The Impossible Fast Collapse of The Towers

[Stundie]

Damage the support structures and heat will take care of the rest.

Sorry but I was talking about WTC 7 and not WTC 1 or 2.

But there is no truth in your statement above, the Windsor Towers support structures were damaged and caused only a partial collapse. So the heat from the raging inferno which burned at much higher temperatures and longer than all 3 WTC didn't take care of the rest did it? It didn't collapse to the ground did it.

Even if the heat weakens and buckles the steel, that doesn't mean a collapse will ensue considering there is an undamaged structure underneath already holding the structure above the failure point.

And the NIST reports doesn't have a collapse method, they talk about the collapse initiation and then call it a progressive collapse which they say was inevitable but they haven't modelled the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. They then refer to Bazant 1D mathematical model which is fundamentally flawed, even his last model was no better.

So thanks for point out the NIST reports from Wikipedia, but this still doesn't address the questions raised or model the collapse of the WTC 1&2. Its the equivalent of a Christian telling you that the bible is correct because it's the word of god.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Stundie

[Q24]

Is that a yes or a no?

I am 100% of the opinion all three WTC buildings were brought down as a result of demolition.

By extension I am of the opinion it is impossible the collapses on 9/11 were caused solely by the impacts and fires.

[Stundie]

Initial opinions and analysisImpact locations for 1 (right) and 2 WTCThe first person to theorize that the buildings collapsed due to structural failure due to fire was actually an eye-witness Fox News freelancer named Mark Walsh. At 11:55 am on September 11, Walsh was asked about what he saw from his apartment. "... I was watching with my roommate. It was approximately several minutes after the first plane had hit. I saw this plane come out of nowhere and just ream right into the side of the Twin Tower exploding through to the other side, and then I witnessed both towers collapse, one first, and then the second, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense."

The NIST paint analysis from the fire affected areas shows that statement to be totally wrong.

Unless the NIST is wrong and Mark Walsh is right of course??

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, numerous structural engineers and experts spoke to the media, describing what they thought caused the towers to collapse. Hassan Astaneh, a structural engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley, explained that the high temperatures in the fires weakened the steel beams and columns, causing them to become "soft and mushy", and eventually they were unable to support the structure above. Astaneh also suggested that the fireproofing became dislodged during the initial aircraft impacts. He also explained that, once the initial structural failure occurred, progressive collapse of the entire structure was inevitable. Cesar Pelli, who designed the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the World Financial Center in New York, remarked, "no building is prepared for this kind of stress."

All this, without looking at single piece of evidence to come to their conclusion.

How scientific is that??

On September 13, 2001, Zdeněk Bažant, professor of civil engineering and materials science at Northwestern University, circulated a draft paper with results of a simple analysis of the World Trade Center collapse. Bažant suggested that heat from the fires was a key factor, causing steel columns in both the core and the perimeter to weaken and experience deformation before losing their carrying capacity and buckling. Once more than half of the columns on a particular floor buckled, the overhead structure could no longer be supported and complete collapse of the structures occurred. Bažant later published an expanded version of this analysis. Other analyses were conducted by MIT civil engineers Oral Buyukozturk and Franz-Josef Ulm, who also described a collapse mechanism on September 21, 2001. They later contributed to an MIT collection of papers on the WTC collapses edited by Eduardo Kausel called The Towers Lost and Beyond.

So 2 days after the attacks, it's all been worked out.

Makes you wonder why the NIST bothered when Zdeněk Columbo had the case cracked within 2 days, again without looking at a scrap of evidence.

As you can see, WTC 2 supported more weight to support above than WTC 1, which was another reason why WTC 2 collapsed before WTC 1 despite less heat-soaking time than WTC 1.

I think it's amazing how WTC1 upper portions of 17 floor manage to smash there way through 93 floors of a progressively stronger lower portion considering that the lower floors were much stronger as they were designed to withstand higher gravity loads and the core column thickness tapered in height, being thicker lower down and thinner higher up.)

Its the equivalent of Bruce Lee doing a one inch punch and sparking out an elephant.

[booNyzarC]

I am 100% of the opinion all three WTC buildings were brought down as a result of demolition.

By extension I am of the opinion it is impossible the collapses on 9/11 were caused solely by the impacts and fires.

Thank you for answering.

Are you of the opinion that demolition of the towers was impossible?

No. But I am 100% of the opinion that all three of the WTC buildings were brought down as a result of the planes, impact damage, and resulting fires.

[Scott G]

Part of the Conspiricy... Duh. Bush Jr faxed those poor dupe Muslims the exact numbers to put into the Autopilot so it could hit those towers within a meter and make the demolition that was previously set up, by hundreds of professional, amoral, paid off demolition experts, go off without a hitch.

First of all, no need to actually involve any of these so called muslim hijackers at all in piloting the planes to their doom. They may have -thought- they were going to hijack aircraft. Who knows, maybe some actually did. But it was all irrelevant; there's no way their awful piloting skills could have pulled off such precision flying. The most likely scenario is that the planes were remote controlled or even computer controlled. It's also highly likely that the planes that actually hit the buildings weren't normal commercial airliners. There's a fair amount of talk of how the planes could have been switched. This is the best article on the subject to date:

The "4" Flights of 9/11 - What about the Passengers? What happened to them?

Edited September 29, 2011 by Scott G

[booNyzarC]

--

I think it's amazing how WTC1 upper portions of 17 floor manage to smash there way through 93 floors of a progressively stronger lower portion considering that the lower floors were much stronger as they were designed to withstand higher gravity loads and the core column thickness tapered in height, being thicker lower down and thinner higher up.)

Its the equivalent of Bruce Lee doing a one inch punch and sparking out an elephant.

You underestimate the power of gravity.

[Q24]

But I am 100% of the opinion that all three of the WTC buildings were brought down as a result of the planes, impact damage, and resulting fires.

Why?

NIST did prove there was an impact and fire range which would not cause collapse.

How do you know that was not the case on 9/11?

[booNyzarC]

Why?

NIST did prove there was an impact and fire range which would not cause collapse.

How do you know that was not the case on 9/11?

Many reasons. Not the least of which is that nobody has presented a plausible alternative which actually supports any kind of demolition being involved. Frankly, suggesting that demolitions played a role is absolutely ludicrous in my opinion.

Add the fact that many in the supposed truth movement continue to push absolute and outright lies, what is one to think? Take Loose Change as an example. What a complete load of BS. Lie after lie after lie. It's disgusting to me. And disrespectful to the many people who lost their lives on that day, not to mention their families who have to be subjected to this crap on top of their loss.

And this Harrit paper nonsense. Thermitic materials in the dust? The paper is utterly useless, the methadology flawed in so many ways, and people push it like it is God's Gospel. Complete crap.

Yeah, this is a truth movement. BS.

As for NIST, do they have everything precisely right? Probably not. I'm sure there are some errors. In fact, I suspect that their conclusions about WTC 7 to be partially incorrect when they stated that the damage from the debris didn't have a significant impact on the eventual collapse. If a big chunk of that front facade hadn't been scooped out by the debris, I suspect that WTC 7 may not have collapsed.

But this, of course, is all just my opinion. I'm not a scientist or an architect or an engineer. I'm just an average guy with an opinion. Take it for whatever it's worth.

[Stundie]

There was a problem with the water pressure, but that is not what stopped the FDNY attacking the WTC7 fire. There was initially limited water but more that could have been pumped from tugboats on the Hudson. Indeed firefighters were inside WTC7 around 11:30 a.m. fighting the fires and additional hose lines had been rolled out in preparation. There are further instances throughout the day of firefighters arriving at WTC7 and/or wanting to fight the fire but they are warned off.

The reason firefighters initially abandoned WTC7 at around 11:30 a.m. is because an anonymous OEM worker led them to believe the building was a “lost cause”. How this individual could determine such at that early stage remains to be seen… and of course according to the official collapse theory, WTC7 was not a “lost cause” at that time at all.

The decision from FDNY Chief Nigro to order a complete fallback from WTC7 appears to have been influenced by a further anonymous engineer on site, who sometime after noon told firefighters, “you have about five hours [until collapse]”. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder also confirmed the fallback decision was made based on the advice of an advisor to the FDNY.

Both of the above are indicative of foreknowledge of the building collapse and a deliberate attempt to keep firefighters away from WTC7.

We can see Captain Varriale isn’t sure who told them to evacuate WTC7.

Could it have actually been not ‘some Deputy’ but Capatin Currid?

• “According to Captain Michael Currid, the sergeant at arms for the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, some time after the collapse of the North Tower, he sees four or five fire companies trying to extinguish fires in Building 7 of the WTC. Someone from the city’s Office of Emergency Management tells him that WTC 7 is in serious danger of collapse.
  Currid says, “The consensus was that it was basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it.” Along with some others, he goes inside WTC 7 and yells up the stairwells to the fire fighters, “Drop everything and get out!””
  

This makes sense so far as Varriale was in the building and Currid shouts up the stairs for everyone to get out… based on the warning of our anonymous OEM man.

Thanks Q24, I couldn't remember the exact reasons as it's been quite a while since I researched the subject of WTC7.

[Q24]

As for NIST, do they have everything precisely right? Probably not. I'm sure there are some errors. In fact, I suspect that their conclusions about WTC 7 to be partially incorrect when they stated that the damage from the debris didn't have a significant impact on the eventual collapse. If a big chunk of that front facade hadn't been scooped out by the debris, I suspect that WTC 7 may not have collapsed.

Thank you for your views on Loose Change, the truth movement and Harrit.

You did not answer the question.

I will rephrase it: -

Are you of the opinion the proven impact and fire non-collapse case is impossible?

[booNyzarC]

Thank you for your views on Loose Change, the truth movement and Harrit.

You did not answer the question.

I will rephrase it: -

Are you of the opinion the proven impact and fire non-collapse case is impossible?

Of course not. I'm sure that there are possible ways that those buildings could have survived if the conditions had been just right. There are always best case scenarios. But the odds are against those scenarios in most instances, and 9/11 is no different.

[skyeagle409]

First of all, no need to actually involve any of these so called muslim hijackers at all in piloting the planes to their doom. They may have -thought- they were going to hijack aircraft. Who knows, maybe some actually did. But it was all irrelevant; there's no way their awful piloting skills could have pulled off such precision flying.

I see no problem in flying airliners into a building as an act of terror. It was no secret that terrorist were planning to blow up the WTC buildings and they tried in one case in 1993 when they set off more than 1000 pounds of explosives under one of the WTC buildings and the building remained standing.

In the Philippines, the guy responsible for blowing up the WTC in 1993, was planning to blow up several American airliners over the Pacific. That, from documents recovered from a burning apartment building in the Philippines.

The most likely scenario is that the planes were remote controlled or even computer controlled. It's also highly likely that the planes that actually hit the buildings weren't normal commercial airliners.

Impossible, because the scheduled flights were already etched in stone.

There's a fair amount of talk of how the planes could have been switched. This is the best article on the subject to date:

The "4" Flights of 9/11 - What about the Passengers? What happened to them?

All one had to do was to look up the obituaries of the passsengers in their hometowns. I guess they forgot about the simple little things like that.

Edited September 29, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

Of course not. I'm sure that there are possible ways that those buildings could have survived if the conditions had been just right. There are always best case scenarios. But the odds are against those scenarios in most instances, and 9/11 is no different.

Hmm, “just right”… that’s an interesting contradiction of the official study.

NIST found the larger part of the range tested showed no collapse.

But ok, you accept: -

1. There is a possible impact and fire situation which does not result in collapse.
   
2. That demolition of the building was not impossible.
   

Maybe you should drop your 100% opinion by a few percent to allow for these accepted possibilities?

Or… although you recognise those possibilities are you in denial of them?

[booNyzarC]

Hmm, just right… thats an interesting contradiction of the official study.

NIST found the larger part of the range tested showed no collapse.

Show me exactly where and in full context.

But ok, you accept: -

1. There is a possible impact and fire situation which does not result in collapse.
   
2. That demolition of the building was not impossible.
   

Maybe you should drop your 100% opinion by a few percent to allow for these accepted possibilities?

Why should I change my opinion regarding what actually happened based on unlikely and implausible scenarios presented by a truth movement which is clearly manipulative and dishonest?

Or… although you recognise those possibilities are you in denial of them?

Denial? The accusatory question seems like an attempt at manipulation to me.

Edit: Typo

Edited September 29, 2011 by booNyzarC

[skyeagle409]

It seems that skeptics are unaware of terrorist plans to blow up American airliners over the Pacific, target the U.S. congress, blow up the White House, and the Pentagon, and skyscrapers using aircraft several years before 911.

Plans were also uncovered in the Philippines where terrorist were to fly airplanes into the CIA headquarters.

Edited September 29, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

It seems that skeptics are unaware of terrorist plans to blow up American airliners over the Pacific, target the U.S. congress, blow up the White House, and the Pentagon, and skyscrapers using aircraft several years before 911.

Maybe you should tell Condi Rice who claimed they could never envision it. And maybe you should tell the Bush admin for their failure of imagination.

Plans were also uncovered in the Philippines where terrorist were to fly airplanes into the CIA headquarters.

Makes you wonder why Bush ignored his 6th Aug 2001 PDB entitled Bin Laden Determined to Strike US and went on another vacation.

Maybe he should have listened to Richard Clarke, who said that the Bush administration took no serious action in response to multiple warnings of an impending, massive attack within the US.

[skyeagle409]

Maybe you should tell Condi Rice who claimed they could never envision it. And maybe you should tell the Bush admin for their failure of imagination.

Apparently, you were unaware that plots were uncovered in the Philippines years before 911 where terrorist were training in the USA as pilots, and where a plot was uncovered to slam aircraft into buildings years before 911.

Makes you wonder why Bush ignored his 6th Aug 2001 PDB entitled Bin Laden Determined to Strike US and went on another vacation.

It was later deterimined that our government dropped the ball despite the warnings from the Philippines, but they were still alarmed at what the Philippine government had uncovered. A month before 911, I was returning to the USA from the Philippines and wondered at that time, why our airport security did not measure up to security measures in the Philippines.

I spend my time in Negros, Occidental for 3 weeks in August 2001 before returning to the United States. A month later, it was evident why our security measures should have been up-to-par with security measures in the Philippines.

Edited September 29, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

Apparently, you were unaware that plots were uncovered in the Philippines years before 911 where terrorist were training in the USA as pilots, and where a plot was uncovered to slam aircraft into buildings years before 911.

It was later deterimined that our government dropped the ball despite the warnings from the Philippines, but they were still alarmed at what the Philippine government had uncovered. A month before 911, I was returning to the USA from the Philippines and wondered at that time, why our airport security did not measure up to security measures in the Philippines.

I spend my time in Negros, Occidental for 3 weeks in August 2001 before returning to the United States. A month later, it was evident why our security measures should have been up-to-par with security measures in the Philippines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot

[skyeagle409]

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Bojinka_plot

Good! Now, the question is:

Why the argument that terrorist could not have been responsible for flying aircraft into buildings when it was clear that they were training as pilots in the United States to do just that?Additionally, with the White House and the CIA headquarters as targets.

Edited September 29, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

Good! Now, the question is:

Why the argument that terrorist could not have been responsible for flying aircraft into buildings when it was clear that they were training as pilots in the United States to do just that?Additionally, with the White House and the CIA headquarters as targets.

Who are you arguing with?? lol

I don't ever recall arguing that terrorist could not have been responsible for flying aircraft into buildings. So it's not me and you are off topic again.

[skyeagle409]

Who are you arguing with?? lol

Aren't you advocating that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings?

[Q24]

Show me exactly where and in full context.

Full context?

Here you go: -

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm

Enjoy

Seriously, it is not so simple as quoting a single paragraph or even a single report. You need to understand how NIST conducted their study and the results obtained. You can only get that in full context by reading the reports. They don’t tend to ‘cut to the chase’ in the way I do.

Basically, here is what to look out for…

NIST conducted three impact cases for each tower.

The first was based on the best estimates of aircraft weight, speed, trajectory, tower strength, etc, etc, etc, obtained from video footage and specifications. NIST called this the “base case” or “realistic case” or “best estimate case”.

The other two cases were a lower and upper bound of the variable estimates above. NIST called these the “less severe case” and “severe case”. The “base case” was equidistant to these two cases.

NIST scrapped the “less severe case” early in the study as it had no chance of producing collapse in their model. The “base case” was considered further but it was found that it did not produce the required truss sagging and pull-in forces that were vital to the NIST collapse theory. NIST used only the “severe case” (with a tweak here and there) in their final analysis, as this produced the collapse initiation sought.

There is a further significant note to make at this point. NIST stated the most important observable factor in evaluating accuracy of each case was with comparison to the photographic record of impact damage. This comparison revealed that the “base case” was indeed better match to actual damage in the photographic record than that of the “severe case”. That is, they confirmed their non-collapse case was best match to the actual impact damage observable.

Altogether this is why I say, “NIST found the larger part of the range tested showed no collapse.” From the “less severe case” to a point between the “base case” and “severe case” produced no collapse. Only a shorter range toward the upper bound “severe case” produced collapse.

Why should I change my opinion regarding what actually happened based on unlikely and implausible scenarios presented by a truth movement which is clearly manipulative and dishonest?

Forget the truth movement - I wouldn’t take anything said at face value either.

You accepted of your own accord there is an impact and fire scenario which does not cause collapse (I hope the above explanation enforced that further) and that demolition of the WTC buildings was not entirely impossible.

So listen to yourself… you must reserve a doubt in your mind… just what if… ?

[booNyzarC]

Full context?

Here you go: -

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm

Enjoy

Seriously, it is not so simple as quoting a single paragraph or even a single report. You need to understand how NIST conducted their study and the results obtained. You can only get that in full context by reading the reports. They don’t tend to ‘cut to the chase’ in the way I do.

--

Thanks for the link, I've actually been looking for that.

The fact that you can't quote NIST in any way stating what you claim is very telling. Or perhaps you can and choose not to? I won't make a determination either way.

But until I see it in a NIST report, I'm not going to just take your word that it is there. And I'm certainly not accepting your interpretation of the reports after you've blatantly stated that you believe it is impossible for the planes and resulting fires to have caused the collapse. I mean really. Who can take you seriously after that?

So listen to yourself… you must reserve a doubt in your mind… just what if… ?

With all of the truth movement nonsense going on, anyone would ask the question just what if... But on the same token, I remember being quite enamored with this when I was a kid:

I wish I still had the issue, but I sold off all my comics over 20 years ago. Well, I didn't... but... I no longer have them and someone made some money off the deal. I'll stop now so that I don't start cursing.

At any rate, idle speculation about nonsensical ideas, as normal as it is for any human being, doesn't equate to validity for those ideas. Hell, I've idly speculated about a huge number of things that are far fetched, if not completely implausible. That doesn't make them real. And it certainly doesn't validate anything you're trying to convince me of.

[Q24]

Thanks for the link, I've actually been looking for that.

The fact that you can't quote NIST in any way stating what you claim is very telling. Or perhaps you can and choose not to? I won't make a determination either way.

I can and choose not to because 1) it would take a huge amount of time to read through and find all of the relevant sections and 2) I could never hope to give you the full context as requested without reproducing half the report.

But until I see it in a NIST report, I'm not going to just take your word that it is there.

Have it your way - happy reading

Here is a paper discussing some of what I’ve said (skip down to 3.1 Aircraft Impact for the relevant discussion): -

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

It might help you get a gist of the situation.

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Keep it civil and on topic please folks.