My those goalposts can sure shift. As soon as I show why one aspect of your misunderstanding of structures misled you, you switch to another, usually one that has been covered several pages back. Here you are confusing the changed loads due to a rotation about a hinge and the difference between static and dynamic loads.

You're confusing things again. The changed loads break the hinge, the top then falls on the lower part as with the North Tower.

The stills on the page give the idea.

If it is rotating about a hinge point, then it is moving both sideways and down. The part directly above the hinge is moving mostly sideways, the part on the other side of the building at the same level as the hinge is moving mostly down. How can anyone not visualise that?

You're confusing things again. The NIST report only deals with how the collapse starts, the tilt effect only happens if the collapse starts asymmetrically - a brief effect that leads back to the same situation once the hinge breaks, B&Z only deal with how the collapse continues once it has started.

On the diagrams I've seen both impacts involve the major parts of the aircraft structure (the wings) intersecting the core of the tower. The only difference is that the South Tower impact would have missed one corner of the core structure, and either this corner or the outer walls on that side presumably formed the hinge of the initial tilt. Once the hinge broke, the two cases are very similar.

You're back to CD because it looks like a CD and CD because it doesn't look like a CD. Once you start arguing "unconventional" CD, you really cannot simultaneously argue "looks like a CD".

Explosions and explosion-like noises are to be expected if the fire is finding new fuel sources or progressing the damage, too, so they are not evidence for CD. What CD requires is explosions just before the collapse, and I'm not aware of any witnesses mentioning these, which is why you have to argue for thermite. The problem with thermite is that it is slower acting than explosives, so much harder to synchronise the charges, which is why it is not generally used for CD.
As to your video, if the thermite is cutting core columns, why is it pouring down the outside of the building? This is yet another piece of evidence that doesn't really point in the way you would like it to. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias, because I think you should consider whether you are suffering from it?

Why would you expect bowing a long time before collapse? Bowing is a real danger sign, it indicates the elements are very close to their ultimate load.

How many times do you have to be told that the design case was an aircraft at approach speed, the actual case was cruise speed, and there is a ten times difference in kinetic energy?

I am not proving any aspect of the tower collapse using a can, I'm disproving an assertion of sunofone's that a structure cannot collapse if it has no space to collapse into. Why is that so hard to understand?

Both structures are essentially steel frameworks. Both structures are double tubes with relatively weak horizontal elements providing the links between the inner and outer tubes.
You have been arguing for several pages that the tower collapse should have taken down the outer part without affecting the inner part, so why shouldn't the WTC7 inner part fall withourt affecting the outer?
The debris doesn't have to hit with "an equal measure of force" if there is enough of it moving fast enough - a large part of the inner structure after falling tens of stories - to simultaneously hit the outer structure. You only need "equal" if the debris is only just sufficient to do the damage. If it is overwhelming it doesn't matter whether it is a bit more one side and a bit less another.
I've gone into the details of how the inner structure of WTC7 could have collapsed a few seconds before the outer ad nauseam. You, on the other hand, have no logical reason for why the penthouse fell when it did.

You have not shown why the tilting block suddenly means that the core columns should drop at near freefall. All you state is that the loads changed to which I have responded that this does not mean the columns provided near zero resistance. Also if it ever seems I am moving along a slightly different line of argument through posts it is likely because I feel there has been reached a “yes it did”... “no it didn’t” situation. There is no need to move the goalposts when I have the truth on my side.



No, state the obvious but I cannot see the movement from stills. What I can see is that the angle of the chimney is greater than that of the South Tower block. This would mean that, relatively speaking, you believe the chimney stack to reach that angle was structurally stronger than the Towers.



Ok rewind as we have a habit of following trivial routes in the argument such as this example and that is when the quibbling starts. You assume that, “the side force from the tilting overloaded the remaining structure” whereas the B&Z paper assumes that the falling mass impacting the columns overloaded the remaining structure. You see the difference between your two opinions? That is all my original point was.



Apologies I attributed the pancake theory to the wrong group. Please replace “NIST” with “NOVA” in the paragraph. The fact that official story followers support alternate and conflicting theories is the issue.



With the North Tower the entire impact was to the core and all at the same floors since the airliner was relatively level. Looking at the South Tower impact...





... it is apparent that the right wing/engine completely missed the core and the fuselage caught one corner, leaving only the left wing/engine to cause damage to the large part of the core. This damage was at different levels since the airliner was banking. Three corners, not one, and most of the central core escaped the impact.



If there is an animal with wings, a beak, webbed feet, paddling in the water and quacking, but it does not have feathers, what animal is it flyingswan? I would say it is quite an unconventional duck… though a duck nonetheless.

If there is a building demolition with near freefall, virtually symmetrical collapse, squibs, explosions and visible thermite/thermate, but it is not initiated in the normal sequence, what event is it flyingswan? I would say it is quite an unconventional controlled demolition… though a demolition nonetheless.



If all the explosions were occurring in the vicinity of the fires then that would be reasonable. But the explosions are in the basements, in the lobbies, in the stairwells, in the intermediate floors. Reading the oral histories, many eyewitnesses believe there were bombs planted in the building, eg: -

Firefighter Louie Cacchioli witnessed from the 24th floor, “another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later… [and] I’m thinking, ‘Oh My God, these b******* put bombs in here like they did in 1993!’”

A firefighter at the scene said, “There’s a bomb in the building, start clearing out.”

NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings.

Teresa Veliz who worked in the North Tower and was on the 47th floor said, “There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons.”

Salvatore Giambanco who was in the basement has stated, “I know all the newspapers were saying that, but it was just too incredible to believe if you heard and experienced what I did. It had to be a bomb.”

As for the ‘raging’ fires that were supposedly causing all of these explosions: -

Firefighters who reached the 78th floor of the South Tower said, “Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines.”

But official story followers know better than the firefighters and other eyewitnesses actually at the scene on 9/11.



You do realise how irrational it sounds saying two isolated pockets of fire could cause a collapse but thermite could not?

It seems a good idea to me to involve the corner columns in a demolition to ensure the complete collapse. And if thermite/thermate is visible outside of the Tower it certainly could have been present at the core too. The point is the reaction in the Tower appears very much like the thermite experiment I linked does it not flyingswan?

As for bias, no I do try to be fair but perhaps seeing a thermite reaction like this could lead one to lean toward the truth, and why should it not.



I would just expect a damaged structure which is being progressively heated as the official story says to bow and buckle at sections rather than quickly drop with no prior warning.



Frank Demartini predicted the Towers could survive multiple airliner impacts which balances out to an extent that the a single aircraft was flying faster than expected on 9/11. Also he was correct that the Towers survived the impacts and the grid-like construction he spoke about meant that adjacent areas were not visibly affected by the impacts.



And my wire structure unevenly heated disproves that a near symmetrical freefall will begin because the ‘space to collapse into’ is occupied by sections of still intact structure. Why is that so hard to understand?



You should stop comparing WTC7 to the Towers as the designs are very different. The WTC7 columns passed through the open floor areas and did not have an inner grouped core in the way the Towers did. This WTC7 construction computer simulation demonstrates this if you have the time to view it.



Because normally the central structure will support more load than the outer, ie the Tower cores supported 60% of the load whilst each external face supported only 10%. Therefore the cores could survive without the facades but the facades could not survive without the cores.



So a large part of the interior burrowed the full height of the structure with no visible effect other than the penthouse and ‘overwhelmingly bounced’ outward with enough force to simultaneously devastate all of the surrounding lower external columns? There are no words.

I have been meaning to ask though – this initial collapse theory obviously occurs on the east side and no amount of bouncy columns could have reached to the west exterior. A large part of the west structure would remain intact. How then do you explain the near symmetrical collapse of WTC7?



Explosive/demolition/cutting charges local to the penthouse and set off to weaken the building ensuring a complete collapse, caused the penthouse to fall. There was no burrowing through the building followed by a visible collapse of the ‘shell’, only the independent penthouse failure followed by the complete collapse.

There are two scenarios: in the first the fire and damage cause a collapse near the centre of the structure, the top half drops and by the time it hits sound structure it is falling fast enough for the dynamic loads at the impact point to immediately overload that structure. That's the North tower. In the South Tower scenario the initial collapse is off centre and the initial movement hinges about some remaining sound structure. However, as the top moves this hinge structure is loaded with side loads it was never designed to take and fails in turn. The top half now drops and by the time...etc,etc. With the downward velocity acquired while tilting compensating for a shorter free-fall distance, I don't see why the dynamic overload of the structure at the impact should be significantly different.

I am sure you can google demolition videos as easily as I can. I agree you can't tell from the stills at what angle the chimney first breaks, but I would think the chimney more likely to break in the middle than the top of the tower due to its higher length to width ratio. The base of a chimney is pretty thick brickwork, possibly relatively better at withstanding side forces than the top of the tower.

The two situations are different as explained above.

The two situations are different as explained above.

You do understand that "only the left wing/engine" means some of the strongest and heaviest parts of the aircraft?
Damage to different columns at different levels is not really going to help the situation. With the cross-bracing elements also in the damage zone there is nothing to transfer the loads past a break in a column.

If there is an animal with wings, a beak, webbed feet, paddling in the water, but it isn't quacking and does not have feathers, what animal is it q24?
Perhaps a platypus?
If part the evidence looks like something and the other part doesn't, then trying to find reasons to make the second part of the evidence fit the first explanation is confirmation bias. This is a well-known human weakness in reasoning, which scientists are trained to recognise and avoid when trying to validate their ideas. You have to find an explanation that fits all the evidence, not ignore the evidence that doesn't fit the explanation you want.

You do realise that the 78th floor is right at the bottom edge of the impact region? Check your diagram.
As I said, there were fires and explosions in the building. It is hardly surprising, for example, for an explosion to send a blast wave down a lift shaft. How could the people in the building seeing a fireball from a lift door know whether it came from the next floor up or near the top? How could they tell if it was a bomb or, for example, an exploding transformer?

If the core goes, what happens to the outer walls is irrelevant. If the outer walls go, the core could still remain standing. You do realise that the thermite experiment is not cutting a column, don't you? One flow of something hot and molten looks very much like another. It's certainly not conclusive evidence for thermite.

Because it could be anything - you just want it to be thermite.

I'm sure I've seen a report of buckling in WTC7 as well. Come on, if there was no prior warning, why were they evacuating the area? There are eyewitness reports saying it was unsafe.

And the impacts were actually ten times the design case. That's more than "multiple" in my book.
The towers did survive the impacts, it was the combination of impact and fire that caused the collapse.

Your wire frame has to be tailored accurately to model the construction methods, loads and safety factors if it is to have any relevance. You are obviously visualing something with a very large safety factor. At an absolute minimum, try damaging it to remove most of the safety factor before you heat it. Try loading up your structure until it starts to bow, and then heating it.

First you argue that the structure "confines" the fall, now you say there are lots of "open floor areas".

How far did the fires spread the damage before the collapse? I've already said that it would take a significant portion of the interior structure.

I already know you think the penthouse was CDed. What I want you to explain is what purpose would be served by CDing it at that time. Why damage a roof add-on to weaken the building when you're going to cut the exterior columns low down a few seconds later?

Perhaps not the way you are looking at it, but the way that the impact was supposedly reached varies greatly between the two Towers. This leads back to the Purdue simulation where you originally said...


If you are now contradicting that by saying...


... then can we assume Purdue have done us a disservice in failing to simulate both Towers’ impacts which were vastly different?

Now, apart from problems with the official story such as the onset of freefall collapse being impossible due to remaining undamaged columns, studies having to impact the columns with more force than possible to make the Towers collapse, NIST’s fire tests opposing their own theory, etc, there is another question about the tilting in the South Tower: -

The tilting of the South Tower block was akin to a lever. For a balance to occur, force times distance must equal force times distance. We know that each side of the Tower weighed approximately the same, therefore this tilting must have been caused by the location of the pivot/fulcrum within the Tower core. If the pivot was on the east side, this would not allow a tilt to occur as we see because the weight to the west is greater. If the pivot was exactly in the core centre this would mean the building was finely balanced. The block tilted eastwards, so we know the pivot must have been on the west side of the Tower. That is to say at least all columns between the east face and through past the centre of the Tower must have failed to allow this tilting to take place.

Looking at the South Tower airliner impact, it is clear to see that the east elevation columns survived as did well over half of the core columns (close to 50 columns on the east side in total). How is it then possible the tilting could occur all?



Before saying that a mere 56 minute fire weakened those remaining columns on the east side, consider the fireproofing where the airliner did not impact was still intact, consider that 157 out of 160 steel samples taken by NIST found no temperature greater than 250^oC and consider that if only a weakening of the many surviving east columns occurred this would not be enough to allow the tilt to occur.

The scenario is impossible.



Of course it is but the fact remains that two thirds of the airliner impacted only approximately 15 external columns and then the floors, which the Tower’s ability to carry vertical loads did not depend on at all.



I disagree – if the load redistribution is working correctly, the intact structure above the impact zone should transfer its weight through the undamaged area at impact level and around the damage.




The above animal has no feathers and is not quacking (poor thing is dead). Using your argument, the above could well be a platypus! Now you can tell me that is not a duck all you like but I will not have it. In the same way, your 'controlled demoliton but not a controlled demolition' argument does not stand up.



Yes the firemen were standing directly below the supposed ‘inferno’ and they requested only two lines to put out the two isolated pockets of fire. Also, the fire department and FBI were reporting on the day that they suspected secondary devices in the building. I think firemen with perhaps years of experience know the difference between explosions/bombs and the normal events of a fire.



I look at a thermite experiment and then see a near identical reaction occurring in the Tower. I am not wanting it to be anything, I am simply accepting what I see. You did not answer the question – does the molten metal showering down the side of the South Tower look like thermite or not?

Could be anything such as? We know it is not aluminium as that is a silver colour in molten state. We know it is not steel as the temperatures were not hot enough to melt it. We know it was not aluminium mixed with combustible material or an accidental thermite reaction as Steven Jones has carried out experiments disproving these. Perhaps it was super-heated custard then?



Agreed there were reports of a section of WTC7 facade bowing outwards and they evacuated the area. Why did this not occur with the Towers? Why a sudden collapse with no warning that the structures were under massive stress? Because the buildings were not facing overdue stress until the instant the demolition was started is why.


Ok, I will do that right after your drinks can has been tailored accurately to model the construction methods, loads and safety factors.



Yes 47 floors which the falling columns had to tear free of and break through on their supposed descent before ‘overwhelmingly bouncing’ outward to reach the exterior columns. The Tower debris had only to pass through air to reach WTC7.



You theorised approximately half of the interior structure so how did the ‘overwhelmingly bouncy’ columns make their way past the remaining half to reach the west side of the building? If this does not happen, then WTC7 would be dragged toward the east damaged side rather than a virtually symmetrical collapse.



I said a few pages back the demolition/cutting charges were to weaken the upper floors of WTC7 to ensure a complete collapse occurred. A collapse of the penthouse was not the specific intention but a by-product of this weakening.

You are quibbling again. I said "generally similar", I did not say "identical". Furthermore, the Purdue simulation was of the initial impact. We are now discussing whether the subsequent collapse movement was symmetrical or not.

You do this a lot, take something I said about one aspect and misapply it to another.

This all seems reasonable. The initial damage was to the east, with the subsequent collapse on the same side.

Go back and read those posts from Pericynthion about load redistribution again. You obviously didn't understand them first time around. Also read my earlier posts on how fire spreads damage.

Was the fireproofing intact? How do you know? Wouldn't the movement of the steel during the impact have damaged it? Remember that real structures aren't rigid. You can't break a steel bar without the parts away from the break bending.
Another thing you obviously don't understand is how to validate a computational model. They didn't need to find the highest temperature steel if the lower temperature ones matched the predictions.

Come again? Since when have the external columns been non load-carrying?

Read Pericynthion again. Redistribution of loads is not uniform, it can bring nearby elements close to or above their ultimate loads.

So my verbal description could apply to a platypus or a dead plucked duck. It's certainly no longer a live duck. This is what I've been saying all along about your attitude to the evidence. You take evidence that can support more than one interpretation (platypus or dead duck) and insist that it only supports CD (live duck).

Yeah, all FBI agents and firemen have years of experience with tall buildings that have been hit by aircraft.

There are plenty of things in a building or on an aircraft that it could be. It could be a pocket of kerosene previously shielded from the fire, it could be the oil from a transformer, it could be hydraulic fluid.

Or maybe the core columns were hidden inside the building so no-one could see if they were bowing or not. Any sign of bowing anywhere on the buildings is a good argument against the need for CD.

Quibble, quibble, quibble. I've already told you several times that my drinks can experiment refutes one general argument. It does not model the building. On the other hand, if your heated wireframe is not an attempt to model the building, what is the point of it?

How much resistance do you think a floor structure would present to a falling column?

This is an opinion based on how long a study of structural engineering? I visualise the initial fall as being mainly vertical - gravity acts that way - with the outward spread coming when the falling elements reach structure below the point of the initial collapse - 6th floor?. What is unreasonable about that?

But why at that moment? What CD involves a wait of several seconds like that? What CD starts at the top?

I did not say you said anything; I just quoted you. Do not blame me that your reasoning in twisting ideas to fit the official fairytale has contradicted itself. The different collapse processes between the Towers were a result of the different damage sustained, ie the impact damage and collapse features were directly linked – same damage, same collapse or different damage, different collapse. When it suited you in defending Purdue, you claim the damage was similar, then when it suited you in explaining the collapse of the South Tower you say there was a difference. It does not work both ways.

I think by hiding the very different impact of the South Tower, ie far less damage than the North Tower, we must accept that Purdue have failed to give us a full, and more importantly fair, depiction of the damage caused on 9/11.



Pericynthion’s theories on load redistribution, although appearing sensible, were terribly flawed. It is not possible to simulate a structure like the Towers using a 2D model. In a real structure, loads are redistributed to the front, back, sides, diagonally, etc – a 3D grid-like structure. Also the models assumed a lower factor of safety and higher percentage of damage than in the Towers. Your progressive collapse through fire weakening does not work either as confirmed by the Bankers Trust building.

I said in my last post close to 50 columns on the east side of the building alone survived the impact, but I miscounted and in actual fact over 100 columns survived. That is over 100 massive steel columns that had to fail in a mere 56 minutes due to being heated 250^oC if the upper block was to tilt. It is not possible in such a short time with this relatively small percentage of damage and these low temperatures.



I would think that as the fireproofing was sprayed on to the structural members in the Towers, barring a direct impact, it would not just fall off.



Are you suggesting that high numbers of steel samples could have been found that reached say 500^oC if NIST could have been bothered to look? No, that is just you creating your own ideas rather than looking at the evidence. Of 160 steel samples taken by NIST, 157 of them saw no temperature greater than 250^oC.



My sentence was not ordered in the best way and also I miscounted the columns so to try again: -

Of course it is but the fact remains that two thirds of the airliner impacted only the floors, which the Tower’s ability to carry vertical loads did not depend on at all, and approximately 33 external columns.



Dead duck or live duck it is still a duck yet despite the clear picture I posted, you are still promoting the platypus theory – this is very typical of the official story. The original point of this example before you skewed it, was that despite the controlled demolition varying from the norm, it can still be a controlled demolition.



That the buildings were tall and fires started by airliners, is irrelevant. Firemen obviously have vast experience and training in all types of fire and know what is normal or not in these situations. I do not think that secondary devices and the specific word “bomb” would have been reported by the FBI and firefighters without due cause.



Did you actually watch the footage of thermite in the Tower? I am not sure you have, otherwise you would not be suggesting what you just did. Does burning kerosene/oil/hydraulic fluid glow bright orange/red and look like molten metal? Also there is no flame that would be expected if this was some sort of fuel. Coincidence also is it not that this reaction begins a matter of minutes before the collapse?

Your failure to answer my question yet again is very telling. I am not even asking you to admit it was a thermite reaction; only that it does indeed look like one. So I will ask again – does the substance showering down the side of the South Tower look like thermite or not?



Yes perhaps so, that is the reason I find no visible bowing of the Towers strange prior to their sudden collapse.



My randomly heated wireframe demonstrates that unless every column at a level is simultaneously broken, there will not be a virtually symmetrical, near freefall collapse, ie confirming Sunofone’s assertion there was not clear space for the upper structure to drop into.



Well with the columns running up through and being surrounded by 47 floors, quite an amount of resistance I would think.



When the path of most resistance is directly downward and part of the structure is removed unevenly, creating an imbalance with major damage on only one side of the base, the building should topple. This is an opinion based on physics, all previous examples of falling high rises barring controlled demolition and incidentally, more hands on experience of steel framed structures than you have.

Your theory is unreasonable from the beginning, ie overestimation of debris damage, impossible weakening of steel columns due to random fire, removal of most of the interior structure leaving the building ‘shell’ standing, penthouse collapsing due to events far below, internal ‘overwhelmingly bouncy’ steel simultaneously striking the external columns, squibs explained as trapped air even though a large vent is supposedly right through the height of the building and the quick onset of a virtually symmetrical, near freefall collapse imitating a controlled demolition because of all this chaos.



Why not at that moment? A controlled demolition that involves a wait before the main charges are set off would be a covert demolition where the perpetrators do not want a series of ‘pops’ going off immediately before collapse. In most controlled demolitions, charges run the height of the structure before the main base charges bring the building down.

I have to say, that I am no expert whatsoever on constrolled demolitions (far from it) but there is something just not right about the way those buildings fell. I couldn't believe it when I saw it on TV for the first time and I can't believe it now.

Like Q24 said, if anything is hit from one side it usually topples over. I would have expected the top portion of the building cut off by the plane to have toppled over. how could the relatively small area of damaged support cause a very large and well structured building with a secure base to fall? Not to mention building 7, how on earth did that fall? It doesn't seem right to me. I don't know the ins and outs of this kind of thing so this is as much a gut instinct for me as anything, but I've learnt to rely on gut instints. They serve me well.

Unfortunately, gut instincts are a poor guide in technical matters. That is why people have to be qualified before they are allowed to design and build major structures.

just having an ounce of common sense, you know building 7 wouldnt have been completely razed like it was...like john kerry said "they pulled it"...he's skull and bones leadership..he would know..

You quoted two things I said about different aspects of the situation and claimed thay were contradictory. They would only be contradictory if I had applied both statements to the same aspect.

The Purdue simulation showed what happened when an aircraft hit a tower. The two impacts were generally similar, with the different aircraft angles not changing the basic fact that the simulation showed an aircraft could cause a lot more damage than your side of the argument previously admitted.

The collapses happened later after the fires had been burning and spreading damage. This was long after the end of the period covered by Purdue simulation. They differed in that as a result of the different aircraft angles the South Tower visibly tilted towards the side most damaged by the impact.

The fact that I said different things about these two different situations is not a contradiction.

As with the can experiment, you see unable to grasp the difference between a demonstration of a general point and a simulation of an actual event. Pericynthion's was the former - a refutation of your claim that load redistribution was uniform. It isn't.
The Banker's Trust building didn't confirm anything. No-one said that any damage and any fire would cause a collapse.

Yet another opinion based on your extensive lack of knowledge of structures, no doubt.

Are you suggesting that you could bend a steel beam without the more brittle fireproofing breaking off?

Validation of computer models is an area where I have direct experience - you are wrong.

To stretch this analogy even further, the verbal description is the counterpart of the evidence. The picture is just a comparison you added, like the thermite movie. I could post a picture of a platypus that also matches the description, the point is that the evidence supports more interpretations that you admit.

But if you argue that, you can no longer argue "looked like a CD". You need to find other evidence, such as explosive residues.

They were in a situation unlike any before, why do you expect them to know exactly what was going on?

Yes, I saw the video. Something burning was falling down the outside of the building. You don't think it was any of the things I suggested, but have you considered that those fuels would be thoroughly mixed with building debris? And "minutes before the collapse" is back to "CD because it doesn't look like a CD" again.

Well, any situation of falling burning debris resembles someone igniting a bucket of thermite, but does it resemble thermite cutting a beam?

That is a lot to claim from someone who has not actually done the experiment.
Are you saying that a structural element cannot fail in compression, because that is what sunofone is saying?

Which buildings would they be? Any that are remotely as tall as the WTC buildings?

You say it's unreasonable, but you also say that it's an unconventional CD set up to mimic exactly the process that my theory describes. This raises the question: why would a CD be set up to mimic such an unreasonable process?

"CD because it doesn't look like a CD" again.

I'm not saying I'm qualified to build major structures, but I am qualified to have an opinion. That opinion is that there are way to many coincidences, too much odd behaviour, for this to have not been planned in any way. One or two coincidences, fair enough that can happen, but the sheer amount means something isn't adding up. Why hasn't there been an indenpendant enquiry? Why hasn't an inside job even been considered and looked into? Until polititions stop beating around the bush (no pun intended) and twisting the truth (read lying) then we are going to continue asking the questions and seeking the truth ourselves. Not to mention the fact Bush is nowhere near a convincing enough lier.

If you believe that the government is always honest and would never lie to us or do things just to gain power/control/money then I pity you

Fair enough this would be one of the biggest inside jobs/cover ups in history, but someones gotta hold that title. I'm open to the fact that it could have been terrorists, and that it was all one big coincidence, it's still a possiblity in my mind. But it's getting smaller. We're rarely ever told the entire truth, and I very much doubt this is any different.

I certainly don't believe governments, but I do believe my fellow engineers, mainly because I am in a position to check what they say. Whatever the other aspects of the situation, as an engineer I found nothing surprising in the way that the two towers fell. I don't recall hearing about WTC7 at the time, and later when I saw the original videos put up by conspiracists, it certainly resembled a controlled demolition. However, I eventually saw a version of the video that showed the whole sequence including the collapse of the penthouse - for some reason the conspiracists always cut that bit. For me, the penthouse was the key to the collapse of WTC7 - it was nothing like any controlled demolition, but it pointed instead at the two-stage collapse that I have described on this thread.

You obviously do not understand the direct link between the impacts and the way the Towers fell. Specifically regarding the impacts here…


… you even manage to fit the words “similar” and “different” into the same sentence. If you were less biased in your opinion and accept that the Tower impacts were plainly different, this contradiction would not happen.



Load distribution could be uniform if columns were evenly damaged. I am aware this was not the situation on 9/11 but at the time was theorising the extent of damage WTC7 could possibly sustain. Perhaps I should not have done this, my theorising having little use, in the same way that drinks cans and weak 2D structures not conforming to events on 9/11 do.



The Bankers Trust building suffered equivalent from the Tower debris to that of WTC7 and when caught fire did not come the slightest bit close to collapse. This only furthers to highlight the peculiarity of WTC7’s demolition imitating fall.



That is over 100 massive steel columns that had to fail in a mere 56 minutes due to being heated 250oC if the upper block was to tilt. Until somebody can prove this seeming impossibility is realistic, I will have to assume it is not. This is something that is so frustrating about NIST – they had the opportunity and expertise to model this situation to clear up questions but they did not. Perhaps modelling of the collapse process was attempted but NIST could not simulate the same collapse features.



I would suggest the large majority of columns not directly affected by the impacts retained their fire protection. Of the columns where fire protection was ‘knocked off’, well they were broken/damaged already so the effects of fire here do not make a difference.



Please explain where I am wrong – the findings of NIST’s steel analysis seem straightforward.



Still by your argument I cannot call my duck a duck. Further, I would say rather than a platypus, the official story is attempting to claim it is a flying pig.



Hardly likely since the steel was quickly removed from the crime scene and locked away. Though Professor Steven Jones has obtained a small sample indicating evidence of thermite/thermate (see short video of Jones discussing here).



Why do you expect to know what was going on better than the FBI/Fire Department/eyewitnesses on the scene at 9/11?



Yes I have considered building debris but the colour of the substance showering down the building is consistent throughout, not indicative of debris mixed in with fuel at all and further there is still no expected flame for this situation.

It has become apparent you are terrified of this question - does the substance showering down the side of the South Tower look like thermite or not? Does your bias allow you to provide a clear “yes” or “no”?



My interpretation of Sunofone’s ‘no space to collapse into’ is that hundreds (the large majority) of columns within each Tower cannot fail in compression at near freefall speed, ie in studies you cannot remove an entire floor and pretend it is not there.



Toppling/tilting of high rise structures due to uneven damage at the base: -




That would be to assume that your unreasonable process was possible in the first place. A demolition featuring sudden onset, virtual symmetry and near freefall, with visible 'squibs', prior explosions and 'hotspots' in the rubble is quite reasonable.

So it is not only gut instincts that lead to your beliefs; it is the many irregularities, coincidences and impossibilities of the official story before, during and after 9/11. You have looked at the evidence therefore it is an informed opinion. Believe me, flyingswan would not be rebuking you for lack of engineering experience if you so happened to support the official line. In any case, although designing/building structures has technical elements involved, it is not exactly on the level of brain surgery or nuclear physics.

I should point out that although some people (no names mentioned) can call themselves engineers, they do not necessarily have first hand experience of construction, with their knowledge coming from only a section of courses undertook.

Also, we should beware official story followers pointing out certain government subsidised studies of 9/11 that use impossible and/or unlikely occurrences to support preconceived conclusions. They do this despite the growing number of people questioning 9/11 and whilst selectively ignoring the studies of scholars, academics and other professionals who oppose the official story, including structural engineers, architects, physics professors and demolition experts.

Finally certain individuals will claim that on the morning of 9/11 they knew prior to the event the outcome of the airliner impacts, ie “the Towers fell as expected”, in an attempt to make the story seem reasonable. Oh yes they knew better than hundreds of experienced firemen in the Towers that believed the building was safe, they knew far better than all history dictates where a high rise, steel framed structure has never collapsed in this way due to damage and/or fire before. Trust that nobody expected the complete, virtually symmetrical, near freefall collapse of the Towers, despite what they claim is normal with hindsight.

So this is just my support to you, DawnUnicorn and all people seeking the truth of 9/11, to keep giving your opinion until every single question you have is answered honestly, fully and convincingly.

Don't you just love to quibble. What is contradictory about saying something is generally similar, but with some differences? I am not saying there was no difference between the way the towers were hit and the way they fell. I am saying that as far as the Purdue simulation went, just covering a second or so of the impact, the general situation of an aircraft hitting a building was similar. The fact that an hour or so later the two buildings started to move in different ways because the angles the aircraft hit were different is a separate matter. It is also, incidentally, an argument against CD, because the differences in movement are entirely consistent with the differences in impact angle.

Withdrawal of claim accepted.

The Bankers Trust building was less damaged than WTC7, only one of seven external columns on the damaged side broken as against a third of them on a side of WTC7, so the difference is not surprising.

You claim the maximum temperature was 250 deg C, the simulations disagree. Unless you have expertise your opinion on such technical matters is worthless.
NIST only dealt with the collapse initiation because they agreed with B&Z - once the collapse starts nothing is going to stop it because the dynamic loads are so much greater than the static loads the building was designed for.

I, on the other hand