I'm sorry, I just don't buy the official explanation for this collapse. Firstly, that two skyscrapers would come down in perfectly straight lines with almost no structural elements remaining afterwards is unfathomable. Then for an altogether separate building to collapse of its own accord, again in a perfect demolition fashion, is inconceivable.
Even if the answer turns out to be "These high rises were built with an integrated squib system just in case they became structurally unsound" - I could see that. But three buildings, all coming down in perfect alignment with their base.
I agree. Also, the fact that everything was blown to bits in WTC1 and WTC2 should raise futher suspicion. Also, there was melted steal at ground zero, as described by fire fighters.
Below is a link to a Danish scientist who analyzed nano thermite found in the WTC dust. Thermite is used for demolition, and when combined with sodium, it becomes thermate, which can melt steal at a much lower temp.
There's absolutely no reason for nano thermite to be founf in those buildings, it didn't come from the plane obvioulsy. Someone loaded that building with nano thermite, and I doubt it was Osama Bin Laden's underlings.
And CNN and the BBC, already being experts on collapsing skyscrapers due to fire from the two previous collapses due to fire that day, predicted the collapse on live television because it was obvious to everyone that the building was going to collapse into dust on its own footprint because it happens all the time.
As a professional lumberjack, I can tell you that this is perfectly normal. I often take one swing at a tree when it suddenly explodes and settles into a small, tidy pile of finely ground sawdust.
i mean really, obviously anyone questioning the official story is a troofer and a moron and a, ummm, ummm, lets laugh at them on the so called news on TV.
Yes, and that something that liberals and conservatives can both agree on. Because, you know, all humans on planet earth fit onto a single one dimensional line, with one end being conservatism and the other being liberalism.
The buildings were decades old and full of asbestos - a controlled demolition would have cost billions. The easiest thing to do was an insurance scam, on a grand scale. Now sprinkle it with a patriot act (to pave the way for easier enslavement), point the fingers at the middle east and voila.
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report’s probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building’s east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
My main problem with this explanation is that there's not a lot of evidence to support it.
The reason being, all the evidence was destroyed, and yes, this does also mean that other theories have equally little support.
NIST admitted that they used no physical samples of evidence from WTC7 to complete their report.
Read "Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?"
It just difficult for me to believe that the final conclusion is this "thermal expansion", something that's never been seen like this to happen before, and somehow is said to have absolutely happened, without examining any physical evidence.
I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but just that I believe that it's rational to not just take these claims at face value.
What also bothers me is that it took 6-7 years for NIST to complete this report, and their final conclusion was not even their working theory, they just magically solved the puzzle.
Further disturbing, is that after NIST established this as their theory, they published their 10,000 page report, and only gave the public 6 weeks to review it before it was made final. Who knows, maybe that's reasonable to some people.
Even with that short of a review period there was some decent feedback, and some pieces of the report were changed due to the feedback, including some information about the building collapse. The final result being that NIST's own report shows that at least 2-3 seconds of the 7 second collapse happened at the rate of gravity (no resistance/free-fall). This doesn't really sit well with a "cascading failure of floors" theory.
Hopefully you can understand at least why I retain my skepticism on this matter.
*edit: can everyone also please stop downmodding fountainhead. the original question was asking for an explanation of the official theory, which he presented better than anyone.
Read "Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?"
Thanks for pointing that out. I agree, what crap. Like they couldn't simply mark the beams as they were removed? I can understand why they would want to clear out the mess to search for survivors but honestly after the first week maybe 2 seconds could have been found to mark the beams?
What also bothers me is that it took 6-7 years for NIST to complete this report, and their final conclusion was not even their working theory, they just magically solved the puzzle.
I don't know, I'm not in the field so I don't really know but if they weren't keeping track of the debris I don't see how they could ever really finish a report to any credible degree. At the same time I've seen no credible papers that demonstrate the math that would make the NIST paper false. From my understanding the floor plans have been made accessible to research organization that have been working on progressive collapse. As yet I've not heard substantial criticisms with NIST WTC 7 report. It's early though, I would expect some to come out this year if they are going to come out. I'm with you on the 6 week review too. It took a long time for the report to be published, what's another 3-4 months worth of review?
That said I'm not just going to believe "it looks like controlled demolition" from random individuals off the internet that have nothing to back up claims. If the NIST report is flawed models will demonstrate that what they presented is unfeasible.
This doesn't really sit well with a "cascading failure of floors" theory.
Well lots of people are publishing papers about progressive collapse, so if there is a flaw in the NIST paper, it's going to come out.
Hopefully you can understand at least why I retain my skepticism on this matter.
Completely. I just get tired of the old 'it looks like a controlled demolition, I'm not an expert or anything but now I think the government did it'. No research, no objectivity, no self doubt, just it must be true.
Seriously though, thanks for pointing out that point in the FAQ, It's been a while since I've really read through it and it seems a lot more complete, or at least verbose, either that or I just failed the comprehension the first time.
but if they weren't keeping track of the debris I don't see how they could ever really finish a report to any credible degree.
exactly.
so if there is a flaw in the NIST paper, it's going to come out.
the idea of freefall mixed with "progressive collapse" is the flaw. it's literally impossible.
for two and a half seconds the building was in freefall, matching the acceleration of gravity. acceleration being the key word.
not only were the floors coming down with no resistance, but they were accelerating downward as fast as they could possibly go (without being pushed by an outside force)
It's not a progressive collapse if the floors on the bottom aren't holding up the floors above.
The guy speaking is a physics teacher, and stephen jones also gets a question in, but hopefully you can look past the people asking the questions and focus on the argument.
the idea of freefall mixed with "progressive collapse" is the flaw. it's literally impossible.
trust me... stay away from the word impossible, it isn't going to help the conversation.
It's not a progressive collapse if the floors on the bottom aren't holding up the floors above.
from wiki
A building undergoes progressive collapse when a primary structural element fails, resulting in the failure of adjoining structural elements, which in turn causes further structural failure.
Your point doesn't seem to matter in terms of what the definition is. As long as there is continual failure. The extent of the force itself doesn't really matter, by definition. If you had a balsa wood floor held up by helium balloons, for an extreme example. If the roof above collapsed there would be little, if any, resistance.
I think I understand your point though. The floors should have provided some resistance to the fall so there shouldn't be freefall at all in WTC 7. Right? (seriously do I have your point right here?)
If so, then it should be fairly rudimentary to demonstrate mathematically that a collapse would be impossible with 2.2 seconds of free fall. Easy? No, but certainly there has to be a civil engineer out there that would be willing to find the expertise required to look into it further. I mean, seriously, if you were the one to cause 4 years of NIST research to have to be rewritten you'd be written about in most, if not all, the structural engineering journals.
Edit: crap, I have the 2.2 seconds off, forgive me, I'm at least in the ballpark.
Ok, for you, I'll do it. I've already watched it but I'll watch it again and tell you what I think.
Since this usually takes a bit of time I'll start with the time, it's 1:38 PM on Thursday may 7th.
It starts off with
"in august 2008, after a 7 year delay, NIST, a government agency in charge of ..."
Seriously? The NIST WTC 7 report on the 9/11 attacks should have been released in Dec 2001? Really? HONESTLY? I just don't know what to say. Why wasn't it released in Nov? Oct? Sept? Certainly they could have had the report finished by then???
How do you defend this? Seriously, You have me watch this thing and this is the intro. If you reply, reply to this point first.
Sorry, I had to vent, I apologize, lets move on.
In which I showed WTC in free fall for approximately 2.5 seconds ... at a rate indistinguishable from free fall. Furthermore in that video I showed that NIST methodology was not a valid way to analyze the true motion of the building. NIST's measurement was not just wrong it was fraudulent.
I watched it. It's debatable. The author starts it at one point, the NIST starts it at another point. he provided no explanation about why it was wrong of NIST to start the timer where it did, nor did he give an explanation about where he started the counter.
We are now a minute in. i'm going to post this before it's lost.
... Next part
... I asked a question to the NIST official... "Any number of competent" (way to lead the question) "measurements used in a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration of a few percent of the acceleration of gravity, yet your report contradicts this claim." why?
Can you see why I might see this as a gotcha question? He could have asked why the southwest corner did that, or the NS corner did that. I'd imagine the answer would have been the same.
I'm going to post as I'm past minute 2.
NIST guy acts like a engineer for a few minutes and tries to explain, failing completely.
I'll have to start paraphrasing, it's been almost an hour and I'm barely 3 minutes into it.
at this point he starts going off about how this is similiar to his kids that havn't studied the material. Isn't that what everyone says about everyone? it's really weak, no real evidence, nothing new.
It's Thursday 3:33PM, I'm really tired, I only got 1.5 hours last night and just can't keep this up. Please post actual quotes and the time and I will respond to them. A general "look at this youtube" and I'm going to fall back asleep.
:edit... I trust people can, at least, get a tid bit of what I was intending.
yes, NIST and the subject in the video feel the analysis should start at two different times.
the video steps through the beginning of the collapse frame by frame, to show clearly when the collapse starts.
so, with NIST's start time being earlier, the question is "why?"... and there are two answers to that.
(1) NIST either has a better quality video than is available to everyone else, or has used some observational technique they don't mention to determine that the collapse started when they say they did.
(2) NIST picked an artificially early start time, in order to match the time it took for their computer model to collapse.
At this point, I'm not willing to give NIST the benefit of the doubt.
More importantly this is mostly irrelevant, because this only shows that the actual collapse time is in all likelyhood, less than the actual collapse time claimed by NIST.
So, even if we give NIST the benefit of the doubt that their timing is accurate, the core argument is still the same.
Ok, now let's look at the quote you mentioned.
I'm not sure about your point about which corner of the building to use, but the reason the NW corner is mentioned is because it's the corner of the building that's not obscured by smoke in the videos, making that area of the building better suited for taking measurements.
Anyway, looking at the quote you chose, this is a perfectly honest and reasonable question. The question of competency is also reasonable here, because you have to take a look at what NIST did.
NIST had picked a start time, and an end time, figured out how long that time was, and then determined the average rate of speed for the collapse, and published that number.
We're talking about a single data point that was used to describe the rate at which the building collapsed.
So do you think NIST really thought that the building collapsed uniformly at the exact same speed all the way down? Either way, it shows what little work NIST actually did in order to determine how the building went from standing, to being a pile of rubble.
The fact that NIST changed their report to be more accurate (using multiple data points), not only proves Chandler correct, but the new data tells a completely different story than what NIST had been pushing previously.
i appreciate that you're willing to give this side of the argument some consideration, but you really have to take the time to absorb this information if you're going to get anything out of it.
the reason i link to that video, is because it explains everything we're talking about very well, and illustrates it all better than i ever could in these comments.
if you would do me the favor of watching the entire thing (with an open mind), i'd greatly appreciate it.
so, with NIST's start time being earlier, the question is "why?"... and there are two answers to that.
(1) NIST either has a better quality video than is available to everyone else, or has used some observational technique they don't mention to determine that the collapse started when they say they did.
No, if you watch the video NIST starts when the center part starts to drop the other other guy starts it at the corner. I really don't understand how you can watch the video and come to the conclusion you did. Please explain it too me.
Let's move on:
(2) NIST picked an artificially early start time, in order to match the time it took for their computer model to collapse.
We just went over this, the NIST picked the point when the first part of the building started failing and the website person picked when the upper right corner of the building starting falling. Again, please explain yourself.
More importantly this is mostly irrelevant, because this only shows that the actual collapse time is in all likelyhood, less than the actual collapse time claimed by NIST.
I'm confused, why?
So, even if we give NIST the benefit of the doubt that their timing is accurate, the core argument is still the same.
because they say part of the collapse was at free fall speeds?
I'm not sure about your point about which corner of the building to use, but the reason the NW corner is mentioned is because it's the corner of the building that's not obscured by smoke in the videos, making that area of the building better suited for taking measurements.
I think it's because that's where all the video tapes are taking videos of... Actually I could be wrong. Let me look. yep. They all basically video tape the NE corner collapse. Because the wind was coming from the NE. All the other views would have been pretty cloudy/smoky.
So do you think NIST really thought that the building collapsed uniformly at the exact same speed all the way down? Either way, it shows what little work NIST actually did in order to determine how the building went from standing, to being a pile of rubble.
Huh? Have you actually read it? I'm getting the fealing you haven't. Go read it and then come back and ask me a question. I really think you havn't read it because your comment makes no sense.
The fact that NIST changed their report to be more accurate (using multiple data points), not only proves Chandler correct, but the new data tells a completely different story than what NIST had been pushing previously.
It really seems to me that you are just reading a a website and printing it out here. your commet makes no sense in the context. I know the talking point though. If you could make it make a little more sense then I could respond.
the reason i link to that video, is because it explains everything we're talking about very well, and illustrates it all better than i ever could in these comments.
I've watched it.
if you would do me the favor of watching the entire thing (with an open mind), i'd greatly appreciate it.
Obviously you don't want to have an actual conversation. If you did you would respond with something intelligent instead of "watch this video". Here, let me demonstrate. Read this website. www.google.com.
Ok, for you, I'll do it. I've already watched it but I'll watch it again and tell you what I think.
Since this usually takes a bit of time I'll start with the time, it's 1:38 PM on Thursday may 7th.
It starts off with
"in august 2008, after a 7 year delay, NIST, a government agency in charge of ..."
Seriously? The NIST WTC 7 report on the 9/11 attacks should have been released in Dec 2001? Really? HONESTLY? I just don't know what to say. Why wasn't it released in Nov? Oct? Sept? Certainly they could have had the report finished by then???
How do you defend this? Seriously, You have me watch this thing and this is the intro. If you reply, reply to this point first.
Sorry, I had to vent, I apologize, lets move on.
In which I showed WTC in free fall for approximately 2.5 seconds ... at a rate indistinguishable from free fall. Furthermore in that video I showed that NIST methodology was not a valid way to analyze the true motion of the building. NIST's measurement was not just wrong it was fraudulent.
I watched it. It's debatable. The author starts it at one point, the NIST starts it at another point. he provided no explanation about why it was wrong of NIST to start the timer where it did, nor did he give an explanation about where he started the counter.
We are now a minute in. i'm going to post this before it's lost.
Yeah. If he had been able to drive the truck into the near middle of the building, it would have been a lot worse. In fact, it seems, most buildings of similar construction pre-2004 have this weakness.
"There is no one so blind as he who will not see."
In less kind words, fuck off, loser who is unable to reason.
EDIT: FYI, you cannot gainsay a fact by setting up a different set of conditions to prove the point you want to make.
FACT: NO STEEL-FRAMED BUILDING HAS EVER FALLEN DUE TO FIRE.
Your "debunking" site is full of holes. There is so much wrong with the OTC that the "debunkers" cherry-picking their pet theory or conclusion as to what happened in a particular part of the 9/11 conspiracy just makes me tired.
I spent almost two years arguing with JReffers about all of this stuff, and I'm not going to bandy words with you.
I have researched an awful lot of this whole thing, from the "NO PLANES" theory to the Pentagon, to the shoot-down in Penn.
If you think your reference to one pitiful supposed "debunking" site means anything to someonw who has spent the last three years of his life researching this, please think again.
Shoddy consruction, any number of reasons may contribute to a building falling over. But a building collapsing into its own footprint due to fire is the belief of lunatics.
Actually, I think what's being discussed is WTC7. Which was not hit by a plane, and did not have the core structural elements removed.
This 'debunking' link does not address the fact that WTC7 is a steel building brought down by fire, and does not meet the "Seven" criteria for comparison.
As far as my understanding goes, the most recent explanation is that the heat from the fires (I don't know if these are the same diesel-fueled fires that comprised their original explanation) caused the expansion of the steal which dislodged if from the concrete. They readily admit that this phenomenon has never happened at any time before or since.
Yes and the asphalt doesn't reach the curb for the same reason. Sidewalks have gaps for this reason. Now, would you like to show me some indication that this phenomenon was at work in any building disaster other than WTC7? Right now the responses I've gotten have consisted of "thermal expansion exists". That kind of fails to address my point.
No, you listed why thermal expansion matters in the design of bridges, not the failure of any structure. Besides, the occurrence that those expansion joints are there to prevent is the buckling of the sections as they push together, not the sheering of the steel from concrete.
Hmm, I scanned the page earlier, maybe your comment was collapsed, now lets see:
Nothing in there about thermal expansion or the sheering of steel from concrete because of that. Essentially, that article does nothing to support the most recent explanation from NIST.
To hide the thermite. It's just in case a plane flies into the bridge, the government can blow it up. However, it's not quite that easy, the government owned bridge would have to be leased to company that will be called beforehand to check that it's ok.
Its called thermal expansion, and it happens all the time. This is the first time the phenomenon was the primary collapse initiation device in a collapse.
I've never heard of it playing any role in even a partial collapse, though I suppose its possible. What you linked to is just a basic description of the physics. Do you have any sources that list this as a relevant factor in other buildings? Its noteworthy that at the time the report was released, the standards handbook made no mention of designing against such a phenomenon. I don't know if it does now.
Thermal expansion sounds like a reasonable hypothesis. However, I find it odd that this was the first time this phenomenon has lead to this type of collapse.
Oh I see. Because people aren't convinced by the explanations of a particular event, they're just a bunch of gullible idiots who will believe anything. Funny thing is, you're the one being gullible if you think it's impossible for the U.S. government to commit a conspiracy.
but if they weren't keeping track of the debris I don't see how they could ever really finish a report to any credible degree.
exactly.
so if there is a flaw in the NIST paper, it's going to come out.
the idea of freefall mixed with "progressive collapse" is the flaw. it's literally impossible.
for two and a half seconds the building was in freefall, matching the acceleration of gravity. acceleration being the key word.
not only were the floors coming down with no resistance, but they were accelerating downward as fast as they could possibly go (without being pushed by an outside force)
It's not a progressive collapse if the floors on the bottom aren't holding up the floors above.
The guy speaking is a physics teacher, and stephen jones also gets a question in, but hopefully you can look past the people asking the questions and focus on the argument.
Actually, I think what's being discussed is WTC7. Which was not hit by a plane, and did not have the core structural elements removed.
This 'debunking' link does not address the fact that WTC7 is a steel building brought down by fire, and does not meet the "Seven" criteria for comparison.
"There is no one so blind as he who will not see."
In less kind words, fuck off, loser who is unable to reason.
EDIT: FYI, you cannot gainsay a fact by setting up a different set of conditions to prove the point you want to make.
FACT: NO STEEL-FRAMED BUILDING HAS EVER FALLEN DUE TO FIRE.
Your "debunking" site is full of holes. There is so much wrong with the OTC that the "debunkers" cherry-picking their pet theory or conclusion as to what happened in a particular part of the 9/11 conspiracy just makes me tired.
I spent almost two years arguing with JReffers about all of this stuff, and I'm not going to bandy words with you.
I have researched an awful lot of this whole thing, from the "NO PLANES" theory to the Pentagon, to the shoot-down in Penn.
If you think your reference to one pitiful supposed "debunking" site means anything to someonw who has spent the last three years of his life researching this, please think again.
61 comments
26 flipmoe 2009-05-06
I'm sorry, I just don't buy the official explanation for this collapse. Firstly, that two skyscrapers would come down in perfectly straight lines with almost no structural elements remaining afterwards is unfathomable. Then for an altogether separate building to collapse of its own accord, again in a perfect demolition fashion, is inconceivable.
Even if the answer turns out to be "These high rises were built with an integrated squib system just in case they became structurally unsound" - I could see that. But three buildings, all coming down in perfect alignment with their base.
Just doesn't smell right.
6 joseph177 2009-05-06
I approve of people forming their own opinions and don't simply repeat information spoon fed to them as 'official'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
5 flipmoe 2009-05-06
Damn I love George Carlin.
1 pitofdoom 2009-05-06
He'd shit giant money piles over this housing/financial snake oil sales job!!!
1 Uncerntropy 2009-05-06
I agree. Also, the fact that everything was blown to bits in WTC1 and WTC2 should raise futher suspicion. Also, there was melted steal at ground zero, as described by fire fighters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEc0d-juRg0
Below is a link to a Danish scientist who analyzed nano thermite found in the WTC dust. Thermite is used for demolition, and when combined with sodium, it becomes thermate, which can melt steal at a much lower temp.
There's absolutely no reason for nano thermite to be founf in those buildings, it didn't come from the plane obvioulsy. Someone loaded that building with nano thermite, and I doubt it was Osama Bin Laden's underlings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
23 [deleted] 2009-05-06
[deleted]
1 [deleted] 2009-05-06
You forgot Gremlins from the Kremlin.
1 Uncerntropy 2009-05-06
And CNN and the BBC, already being experts on collapsing skyscrapers due to fire from the two previous collapses due to fire that day, predicted the collapse on live television because it was obvious to everyone that the building was going to collapse into dust on its own footprint because it happens all the time.
5 [deleted] 2009-05-06
As a professional lumberjack, I can tell you that this is perfectly normal. I often take one swing at a tree when it suddenly explodes and settles into a small, tidy pile of finely ground sawdust.
1 AmericanGoyBlog 2009-05-06
whyyy, everyone knows THAT!
i mean really, obviously anyone questioning the official story is a troofer and a moron and a, ummm, ummm, lets laugh at them on the so called news on TV.
2 [deleted] 2009-05-06
Yes, and that something that liberals and conservatives can both agree on. Because, you know, all humans on planet earth fit onto a single one dimensional line, with one end being conservatism and the other being liberalism.
1 AmericanGoyBlog 2009-05-06
actually you totally don't get me.
i always argue that calling someone a name like 'lib' or 'con' is simplistic and must be taken issue by issue.
2 [deleted] 2009-05-06
No, I get you. I was being facetious.
1 AmericanGoyBlog 2009-05-06
okee dokee
mental note: i need more sleep and less stress at work
1 [deleted] 2009-05-06
Not a problem, I know how it is.
15 joseph177 2009-05-06
The buildings were decades old and full of asbestos - a controlled demolition would have cost billions. The easiest thing to do was an insurance scam, on a grand scale. Now sprinkle it with a patriot act (to pave the way for easier enslavement), point the fingers at the middle east and voila.
11 omenofdread 2009-05-06
Well...
It was a controlled demolition. You can listen to the leaseholder's own words
10 amadeus77 2009-05-06
the official explanation is -
look over there!!! it's a puppy!!!
other than that it is the one so obviously damning piece of evidence we will hang all of these false flag traitors up one day
3 ruesdedr 2009-05-06
aw. i like puppies.
10 poopballs 2009-05-06
The real conspiracy is the story your government sold you
9 Fountainhead 2009-05-06
But basically what DiarrheaMonkey said.
Here is the full report:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
15 Sec_Henry_Paulson 2009-05-06
My main problem with this explanation is that there's not a lot of evidence to support it.
The reason being, all the evidence was destroyed, and yes, this does also mean that other theories have equally little support.
NIST admitted that they used no physical samples of evidence from WTC7 to complete their report.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html
Read "Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?"
It just difficult for me to believe that the final conclusion is this "thermal expansion", something that's never been seen like this to happen before, and somehow is said to have absolutely happened, without examining any physical evidence.
I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but just that I believe that it's rational to not just take these claims at face value.
What also bothers me is that it took 6-7 years for NIST to complete this report, and their final conclusion was not even their working theory, they just magically solved the puzzle.
Further disturbing, is that after NIST established this as their theory, they published their 10,000 page report, and only gave the public 6 weeks to review it before it was made final. Who knows, maybe that's reasonable to some people.
Even with that short of a review period there was some decent feedback, and some pieces of the report were changed due to the feedback, including some information about the building collapse. The final result being that NIST's own report shows that at least 2-3 seconds of the 7 second collapse happened at the rate of gravity (no resistance/free-fall). This doesn't really sit well with a "cascading failure of floors" theory.
Hopefully you can understand at least why I retain my skepticism on this matter.
*edit: can everyone also please stop downmodding fountainhead. the original question was asking for an explanation of the official theory, which he presented better than anyone.
1 Fountainhead 2009-05-06
Thanks for pointing that out. I agree, what crap. Like they couldn't simply mark the beams as they were removed? I can understand why they would want to clear out the mess to search for survivors but honestly after the first week maybe 2 seconds could have been found to mark the beams?
I don't know, I'm not in the field so I don't really know but if they weren't keeping track of the debris I don't see how they could ever really finish a report to any credible degree. At the same time I've seen no credible papers that demonstrate the math that would make the NIST paper false. From my understanding the floor plans have been made accessible to research organization that have been working on progressive collapse. As yet I've not heard substantial criticisms with NIST WTC 7 report. It's early though, I would expect some to come out this year if they are going to come out. I'm with you on the 6 week review too. It took a long time for the report to be published, what's another 3-4 months worth of review?
That said I'm not just going to believe "it looks like controlled demolition" from random individuals off the internet that have nothing to back up claims. If the NIST report is flawed models will demonstrate that what they presented is unfeasible.
Well lots of people are publishing papers about progressive collapse, so if there is a flaw in the NIST paper, it's going to come out.
Completely. I just get tired of the old 'it looks like a controlled demolition, I'm not an expert or anything but now I think the government did it'. No research, no objectivity, no self doubt, just it must be true.
Seriously though, thanks for pointing out that point in the FAQ, It's been a while since I've really read through it and it seems a lot more complete, or at least verbose, either that or I just failed the comprehension the first time.
9 Sec_Henry_Paulson 2009-05-06
exactly.
the idea of freefall mixed with "progressive collapse" is the flaw. it's literally impossible.
for two and a half seconds the building was in freefall, matching the acceleration of gravity. acceleration being the key word.
not only were the floors coming down with no resistance, but they were accelerating downward as fast as they could possibly go (without being pushed by an outside force)
It's not a progressive collapse if the floors on the bottom aren't holding up the floors above.
here's a good video on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng
The guy speaking is a physics teacher, and stephen jones also gets a question in, but hopefully you can look past the people asking the questions and focus on the argument.
-2 Fountainhead 2009-05-06
trust me... stay away from the word impossible, it isn't going to help the conversation.
from wiki
Your point doesn't seem to matter in terms of what the definition is. As long as there is continual failure. The extent of the force itself doesn't really matter, by definition. If you had a balsa wood floor held up by helium balloons, for an extreme example. If the roof above collapsed there would be little, if any, resistance.
I think I understand your point though. The floors should have provided some resistance to the fall so there shouldn't be freefall at all in WTC 7. Right? (seriously do I have your point right here?)
If so, then it should be fairly rudimentary to demonstrate mathematically that a collapse would be impossible with 2.2 seconds of free fall. Easy? No, but certainly there has to be a civil engineer out there that would be willing to find the expertise required to look into it further. I mean, seriously, if you were the one to cause 4 years of NIST research to have to be rewritten you'd be written about in most, if not all, the structural engineering journals.
Edit: crap, I have the 2.2 seconds off, forgive me, I'm at least in the ballpark.
3 Sec_Henry_Paulson 2009-05-06
watch that video, and let me know what you think.
it's fairly clear what a shoddy job NIST was doing with their data analysis, and the corrections they had to make are very telling.
i think the fact that NIST won't release their computer models speaks volumes.
*yes, you do have my point correct.
3 Fountainhead 2009-05-06
Ok, for you, I'll do it. I've already watched it but I'll watch it again and tell you what I think. Since this usually takes a bit of time I'll start with the time, it's 1:38 PM on Thursday may 7th.
It starts off with
Seriously? The NIST WTC 7 report on the 9/11 attacks should have been released in Dec 2001? Really? HONESTLY? I just don't know what to say. Why wasn't it released in Nov? Oct? Sept? Certainly they could have had the report finished by then???
How do you defend this? Seriously, You have me watch this thing and this is the intro. If you reply, reply to this point first.
Sorry, I had to vent, I apologize, lets move on.
I watched it. It's debatable. The author starts it at one point, the NIST starts it at another point. he provided no explanation about why it was wrong of NIST to start the timer where it did, nor did he give an explanation about where he started the counter.
We are now a minute in. i'm going to post this before it's lost.
... Next part
... I asked a question to the NIST official... "Any number of competent" (way to lead the question) "measurements used in a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration of a few percent of the acceleration of gravity, yet your report contradicts this claim." why?
Can you see why I might see this as a gotcha question? He could have asked why the southwest corner did that, or the NS corner did that. I'd imagine the answer would have been the same.
I'm going to post as I'm past minute 2.
NIST guy acts like a engineer for a few minutes and tries to explain, failing completely.
I'll have to start paraphrasing, it's been almost an hour and I'm barely 3 minutes into it.
at this point he starts going off about how this is similiar to his kids that havn't studied the material. Isn't that what everyone says about everyone? it's really weak, no real evidence, nothing new.
It's Thursday 3:33PM, I'm really tired, I only got 1.5 hours last night and just can't keep this up. Please post actual quotes and the time and I will respond to them. A general "look at this youtube" and I'm going to fall back asleep.
:edit... I trust people can, at least, get a tid bit of what I was intending.
4 Sec_Henry_Paulson 2009-05-06
ok, starting with the video time you mentioned.
yes, NIST and the subject in the video feel the analysis should start at two different times.
the video steps through the beginning of the collapse frame by frame, to show clearly when the collapse starts.
so, with NIST's start time being earlier, the question is "why?"... and there are two answers to that.
(1) NIST either has a better quality video than is available to everyone else, or has used some observational technique they don't mention to determine that the collapse started when they say they did.
(2) NIST picked an artificially early start time, in order to match the time it took for their computer model to collapse.
At this point, I'm not willing to give NIST the benefit of the doubt.
More importantly this is mostly irrelevant, because this only shows that the actual collapse time is in all likelyhood, less than the actual collapse time claimed by NIST.
So, even if we give NIST the benefit of the doubt that their timing is accurate, the core argument is still the same.
Ok, now let's look at the quote you mentioned.
I'm not sure about your point about which corner of the building to use, but the reason the NW corner is mentioned is because it's the corner of the building that's not obscured by smoke in the videos, making that area of the building better suited for taking measurements.
Anyway, looking at the quote you chose, this is a perfectly honest and reasonable question. The question of competency is also reasonable here, because you have to take a look at what NIST did.
NIST had picked a start time, and an end time, figured out how long that time was, and then determined the average rate of speed for the collapse, and published that number.
We're talking about a single data point that was used to describe the rate at which the building collapsed.
So do you think NIST really thought that the building collapsed uniformly at the exact same speed all the way down? Either way, it shows what little work NIST actually did in order to determine how the building went from standing, to being a pile of rubble.
The fact that NIST changed their report to be more accurate (using multiple data points), not only proves Chandler correct, but the new data tells a completely different story than what NIST had been pushing previously.
i appreciate that you're willing to give this side of the argument some consideration, but you really have to take the time to absorb this information if you're going to get anything out of it.
the reason i link to that video, is because it explains everything we're talking about very well, and illustrates it all better than i ever could in these comments.
if you would do me the favor of watching the entire thing (with an open mind), i'd greatly appreciate it.
1 Fountainhead 2009-05-06
Sorry I took some time to get back to this.
(1) NIST either has a better quality video than is available to everyone else, or has used some observational technique they don't mention to determine that the collapse started when they say they did.
No, if you watch the video NIST starts when the center part starts to drop the other other guy starts it at the corner. I really don't understand how you can watch the video and come to the conclusion you did. Please explain it too me.
We just went over this, the NIST picked the point when the first part of the building started failing and the website person picked when the upper right corner of the building starting falling. Again, please explain yourself.
I'm confused, why?
because they say part of the collapse was at free fall speeds?
I think it's because that's where all the video tapes are taking videos of... Actually I could be wrong. Let me look. yep. They all basically video tape the NE corner collapse. Because the wind was coming from the NE. All the other views would have been pretty cloudy/smoky.
Huh? Have you actually read it? I'm getting the fealing you haven't. Go read it and then come back and ask me a question. I really think you havn't read it because your comment makes no sense.
It really seems to me that you are just reading a a website and printing it out here. your commet makes no sense in the context. I know the talking point though. If you could make it make a little more sense then I could respond.
I've watched it.
Obviously you don't want to have an actual conversation. If you did you would respond with something intelligent instead of "watch this video". Here, let me demonstrate. Read this website. www.google.com.
1 Fountainhead 2009-05-06
Ok, for you, I'll do it. I've already watched it but I'll watch it again and tell you what I think. Since this usually takes a bit of time I'll start with the time, it's 1:38 PM on Thursday may 7th.
It starts off with
Seriously? The NIST WTC 7 report on the 9/11 attacks should have been released in Dec 2001? Really? HONESTLY? I just don't know what to say. Why wasn't it released in Nov? Oct? Sept? Certainly they could have had the report finished by then???
How do you defend this? Seriously, You have me watch this thing and this is the intro. If you reply, reply to this point first.
Sorry, I had to vent, I apologize, lets move on.
I watched it. It's debatable. The author starts it at one point, the NIST starts it at another point. he provided no explanation about why it was wrong of NIST to start the timer where it did, nor did he give an explanation about where he started the counter.
We are now a minute in. i'm going to post this before it's lost.
3 pitofdoom 2009-05-06
That was Timothy McVeigh's plan, but he wrongly started at the bottom with a
"to small to fully collapse" tiny truck bomb!!
1 Fountainhead 2009-05-06
Yeah. If he had been able to drive the truck into the near middle of the building, it would have been a lot worse. In fact, it seems, most buildings of similar construction pre-2004 have this weakness.
9 seeker135 2009-05-06
Look, people, this can all be summed up with two sentences.
Neither before, nor after, 9/11/01 have any steel framed buildings collapsed due to fire.
On that day, some people want you to believe three buildings did.
So find another reason for the collapse, all you "Official Conspiracy Theorists".
-4 [deleted] 2009-05-06
Sorry for injecting reality into your fantasy - http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
3 seeker135 2009-05-06
"There is no one so blind as he who will not see."
In less kind words, fuck off, loser who is unable to reason.
EDIT: FYI, you cannot gainsay a fact by setting up a different set of conditions to prove the point you want to make.
FACT: NO STEEL-FRAMED BUILDING HAS EVER FALLEN DUE TO FIRE.
Your "debunking" site is full of holes. There is so much wrong with the OTC that the "debunkers" cherry-picking their pet theory or conclusion as to what happened in a particular part of the 9/11 conspiracy just makes me tired.
I spent almost two years arguing with JReffers about all of this stuff, and I'm not going to bandy words with you.
I have researched an awful lot of this whole thing, from the "NO PLANES" theory to the Pentagon, to the shoot-down in Penn.
If you think your reference to one pitiful supposed "debunking" site means anything to someonw who has spent the last three years of his life researching this, please think again.
Then go away.
-2 [deleted] 2009-05-06
Unable to reason? That is you response when given evidence that you are incorrect?
That isn't how science works you know.
3 seeker135 2009-05-06
Shoddy consruction, any number of reasons may contribute to a building falling over. But a building collapsing into its own footprint due to fire is the belief of lunatics.
1 flipmoe 2009-05-06
Actually, I think what's being discussed is WTC7. Which was not hit by a plane, and did not have the core structural elements removed.
This 'debunking' link does not address the fact that WTC7 is a steel building brought down by fire, and does not meet the "Seven" criteria for comparison.
0 [deleted] 2009-05-06
2nd sentence of the post I responded to.
Neither before, nor after, 9/11/01 have any steel framed buildings collapsed due to fire.
7 DiarrheaMonkey 2009-05-06
As far as my understanding goes, the most recent explanation is that the heat from the fires (I don't know if these are the same diesel-fueled fires that comprised their original explanation) caused the expansion of the steal which dislodged if from the concrete. They readily admit that this phenomenon has never happened at any time before or since.
3 [deleted] 2009-05-06
Drive over any major bridge in the interstate highway system and you will see the expansion joints.
They are there for a reason - can you guess what that reason is?
1 DiarrheaMonkey 2009-05-06
Yes and the asphalt doesn't reach the curb for the same reason. Sidewalks have gaps for this reason. Now, would you like to show me some indication that this phenomenon was at work in any building disaster other than WTC7? Right now the responses I've gotten have consisted of "thermal expansion exists". That kind of fails to address my point.
-1 [deleted] 2009-05-06
I did - a few posts up.
1 DiarrheaMonkey 2009-05-06
No, you listed why thermal expansion matters in the design of bridges, not the failure of any structure. Besides, the occurrence that those expansion joints are there to prevent is the buckling of the sections as they push together, not the sheering of the steel from concrete.
-1 [deleted] 2009-05-06
Your research skillz are simply amazing!
http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/8ic3z/anyone_care_to_explain_the_official_explanation/c09e0k1
1 DiarrheaMonkey 2009-05-06
Hmm, I scanned the page earlier, maybe your comment was collapsed, now lets see:
Nothing in there about thermal expansion or the sheering of steel from concrete because of that. Essentially, that article does nothing to support the most recent explanation from NIST.
-3 Fountainhead 2009-05-06
To hide the thermite. It's just in case a plane flies into the bridge, the government can blow it up. However, it's not quite that easy, the government owned bridge would have to be leased to company that will be called beforehand to check that it's ok.
-6 cyince 2009-05-06
Its called thermal expansion, and it happens all the time. This is the first time the phenomenon was the primary collapse initiation device in a collapse.
12 DiarrheaMonkey 2009-05-06
I've never heard of it playing any role in even a partial collapse, though I suppose its possible. What you linked to is just a basic description of the physics. Do you have any sources that list this as a relevant factor in other buildings? Its noteworthy that at the time the report was released, the standards handbook made no mention of designing against such a phenomenon. I don't know if it does now.
3 [deleted] 2009-05-06
Thermal expansion sounds like a reasonable hypothesis. However, I find it odd that this was the first time this phenomenon has lead to this type of collapse.
1 pitofdoom 2009-05-06
Timothy McVeigh has some "thermal expansion".
7 [deleted] 2009-05-06
Did they eve com up with a good explanation as to why it was being reported that WTC7 had collapsed a half hour before it actually happened?
3 seeker135 2009-05-06
Nope. Oh, there was some sort of weasel-worded release which purported to explain that, but it was so dumb, I just ignored it.
No, parts of the plan just didn't work right. That was one.
2 cbender35 2009-05-06
Weather?
2 sabruda 2009-05-06
Someone left the toaster on.
2 ih8registrations 2009-05-06
Waste of time. Not a waste of time is getting to the bottom of things: http://www.rys2sense.com/hub2/ http://www.rys2sense.com/hub/get/post/9.htm
1 pitofdoom 2009-05-06
Very simply I shall go,
Lincoln, IRS, Lusitania, New Deal Great Depression, Pearl Harbor,
JKF, MLK, RFK, Gold Std.,911 & economic collapse,
WERE ALL PLANNED FOR EFFECT!!
I'm sure I've left out many, many smaller ones, but conspiracy for the commission
of treason is overwhelming!!
Apparently many refuse even small percentages of "truth" Vs. blissful sheep slavery.
1 [deleted] 2009-05-06
Godzilla
-1 cyince 2009-05-06
Here is an active thread @ jref discussing it. link. As with any fourm a fair amount of bickering, but some good info there none the less.
-8 [deleted] 2009-05-06
The official explanation is that it was part of the Jewish Zionist Illuminati conspiracy to fake the moon landings and shoot Kennedy.
You guys crack me up.
3 svadhisthana 2009-05-06
Oh I see. Because people aren't convinced by the explanations of a particular event, they're just a bunch of gullible idiots who will believe anything. Funny thing is, you're the one being gullible if you think it's impossible for the U.S. government to commit a conspiracy.
9 Sec_Henry_Paulson 2009-05-06
exactly.
the idea of freefall mixed with "progressive collapse" is the flaw. it's literally impossible.
for two and a half seconds the building was in freefall, matching the acceleration of gravity. acceleration being the key word.
not only were the floors coming down with no resistance, but they were accelerating downward as fast as they could possibly go (without being pushed by an outside force)
It's not a progressive collapse if the floors on the bottom aren't holding up the floors above.
here's a good video on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng
The guy speaking is a physics teacher, and stephen jones also gets a question in, but hopefully you can look past the people asking the questions and focus on the argument.
1 flipmoe 2009-05-06
Actually, I think what's being discussed is WTC7. Which was not hit by a plane, and did not have the core structural elements removed.
This 'debunking' link does not address the fact that WTC7 is a steel building brought down by fire, and does not meet the "Seven" criteria for comparison.
3 seeker135 2009-05-06
"There is no one so blind as he who will not see."
In less kind words, fuck off, loser who is unable to reason.
EDIT: FYI, you cannot gainsay a fact by setting up a different set of conditions to prove the point you want to make.
FACT: NO STEEL-FRAMED BUILDING HAS EVER FALLEN DUE TO FIRE.
Your "debunking" site is full of holes. There is so much wrong with the OTC that the "debunkers" cherry-picking their pet theory or conclusion as to what happened in a particular part of the 9/11 conspiracy just makes me tired.
I spent almost two years arguing with JReffers about all of this stuff, and I'm not going to bandy words with you.
I have researched an awful lot of this whole thing, from the "NO PLANES" theory to the Pentagon, to the shoot-down in Penn.
If you think your reference to one pitiful supposed "debunking" site means anything to someonw who has spent the last three years of his life researching this, please think again.
Then go away.