9/11 Bombshell:WTC7 Security Official Details

[AROCES]

Yes, though the 'bank' was not drastic. This video shows a

whose flight-path was adjusted twice on the final run to its target. The airliners could have been guided in a similar way.

What do you mean not drastic? A 767 can't bank like a fighter plane. That looks to me like it's almost at it's maximum bank angle.

Your video shows a missile homing on, change it's target and made a last second maneuver to hit the MOBILE tank. A passenger airline not traveling as fast as a missile and with a target 10,000X bigger than a tank and is not mobile does not need a last second maneuvering, if a homing device is applied.

Edited July 8, 2007 by AROCES

[flyingswan]

That was mainly waffle flyingswan. Back to the question I was trying to ask – are you really asserting that WTC7 was entirely dependent on a single structural column at the base of the East penthouse to keep it standing? Are you even asserting that the building was entirely dependent on a number of columns at the base of the East penthouse? That would be to suggest all the rest of the structural elements making up the walls, centre and whole West side, including all of the adjoining columns, bolts, rivets, weldings, through all 47 floors, were largely ineffective in supporting the building. Reading your theory: -

"Weakening of a single column causes global, freefall collapse of high rise, steel framed structures."

Flyingswan you're a genius - demolition companies across the world are going to hail you as a god when you reveal this little gem to them!

As I said, you don't understand structures.

Every structure depends on a number of elements to support itself, and if some of those elements are damaged then the loads are redistributed through the remaining elements. This redistribution is not uniform, some of the remaining elements can carry much larger additional loads than others. The critical element is the one that is brought closest to its ultimate load. If there is a fire, then this critical element can be further weakened though the fire heating it or further loaded by thermal stresses, and it will also give way. The loads again redistribute, making another element the critical one. At some point you will reach the situation where a large part of the structure is depending on a critical element, and when this gives way, the structure collapses.

Edited July 8, 2007 by flyingswan

[flyingswan]

From reading what has been released, it would seem WTC7 had been largely evacuated after the first airliner impact, with the official and his escort possibly being the only people in the stairwell and within the vicinity of the explosion.

The witness mentions police and firefighters in the building.

[Q24]

And what do you call the hundreds of HARD, CONVINCING, UNDENIABLE, SOLID, NAIL IN THE COFFIN PROOF that is all over the internet that will support and prove Bin Laden is innocent??????

I think the difference is with information on the internet you have to go looking for it, whereas with mainstream news outlets information is practically forced upon the public. That obviously leads to everybody knowing what the mainstream wants them to know but only some people knowing the rest. And I do think the vast majority of people who really know ‘the rest’ regarding 9/11 do believe an inside job took place.

Your video shows a missile homing on, change it's target and made a last second maneuver to hit the MOBILE tank. A passenger airline not traveling as fast as a missile and with a target 10,000X bigger than a tank and is not mobile does not need a last second maneuvering, if a homing device is applied.

The point was that you can make a guided missile or airliner, fly exactly how you want it to.

Every structure depends on a number of elements to support itself, and if some of those elements are damaged then the loads are redistributed through the remaining elements. This redistribution is not uniform, some of the remaining elements can carry much larger additional loads than others. The critical element is the one that is brought closest to its ultimate load. If there is a fire, then this critical element can be further weakened though the fire heating it or further loaded by thermal stresses, and it will also give way. The loads again redistribute, making another element the critical one. At some point you will reach the situation where a large part of the structure is depending on a critical element, and when this gives way, the structure collapses.

You seem to be implying there can never be a partial collapse of a structure, nor that it could topple sideways due to damage. I would have to disagree as seen

,

and here. I realise these buildings were not of the same design as WTC7 but surely similar principles apply in that if the load bearing structure gives way unevenly it must topple. Apart from that, I would agree that "at some point" with enough of the critical elements removed obviously a building will collapse one way or another.

What exactly was the factor of safety of WTC7 anyway flyingswan? Estimating a factor of safety of 2 (it is probably a lot higher than this) on the main columns, that would necessitate every single column needing to be weakened 50% just to reach its load bearing design capacity. Or even if fully half of the area of the building had severe fires then the columns in that area would need to be weakened 100% (melted) to reach its load bearing design capacity. Knowing that these fires were not engulfing the entire area of the building and cannot melt steel, neither of the above can be true.

So questions flyingswan - in your opinion, how many of the total main structural columns would have to be weakened, and by how much, for a collapse to occur as we saw with WTC7?

The witness mentions police and firefighters in the building.

The witness mentions firefighters in the lobby but says the 23rd floor was evacuated. It would not be hard to believe they were the only two in the stairwell approaching the 6th floor when the explosion occurred.

Edited July 11, 2007 by Q24

[AROCES]

I think the difference is with information on the internet you have to go looking for it, whereas with mainstream news outlets information is practically forced upon the public. That obviously leads to everybody knowing what the mainstream wants them to know but only some people knowing the rest. And I do think the vast majority of people who really know ‘the rest’ regarding 9/11 do believe an inside job took place.

What the heck else do you guys want? A daily all channel, all newspaper, prime time reporting of your accusation until everyone says, alright we believe you now???

The point was that you can make a guided missile or airliner, fly exactly how you want it to.

Nope, you fly it excatly how it is suppose to be flown, NOT excatly how you want it.

An airline can't fly and maneuver like a missile.

Edited July 11, 2007 by AROCES

[flyingswan]

What exactly was the factor of safety of WTC7 anyway flyingswan? Estimating a factor of safety of 2 (it is probably a lot higher than this) on the main columns, that would necessitate every single column needing to be weakened 50% just to reach its load bearing design capacity. Or even if fully half of the area of the building had severe fires then the columns in that area would need to be weakened 100% (melted) to reach its load bearing design capacity. Knowing that these fires were not engulfing the entire area of the building and cannot melt steel, neither of the above can be true.

So questions flyingswan - in your opinion, how many of the total main structural columns would have to be weakened, and by how much, for a collapse to occur as we saw with WTC7?

I don't know the specific answer for WTC7, I am an engineer but not a structural specialist, but as I recall from my engineering education, buildings used to be designed to a factor of 5/3 (1.67).

If you had actually read/understood my last post, you would have realised that load redistibution due to damage is unequal. This means that some elements carry much the same load after damage, but others carry increased loads that can approach their ultimate load. "Every single column" is not affected in the same way, and your arguments from that basis are incorrect. In a damaged structure a small increase in temperature, well below melting point, can weaken an element so that it cannot carry the increased load, or the additional load due to thermal stresses can combine with the additional load due to damage to overload an element. I am not claiming that a collapse is inevitable, that of course depends on the extent of the initial damage and the further effects of fire. I am just saying that, as an engineer, I see nothing improbable in the way that WTC7 collapsed.

[flyingswan]

The witness mentions firefighters in the lobby but says the 23rd floor was evacuated. It would not be hard to believe they were the only two in the stairwell approaching the 6th floor when the explosion occurred.

And no-one in the lobby heard an explosion elsewhere in the building?

[Sunofone]

I see nothing improbable in the way that WTC7 collapsed.

do you see anything improbable about the head of security reporting bombs going off which killed people in wtc7 before the collapses occured? which is what this thread is about yet no one seems to want to reflect on the implications of-- why was this covered up??

[Q24]

If you had actually read/understood my last post...

... zzzzzz Perhaps it is not my understanding but instead that your explanations are not making much sense?

If you could attempt to answer the question - in your opinion, how many of the total main structural columns would have to be weakened, and by how much, for a collapse to occur as we saw with WTC7? - this would really enable me to understand your line of thought. Currently I am thinking you do not wish to answer the question, as when it is shown the vast and severe damage needed to be caused for WTC7 to collapse as we saw, it will be clear the fire theory is unrealistic.

do you see anything improbable about the head of security reporting bombs going off which killed people in wtc7 before the collapses occured? which is what this thread is about yet no one seems to want to reflect on the implications of-- why was this covered up??

All any disputers can offer is that the security official was mistaken. Mistaken he witnessed an explosion, mistaken the stairwell collapsed, mistaken the twin towers were still standing and mistaken he saw bodies in the lobby. That is all you will get out of official story followers because, as poor as it is, that is the only excuse they have.

Edited July 12, 2007 by Q24

[flyingswan]

... zzzzzz Perhaps it is not my understanding but instead that your explanations are not making much sense?

If you could attempt to answer the question - in your opinion, how many of the total main structural columns would have to be weakened, and by how much, for a collapse to occur as we saw with WTC7? - this would really enable me to understand your line of thought. Currently I am thinking you do not wish to answer the question, as when it is shown the vast and severe damage needed to be caused for WTC7 to collapse as we saw, it will be clear the fire theory is unrealistic.

You still don't seem to understand my point. Once damage occurs, it can spread because elements next to the damaged part can be very highly loaded and need little extra weakening or thermal stress loading to fail in turn, leading to the damage spreading. One failed structural element could be enough to start the process if the fire is severe, a minimal weakening due to heat could be enough to spread an initially large damaged region.

As I said, structures are not my speciality and I do not know enough about the construction of WTC7 to give a detailed answer, but I am an engineer and did learn structural theory when I was at college, which was a long time ago. That is why I suggest you ask the stuctural engineering experts at your local university. I am confident that they will agree that once a structure is damaged, any subsequent fire can cause the damage to spread by the process that I described.

All any disputers can offer is that the security official was mistaken. Mistaken he witnessed an explosion, mistaken the stairwell collapsed, mistaken the twin towers were still standing and mistaken he saw bodies in the lobby. That is all you will get out of official story followers because, as poor as it is, that is the only excuse they have.

No, just mistaken about the timing re the towers being still standing. The rest is consistent with the damage caused by the collapse. This is not a poor excuse, but plausible in that it would be difficult to fit all the activities he described into the time available if he was not mistaken about this one point.

[Repoman]

I spoke to firefighters that were inside the building who said they heard explosions before they were getting out of the building before the collapse, so there is conflicting stories. I have a tendency to trust the guys inside the building as they were inside immediately before the collapse.

If the firefighters were in the building already, is it safe to assume they were there because a huge jetliner loaded with fuel had smashed into the building?

And if a huge jetliner loaded with fuel had smashed into the building, wouldn't it be possible that people inside the building (especially stariwells which are perfect for transmitting sound) might hear several very loud noises that might later be described as "explosions"?

[Repoman]

All any disputers can offer is that the security official was mistaken. Mistaken he witnessed an explosion, mistaken the stairwell collapsed, mistaken the twin towers were still standing and mistaken he saw bodies in the lobby.

Or just another anti-American lying piece of #$@%@#$ nutjob.

[Sunofone]

No, just mistaken about the timing re the towers being still standing. The rest is consistent with the damage caused by the collapse. This is not a poor excuse, but plausible in that it would be difficult to fit all the activities he described into the time available if he was not mistaken about this one point.

how do you figure?? are you even aware of the activities described?-- he knows they were still standing because he had just left the main towers before going to bldg 7

[flyingswan]

how do you figure?? are you even aware of the activities described?-- he knows they were still standing because he had just left the main towers before going to bldg 7

Read the OP. He has to pick up the guy he's escorting, get across to WTC7, up to the 23rd floor (against the flow of those being evacuated), find that the people he's looking for have already been evacuated, make several phone calls, find his way down again past a destroyed staircase (down to the 6th, scramble over damaged area, up to the 8th, down to ground), witness the scene in the lobby, get 20 blocks away...all in, at most, just over an hour.

Edited July 13, 2007 by flyingswan

[Q24]

You still don't seem to understand my point. Once damage occurs, it can spread because elements next to the damaged part can be very highly loaded and need little extra weakening or thermal stress loading to fail in turn, leading to the damage spreading. One failed structural element could be enough to start the process if the fire is severe, a minimal weakening due to heat could be enough to spread an initially large damaged region.

Your theory is not making sense because I do not see how a column can 100% fail before moving onto the next column which also 100% fails and so on; if we assume one column is destroyed, even as the column next to it weakens, other local columns must begin taking the load of the structure above it; the structure does not wait for one column to fully fail before transferring its load onto the remaining columns. I am led to believe, the maximum steel columns can be weakened by fires of the intensity we saw is 50% (being very generous). Then, even if every single column in half of the building was weakened to 50% I still do not believe a complete, virtually symmetrical, freefall collapse would occur.

So, approximately, in your opinion, in the moment before WTC7 collapsed, how many of the total structural columns had gone through this turn by turn weakening, and by how much were they weakened, for a collapse to occur as we saw?

[keithisco]

Your theory is not making sense because I do not see how a column can 100% fail before moving onto the next column which also 100% fails and so on; if we assume one column is destroyed, even as the column next to it weakens, other local columns must begin taking the load of the structure above it; the structure does not wait for one column to fully fail before transferring its load onto the remaining columns. I am led to believe, the maximum steel columns can be weakened by fires of the intensity we saw is 50% (being very generous). Then, even if every single column in half of the building was weakened to 50% I still do not believe a complete, virtually symmetrical, freefall collapse would occur.

So, approximately, in your opinion, in the moment before WTC7 collapsed, how many of the total structural columns had gone through this turn by turn weakening, and by how much were they weakened, for a collapse to occur as we saw?

This link describes the mechanics of the total collapse very well, issued by the JOM

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html

It also agrees that there could not have been molten steel as a result of the very low temperatures that the JetA1 fuel was burning. Steel needs to be heated above 1500ºC for that to occur, and the JetA1 fuel would have been burning at c850ºC. However structural deformation of steel begins around 450º to 550ºC.

The fact that steel was reported to have been molten is a strong indication of another source of combustion.... Thermite heats to 4000ºC within seconds and would certainly be a contender. What concerns me is that Thermite is on sale to the General Public at $82.90 for a 5lb container, including the Magnesium strip to ignite it!!!!!

One other comment.... the Twin Towers would have been loaded with several Hazardous chemicals such as used in Printers, and for general household maintenance. i would be interested if anyone knows the qualities of these chemicals, and whether they are actually explosive, might account for explosions that were heard. Just a thought

[flyingswan]

Your theory is not making sense because I do not see how a column can 100% fail before moving onto the next column which also 100% fails and so on; if we assume one column is destroyed, even as the column next to it weakens, other local columns must begin taking the load of the structure above it; the structure does not wait for one column to fully fail before transferring its load onto the remaining columns. I am led to believe, the maximum steel columns can be weakened by fires of the intensity we saw is 50% (being very generous). Then, even if every single column in half of the building was weakened to 50% I still do not believe a complete, virtually symmetrical, freefall collapse would occur.

So, approximately, in your opinion, in the moment before WTC7 collapsed, how many of the total structural columns had gone through this turn by turn weakening, and by how much were they weakened, for a collapse to occur as we saw?

I will try again. Under normal circumstances a structural element carries a load that is well below its ultimate strength. If neighbouring elements are damaged, the load is increased and may reach the ultimate load. This can occur immediately, as in a collapse, or at a later time if the structure is exposed to a fire which can either reduce the ultimate load through heating the element or increase the load by applying extra stress to the element from thermal expansion. When the applied load reaches the ultimate load the element breaks and no longer carries any load. At which point the loads on the remaining elements redistribute and the process repeats.

You are still trying to apply global figues to local phenomena. I have never said that the steel in any element needed to be weakened by 50%, just by enough to remove the residual margin between the extra redistributed load due to the damage and the ultimate load. For an element neighbouring the damaged part, this margin could be very small.

I do not know enough about the detailed structural design of WTC7 to attempt an answer to your question. However, if the building was built to a 5/3 safety factor, was undamaged, and uniformly heated, it would collapse after it had lost 40% of its strength.

I do not really care what you believe, as you obviously have no expertise in structural engineering. You obviously do not trust my, admittedly limited, expertise in this. I ask you again to contact some structural engineers and find out what they believe.

[Q24]

This link describes the mechanics of the total collapse very well, issued by the JOM

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html

The above link is quite a strange piece as it at first admits itself the fires were not hot enough to collapse the towers: -

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C…

… Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

Then it goes on to partly blame “non-uniform” intensity of the fires for the collase: -

Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

This seems to suggest the writer believes the Towers would have been fine had the fires burned uniformly.

‘The Collapse’ section of the article is vague in its explanation of how the towers came down, along the lines of the ‘pancake’ collapse theory, failing to account for the massive interior structural columns around which the towers were built. As can be seen from WTC construction photos, the immense core structure was erected first in sections supporting the rest of the building being built around it. How then the falling floors managed to drag down the very core that was designed to hold them up and support the building's weight, I will never know.

In any case, non of the above refers to WTC7 which this thread is aimed at.

I will try again. Under normal circumstances a structural element carries a load that is well below its ultimate strength. If neighbouring elements are damaged, the load is increased and may reach the ultimate load. This can occur immediately, as in a collapse, or at a later time if the structure is exposed to a fire which can either reduce the ultimate load through heating the element or increase the load by applying extra stress to the element from thermal expansion. When the applied load reaches the ultimate load the element breaks and no longer carries any load. At which point the loads on the remaining elements redistribute and the process repeats.

Up until the last two sentences you were making sense. Due to fire, I do not agree that a structural element will suddenly break (lose 100% of its strength) and then pass its full load onto remaining elements. If we have a main structural column carrying a particular load, other local columns will already be taking a percentage of that load. Then, even as the main column is gradually being weakened, other nearby columns will simultaneously be taking on the extra load/stress. Surely you can agree to that?

Given the above is true, this would rule out the ‘domino’ effect you are suggesting. Then, even if half the columns in WTC7 were weakened approximately 50% (the maximum they could have been by fire) we would be nowhere near a total collapse of the building.

I do not really care what you believe, as you obviously have no expertise in structural engineering. You obviously do not trust my, admittedly limited, expertise in this. I ask you again to contact some structural engineers and find out what they believe.

I have common sense, a good understanding of physics and a mountain of other evidence pointing out 9/11 as a false flag op, which is at the moment for me outweighing your “admittedly limited” expertise.

Here is what I found some structural engineers believe.

Edited July 21, 2007 by Q24

[Pericynthion]

‘The Collapse’ section of the article is vague in its explanation of how the towers came down, along the lines of the ‘pancake’ collapse theory, failing to account for the massive interior structural columns around which the towers were built. As can be seen from WTC construction photos, the immense core structure was erected first in sections supporting the rest of the building being built around it. How then the falling floors managed to drag down the very core that was designed to hold them up and support the building's weight, I will never know.

Massive columns don't automatically imply massive safety margins. The building's designers didn't make those columns so big just because they thought it would look cool. They're large because they HAVE to be -- they're carrying huge loads. Take a look at this weighlifter. He's massive, too.

He shouldn't have any problems carrying a small child, right? Imagine what might happen here, though, if that child suddenly ran over and jumped on one end of that barbell. He's already loaded near his limits, so a small change might just put him over his personal safety margin and cause a failure.

Up until the last two sentences you were making sense. Due to fire, I do not agree that a structural element will suddenly break (lose 100% of its strength) and then pass its full load onto remaining elements. If we have a main structural column carrying a particular load, other local columns will already be taking a percentage of that load. Then, even as the main column is gradually being weakened, other nearby columns will simultaneously be taking on the extra load/stress. Surely you can agree to that?

I'd agree that the loads would change, but not necessarily evenly. Some columns may take on more load, some columns may actually have their load reduced. It's a structures problem.

Given the above is true, this would rule out the ‘domino’ effect you are suggesting. Then, even if half the columns in WTC7 were weakened approximately 50% (the maximum they could have been by fire) we would be nowhere near a total collapse of the building.

That's not at all correct. As flyingswan has said, you don't understand structures. Let's look at a simple example. Imagine a simple four-legged square table. Let's assume that all four legs are evenly-spaced and of equal length (so the table sits flat on the floor). Also assume for the moment that the legs are rigid and don't bend. Now, let's assume that we're designing this table to hold a maximum weight of 100 pounds (or kilograms if you'd prefer -- the units don't matter here). We'll assume that the weight is placed exactly at the center of the table so that all of the legs are evenly loaded. That gives us a scenario like this:

Makes sense, right? Each leg carries 1/4 of the load (25 pounds). Now, being good engineers, we want the legs to have a reasonable design margin so that the table doesn't collapse when carrying this load. Let's assume a safety factor of 2.0 and design the legs to carry a maximum weight of 50 pounds each.

So, let's look at what happens if we now break one of the four legs so that it can't carry any load. You seem to be assuming that the other three legs will take up the extra load evenly, giving us this situation:

That's not what happens, though. If you actually work the problem and balance the forces and moments, you find that the actual result with one broken leg is this:

When we break the front leg, the load in the back leg also goes to zero and the left and right legs take up all the load (50 pounds each). That puts them right at their design limit. If either one of those legs is further weakened by something like a fire, even just a few percent, the table will collapse.

Note that if we had used a safety factor of 1.8 and had designed the legs to hold a max weight of 45 pounds each, breaking the front leg would cause an immediate domino-effect total collapse of the entire table.

While we're at it, let's look at what happens if the table sags a bit when we break the front leg. Let's assume that the initial damage causes the table to tilt a bit toward the broken leg, shifting our 100 pound load forward 20% of the distance from the center to the corner. Because the load is now off-center towards the broken leg, the table wants to tip forward. Let's assume we've bolted the back leg to the floor to keep the table from tipping over. We now have the back leg in tension and the right and left legs in compression:

We have to pull down on the back leg with a 20 pound force to keep the table from tipping over. That increases the loads in the other two legs to 60 pounds each. Those two legs are carrying a total load greater than the weight sitting on the table!

To keep things simple here, I've assumed that we completely fail the front leg so that its load goes to zero. The same principles apply, though, even if we just weaken or warp the front leg so it carries less load. The rest of the structure will not necessarily take up that extra load evenly.

I have common sense, a good understanding of physics and a mountain of other evidence pointing out 9/11 as a false flag op, which is at the moment for me outweighing your “admittedly limited” expertise.

I'm afraid your "common sense" is leading you astray. The response of a building to fire and other damage is an enormously complicated structures problem. Simple assumptions, like an even distribution of loads, will not give you the correct answer.

Edited July 21, 2007 by Pericynthion

[turbonium]

You still don't seem to understand my point. Once damage occurs, it can spread because elements next to the damaged part can be very highly loaded and need little extra weakening or thermal stress loading to fail in turn, leading to the damage spreading. One failed structural element could be enough to start the process if the fire is severe, a minimal weakening due to heat could be enough to spread an initially large damaged region.

As I said, structures are not my speciality and I do not know enough about the construction of WTC7 to give a detailed answer, but I am an engineer and did learn structural theory when I was at college, which was a long time ago. That is why I suggest you ask the stuctural engineering experts at your local university. I am confident that they will agree that once a structure is damaged, any subsequent fire can cause the damage to spread by the process that I described.

What needs to be understood is the behavior of fires and structures. Fires are a progressive, random, asymmetrical phenomenon. That's why buildings can only be structurally damaged by fires in a progressive, random, asymmetrical fashion.

No structurally stable building can instantly collapse to the ground, symmetrically, at free-fall speed, simply from fire and/or damage. None.

That goes for any type of structure. A wood framed house. A concrete apartment. Or a steel framed highrise.

No structural fire has ever caused an instantaneous, symmetrical, total collapse of the structure. Millions of house fires, apartment fires, office fires, etc. have occurred in the past 100 years. Two world wars, and hundreds of other conflicts, resulting in tens of thousands of buildings being ravaged by bombs and fires. Many of these buildings were in much worse shape than the towers and WTC 7 were.

And none of them suddenly collapsed symmetrically to the ground at free-fall speed.

The only way such an event could happen from fire and/or damage is if the building was intentiionally designed to completely collapse with some kind of master trigger pin, linked to every critical support in the building.

Since that was (obviously) not how the WTC buildings were designed, the only other method possible is through controlled demolition.

NIST would like us to believe that the WTC buildings were designed like gigantic Rube Goldberg contraptions. (ie: like a "Mousetrap" game)

[flyingswan]

Oh dear, another one who is trying to apply common sense to a situation where it is of limited use.

Turbonium, your common sense is inadequate in this situation. Please go and ask a structural engineer.

[flyingswan]

Here is what I found some structural engineers believe.

A few structural engineers out of hundreds of thousands worldwide, and none of them appears to have put their opinions to the test by publishing their calculations.

[Sunofone]

a few?? someone around here is experiencing a critical case of denial-- did i just hear that common sense doesnt apply?

Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

130 architectural and engineering professionals and

195 "Others" including A/E Students

have joined us in calling on Congress for a new investigation.

Everyone may join AE911Truth.org!

We have several categories of folks that are concerned about the events of 9/11.

We will post your name after verifying your credentials and/or

information — which may take a few days.

Thank You!!

Mission Statement:

To research and to disseminate the truth

of the 9/11 “collapses” of all 3 WTC high-rise buildings

to every architect and engineer

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Edited July 21, 2007 by Sunofone

[turbonium]

Oh dear, another one who is trying to apply common sense to a situation where it is of limited use.

Is that sorta like when NIST stopped their investigation at the point of collapse initiation, mostly because it's common sense that the towers would subsequently collapse to the ground within the next 10 to 18 seconds, so "why should they bother"?

Common sense is sometimes regarded as an impediment to abstract and even logical thinking. This is especially the case in mathematics and physics, where human intuition often conflicts with probably correct or experimentally verified results.

When I noted that no structural fire has ever caused an instantaneous, symmetrical, total collapse of a structure, that isn't a point of "common sense". It's based on the established facts, historical records, documented scientific studies, etc. "Common sense" would be someone saying "It's impossible for WTC 7 to collapse like that from fires. Just look at it", without adding any evidence to support that claim.

You and NIST are really the ones who have a big problem to deal with here. The collapse of WTC 7 cannot be validated by historical precedent, experimental replication, or even just good old, unscientific, "common sense".

Turbonium, your common sense is inadequate in this situation. Please go and ask a structural engineer.

Thanks for the suggestion, flyingswan, but you're the one who really needs to consider it.

[flyingswan]

a few?? someone around here is experiencing a critical case of denial-- did i just hear that common sense doesnt apply?

How many of those 130 are structural engineers? I count as an "engineering professional", though as I've said several times above, I don't count myself as a structural expert, and neither are architects. Even if all 130 were structural engineers, it is still a pitifully small proportion of the worldwide structural engineering population.