time to gain knowledge.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
This report was after the NY Times 911 truth silly fake experts were Quote Mining to make up woo.

You and your buddies are spreading lies based on lies.

911 truth fails to read for comprehension, and then they make up idiotic lies based on opinions and poor reading and research skills, and their failed work only fools people who can't think for themselves, people like the Boston bombers...

https://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
No melted steel, only failed reading skills of 911 truth so called "experts", and super patriots who know 911 was an inside job because they say so.

Then you say the steel vaporized, making up a bigger lie.

reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese. https://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

Key words, "occurred at the surface", and "eutectic". Ask a Chemical Engineer why the steel did not melt, did not vaporize, you don't seem to understand Chemical Engineering.

 

[ozeco41]

....you don't seem to understand Chemical Engineering.

And get a competent engineer to explain the structures aspects.

 

[Seymour Butz]

The "swiss cheese" steel specimen was reported on in Appendix C "Limited Metallurgical Examination" in the FEMA Building Performance Report, and stated by the fire safety professors as coming from WTC 7. Their first concluding statement was, "The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation."

NIST, when they got around to studying WTC 7, chose to ignore the steel specimen. Furthermore, they stated repeatedly, "No Steel Was Recovered."

IIRC, the piece of steel mentioned here got sorted on the way to Fresh Kills. So a column was saved at some point. But nobody's gonna be hauling a column all over creation for the fun of it, nor would they be able to fit an entire column into the electron microscope to look at the grain structure to make their determining study.

So then it's obvious to anyone with an above room temp IQ that the Swiss cheesed portion prolly got cut out at Fresh Kills

Therefore it is a correct statement that no steel from 7 was saved. Or at least it is understood , again by anyone with an above room temp IQ, that no steel that can help determining how the fire caused the collapse was saved.

 

[Justin39640]

IIRC, the piece of steel mentioned here got sorted on the way to Fresh Kills. So a column was saved at some point. But nobody's gonna be hauling a column all over creation for the fun of it, nor would they be able to fit an entire column into the electron microscope to look at the grain structure to make their determining study.

So then it's obvious to anyone with an above room temp IQ that the Swiss cheesed portion prolly got cut out at Fresh Kills

Therefore it is a correct statement that no steel from 7 was saved. Or at least it is understood , again by anyone with an above room temp IQ, that no steel that can help determining how the fire caused the collapse was saved.

IIRC, all of 7's steel went right to a local scrapper in Brooklyn or Queens. Fresh Kills is where all the tower steel was sent for the murder investigations and to look for remains.

The person who found the corroded steel from 7 noticed it on the street, on a flatbed trailer, as it was about to leave ground zero, again, IIRC.

Since no one died in 7WTC, the steel wasn't really evidence in the context of the murder investigations. It was in the way and had to be removed immediately. 7WTC was just another victim that day.

 

[Justin39640]

Remember too, Fresh Kills isn't a scrapyard. It's a landfill. It's one of the few places in the five boroughs that had enough room to store and work on the tower steel and everything else that was saved from Ground Zero. That includes dirt and dust they sifted through, by hand, looking for remains.

 

[AZCat]

IIRC, all of 7's steel went right to a local scrapper in Brooklyn or Queens. Fresh Kills is where all the tower steel was sent for the murder investigations and to look for remains.

The person who found the corroded steel from 7 noticed it on the street, on a flatbed trailer, as it was about to leave ground zero, again, IIRC.

Since no one died in 7WTC, the steel wasn't really evidence in the context of the murder investigations. It was in the way and had to be removed immediately. 7WTC was just another victim that day.

It's also possible that NIST was simply unable to positively identify any steel as being from WTC7. If you look through NCSTAR 1-3B which is the Steel Inventory and Identification report, they have tables that show how much of the steel recovered was not identified (see Appendix A for tables).

 

[jaydeehess]

What do you mean, "NIST didn't receive"? In 9/11 Consensus Point WTC7-6,

http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-6/

There is a photo of NIST investigator Dr. John Gross examining the WTC7 steel in the scrap yard. Clearly, he chose not to "receive" it.

Which simply bolsters my point, reiterated by DGM.
See above

 

[jaydeehess]

It should be noted, however, that NIST does not do murder investigation.

 

[DGM]

The boundary overlap confusions Bazantian abstract models v what really happened probably the most contentious area. Certainly much confused as I found to my dismay recently when I presumed most of us were by now singing off the same sheet of music.

A large part of this is due to the venue this is being discussed. The mechanics of the collapses has nothing to do with conspiracy. Face it, a pure engineering discussion of this would put most to sleep.

Understanding "cascade failure" of Twins collapse initiation probably the most complex technical bit. "We" still haven't got that one clear.

You would have to define what level of "clear" one would expect given the venue this is being "discussed".

 

[jaydeehess]

A large part of this is due to the venue this is being discussed. The mechanics of the collapses has nothing to do with conspiracy. Face it, a pure engineering discussion of this would put most to sleep.



You would have to define what level of "clear" one would expect given the venue this is being "discussed".

Oh indeed. One need look no further than the past thread discussing femr2's examination of the collapse of WTC7. Page after page of discussion of technical analysis and methods of plotting data points on a graph. Did not take long for that to involve only a very few posters.

 

[dadeets]

they already knew the building would collapse,

With no precedent of fire-induced collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings, there was no basis for "already knowing" the building would collapse. Unless, they knew it would collapse for another reason.

By the way, I can't believe people still pull the "free fall" card, when there was no period of constant free fall acceleration, and free fall acceleration of the exterior is fully explainable by interior collapse leveraging the exterior by occurring first.

Likewise, there is no precedent (nor is there a physics-based explanation) for the phenomenon you describe. The only way for free fall is if all lower support is removed (acknowledged by NIST WTC Project Manager Shyam Sunder, see Ref.3 of Consensus Point WTC7-3). Sunder stated free fall was impossible (Ref 2 of Consensus Point WTC7-2). However, in the NIST Final Report, the report agrees, free fall did occur for 2 sec. (Ref. 1 of Consensus Point WTC7-3).

 

[JSanderO]

Likewise, there is no precedent (nor is there a physics-based explanation) for the phenomenon you describe. The only way for free fall is if all lower support is removed (acknowledged by NIST WTC Project Manager Shyam Sunder, see Ref.3 of Consensus Point WTC7-3). Sunder stated free fall was impossible (Ref 2 of Consensus Point WTC7-2). However, in the NIST Final Report, the report agrees, free fall did occur for 2 sec. (Ref. 1 of Consensus Point WTC7-3).

Removed or pushed out of the way? Disruption or discontinuity of the load paths does not imply CD. No?

 

[ozeco41]

With no precedent of fire-induced collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings, there was no basis for "already knowing" the building would collapse. Unless, they knew it would collapse for another reason.

Those three are among the most asinine stupid lies by innuendo of the truther repertoire.

Steel buildings are known to be vulnerable to fire. That vulnerability is one of the major design premises. They are designed with fire resistance and fire fighting systems inbuilt. On the basis that those provisions give a period of time in which:
a) Occupants can escape; AND
b) Active fire fighting methods can be implemented.

On 9/11 WTC 7 was evacuated early. There was no fire fighting. No sprinkler water after the first period - if any - and the fires were unfought. From that stage pure luck as to building design and fire progress whether it would collapse or not. WTC7 lost the gamble. No amount of truther parroted mendacity changes that. The signs were observed. And even if you dispute those signs you cannot dispute that collapse happened. And there is no credible alternate hypothesis.

It is 2014. No one in leading roles in allegedly truth seeking organisations can be unaware of those realities. So your repeating of the untruth must be deliberate.

Likewise, there is no precedent...

Probably partially true but irrelevant - it means nothing because it merely props up the lies you parroted in the first part of your post.

(nor is there a physics-based explanation) for the phenomenon you describe.

False. And pointless parading your ignorance of physics here. Plenty of us - me included - could teach you the physics if you wanted to learn.

This next bit is probably too subtle for your comprehension of the physics and logic issues but:

The only way for free fall is if all lower support is removed..

That - independent of who you attribute it to - is a partial truth set up as a lie by innuendo which relies on two main errors which I and many others here can easily explain.

(acknowledged by NIST WTC Project Manager Shyam Sunder, see Ref.3 of Consensus Point WTC7-3). Sunder stated free fall was impossible (Ref 2 of Consensus Point WTC7-2)...

Why give a damn whether Sunder said it or not - either you are quote-mining him to miss the point or... Matters not. The whole free fall issue is a truther red herring. I can explain the correct physics if you ever decide to get serious.

However, in the NIST Final Report, the report agrees, free fall did occur for 2 sec. (Ref. 1 of Consensus Point WTC7-3).

So what? Free-fall occurs when there is net zero resistance on a body acting under gravity. When gravity is effectively the only force applied. Read that several times and see if you can work out what is the significance of that three letter word "net". Whilst you are at it try reviewing "free fall did occur". Free fall of what?

AND get rid of the truther nonsense meme you are relying on. Free Fall DOES NOT distinguish a collapse initiated by CD from a collapse initiated by any other mechanism.

Probably your best way to move towards understanding is to take the advice I've given several times. Get a competent engineer to explain it all to you. Sure you wont believe me - you need someone who you can trust. And that could limit the field somewhat.

 

[jaydeehess]

It should be pointed out that no one at all predicted that WTC7 would collapse globally. The evacuation was for the worst case because anything less would be asinine, criminal negligence even.
When FFs stated it was going to collapse they were expecting anything up global collapse. Several storeys worth of the SW corner had been torn away for keyriestsake! It was bulging on the south side. It was on fire on several floors, each of which, on their own, would have been considered as large scale fires.
IOW there were multiple mechanisms by which at least partial collapse was a very real probability.

 

[ozeco41]

My own training is in the AU National and NSW State Counter Disaster protocols. I'm more accustomed to the wide open spaces problems - fires, floods and storm scenarios plus water supply system failures. I cannot accurately put myself in the frame of events facing the disaster controller on that day in the crowded setting of NYC.

BUT I cannot see any basis for NOT evacuating that building. And that is the decision framed the right way round IMNSHO - given all the circumstances get the people out UNLESS there is an overriding reason to not do so.

There were quite a few high rise US buildings evacuated on the day - precautionary prudence.

 

[dadeets]

Disruption or discontinuity of the load paths does not imply CD. No?

Those words don't fit free fall. Only abrupt removal of lower structure fit. NIST tried to make the case that something other than removal of lower structure fit via their simulation model. But, it turns out, they had to leave out stiffeners and braces, and be very lax in their standards as to what constitutes matching the video records.

And finally, NIST also found it necessary to refuse to release details of their simulation model when they were served with a FOIA.