911. Do People Actually Believe This S**t?

[ralphrj]

dazwalsh said:

Thats what I mean about basic physics, it had like 80 supports, and every single one of them would have had to give way at exactly the same time, there is no other way of bringing down that building in the manner it fell, there was no buckling or leaning as the remaining stronger beams struggle to hold the weight, all of them- click of a finger severed or melted at the same time.

There was no raging fire, isolated fires at best and very little in the way of damage from falling debris. It was also much further afield than WTC 4,5 and 6 which although were smashed to smithereens only partially collapsed.

This is how conspiracy theories propagate. Misleading or incorrect statements are stated as fact and can only be supported by the idea that there must be a conspiracy.

WTC7 did not collapse in an instant. The exterior of the building was seen to be bulging at approximately 2:00pm. Firefighters evacuated the building at 3:30pm due to concerns that the building was too unstable. The building finally began to collapse at 5:20:33pm and had completely collapsed at either 5:20:52pm (FEMA) or 5:21:10pm (NIST). It is also known that the building collapsed in stages beginning in the East side of the building.

There were numerous fires throughout the building and the sprinkler system had failed. Fires were spread over 13 floors. The fires on floors 7-9 and 11-13 burned uncontrolled. WTC7 was a slightly unusual structure being a 47 storey building built over a substation with foundations to support a 25 storey building. In order to cope with the weight of a bigger building WTC7 had a system of transfer trusses on the 7th floor to transfer the loads of the building. The same floor that had an uncontrolled fire for several hours.

When WTC1 (the North tower, 2nd to collapse) collapsed debris fell on WTC7 causing structural damage from floors 7 to 17. A further 18 storey vertical gash was cut through the building by debris from WTC1.


All of this is dismissed by conspiracy theorists with incorrect statements like "no buckling", "isolated fires and "little in the way of damage".

Experts can't answer all of the questions regarding the collapse of WTC7 due to the limited TV coverage (due to the clouds of dust following the collapse of WTC1 and 2) and the fact that few people were close enough (due to the area being evacuated). Unfortunately some people choose to fill these gaps with false statements or wild theories and a conspiracy is born.

[KAgantua]

ralphrj said:

dazwalsh said:

Thats what I mean about basic physics, it had like 80 supports, and every single one of them would have had to give way at exactly the same time, there is no other way of bringing down that building in the manner it fell, there was no buckling or leaning as the remaining stronger beams struggle to hold the weight, all of them- click of a finger severed or melted at the same time.

There was no raging fire, isolated fires at best and very little in the way of damage from falling debris. It was also much further afield than WTC 4,5 and 6 which although were smashed to smithereens only partially collapsed.

This is how conspiracy theories propagate. Misleading or incorrect statements are stated as fact and can only be supported by the idea that there must be a conspiracy.

WTC7 did not collapse in an instant. The exterior of the building was seen to be bulging at approximately 2:00pm. Firefighters evacuated the building at 3:30pm due to concerns that the building was too unstable. The building finally began to collapse at 5:20:33pm and had completely collapsed at either 5:20:52pm (FEMA) or 5:21:10pm (NIST). It is also known that the building collapsed in stages beginning in the East side of the building.

There were numerous fires throughout the building and the sprinkler system had failed. Fires were spread over 13 floors. The fires on floors 7-9 and 11-13 burned uncontrolled. WTC7 was a slightly unusual structure being a 47 storey building built over a substation with foundations to support a 25 storey building. In order to cope with the weight of a bigger building WTC7 had a system of transfer trusses on the 7th floor to transfer the loads of the building. The same floor that had an uncontrolled fire for several hours.

When WTC1 (the North tower, 2nd to collapse) collapsed debris fell on WTC7 causing structural damage from floors 7 to 17. A further 18 storey vertical gash was cut through the building by debris from WTC1.


All of this is dismissed by conspiracy theorists with incorrect statements like "no buckling", "isolated fires and "little in the way of damage".

Experts can't answer all of the questions regarding the collapse of WTC7 due to the limited TV coverage (due to the clouds of dust following the collapse of WTC1 and 2) and the fact that few people were close enough (due to the area being evacuated). Unfortunately some people choose to fill these gaps with false statements or wild theories and a conspiracy is born.

i see theyve got to you too

[scherzkeks]

dazwalsh said:

Thats what I mean about basic physics, it had like 80 supports, and every single one of them would have had to give way at exactly the same time,


[

Hence why NIST's forced admission of freefall is so critical. There is no way freefall could have occured unless all supports gave out at once.



"Office fires"

[dazwalsh]

ralphrj said:

This is how conspiracy theories propagate. Misleading or incorrect statements are stated as fact and can only be supported by the idea that there must be a conspiracy.

WTC7 did not collapse in an instant. The exterior of the building was seen to be bulging at approximately 2:00pm. Firefighters evacuated the building at 3:30pm due to concerns that the building was too unstable. The building finally began to collapse at 5:20:33pm and had completely collapsed at either 5:20:52pm (FEMA) or 5:21:10pm (NIST). It is also known that the building collapsed in stages beginning in the East side of the building.

There were numerous fires throughout the building and the sprinkler system had failed. Fires were spread over 13 floors. The fires on floors 7-9 and 11-13 burned uncontrolled. WTC7 was a slightly unusual structure being a 47 storey building built over a substation with foundations to support a 25 storey building. In order to cope with the weight of a bigger building WTC7 had a system of transfer trusses on the 7th floor to transfer the loads of the building. The same floor that had an uncontrolled fire for several hours.

When WTC1 (the North tower, 2nd to collapse) collapsed debris fell on WTC7 causing structural damage from floors 7 to 17. A further 18 storey vertical gash was cut through the building by debris from WTC1.


All of this is dismissed by conspiracy theorists with incorrect statements like "no buckling", "isolated fires and "little in the way of damage".

Experts can't answer all of the questions regarding the collapse of WTC7 due to the limited TV coverage (due to the clouds of dust following the collapse of WTC1 and 2) and the fact that few people were close enough (due to the area being evacuated). Unfortunately some people choose to fill these gaps with false statements or wild theories and a conspiracy is born.

I am happy to be proven wrong and I'm in no way technically qualified to offer an explanation I'm just coming at it from a much more simple approach of "hmm that looked dodgy ad hell"

I would have thought the design of the building would have been sufficient to withstand days of fire not just a few hours, much like the various skyscrapers you see on fire all over the world being able to shrug off huge fires without free fall collapsing. But I know comparing Wtc7 to these is pointless.

I would have thought even if the vast majority of steel was unaffected by fire on one side of the building that this wouldnt fall as quick, that it would take an even intensity of fire across the whole of a floor to have even a remote chance of causing the collapse shown on video.

If you look at how WTC 4,5 and 6 took the damage and fire I would have expected something similar to how they looked for Wtc7.

[AshBurrows]

scherzkeks said:

Hence why NIST's forced admission of freefall is so critical. There is no way freefall could have occured unless all supports gave out at once.



"Office fires"

You can literally see the central supports fail first in this gif.

And surely a building is a bit like a house of cards in that everything inevitably WILL fail at the same time visually because of the added forces added by other failing.

[longshot]

scherzkeks said:

dazwalsh said:

Thats what I mean about basic physics, it had like 80 supports, and every single one of them would have had to give way at exactly the same time,


[

Hence why NIST's forced admission of freefall is so critical. There is no way freefall could have occured unless all supports gave out at once.



"Office fires"

You do understand that a building is designed to support a stationary weight and not to resist the kinetic forces of the above floor(s) collapsing?

Fire/heat has this annoying habit of 'weakening' steel.

You have an enormous amount of forces bearing down on supports that are barely doing their job. The building is effectively being supported by half of the structure and you are surprised when it appears to free fall.

I'll go back to something I quoted the other day.

One of the big 4 on your 9/11 truth site was surprised when 2 identical buildings, built in identical ways and attacked in identical ways collapsed in identical ways.

These are the people you rely on for your 'facts'.



You have one huge problem.
You are not an architect or structural engineer I would hazard, so you have to completely rely on what people on these sites tell you.
You are not able to make these decisions for yourself.

Edited by longshot on Thursday 25th August 12:59

[ralphrj]

dazwalsh said:

I would have thought the design of the building would have been sufficient to withstand days of fire not just a few hours, much like the various skyscrapers you see on fire all over the world being able to shrug off huge fires without free fall collapsing. But I know comparing Wtc7 to these is pointless.

I'm not aware of any other skyscrapers catching fire because a 100+ storey building had collapsed on top of them to make a meaningful comparison.

However, it is now known that WTC7 had a poor sprinkler system to protect it from fire. The pumps needed to be manually activated and the system on each floor was supplied by a single connection. If these were damaged then there would be no protection.

dazwalsh said:

I am happy to be proven wrong and I'm in no way technically qualified to offer an explanation I'm just coming at it from a much more simple approach of "hmm that looked dodgy ad hell"

And this is what infuriates people. Admitting that you aren't in a position to offer an explanation but then assuming that the answer must be something else.

[WinstonWolf]

AshBurrows said:

scherzkeks said:

Hence why NIST's forced admission of freefall is so critical. There is no way freefall could have occured unless all supports gave out at once.



"Office fires"

You can literally see the central supports fail first in this gif.

And surely a building is a bit like a house of cards in that everything inevitably WILL fail at the same time visually because of the added forces added by other failing.

Hoisted by his own gif...

So Sherzkeks, how did they secretly rig the buildings for destruction and NO ONE noticed?

[TIGA84]

I have nothing constructive to say other than its incredibly interesting to watch how they collapse and the forces that are at work.

[Emeye]

Just started watching the damned stupid video posted originally, without reading any of the thread, expecting this to be something about Porsche 911s.

Edited by Emeye on Thursday 25th August 13:28

[jmorgan]

WinstonWolf said:

Hoisted by his own gif...

So Sherzkeks, how did they secretly rig the buildings for destruction and NO ONE noticed?

Ninja's! No one see's ninja's.


Back on topic, if there were evidence, it would be proven and not still batting around in forums fielded by people where incredulity and self belief are proof and that stupid+google=ability.

How many years now? And still no re write of physics that any serious scientist will accept as proof it was the gubbmint.

[scherzkeks]

longshot said:

You do understand that a building is designed to support a stationary weight and not to resist the kinetic forces of the above floor(s) collapsing?

Fire/heat has this annoying habit of 'weakening' steel.

You have an enormous amount of forces bearing down on supports that are barely doing their job. The building is effectively being supported by half of the structure and you are surprised when it appears to free fall.

I'll go back to something I quoted the other day.

One of the big 4 on your 9/11 truth site was surprised when 2 identical buildings, built in identical ways and attacked in identical ways collapsed in identical ways.

These are the people you rely on for your 'facts'.



You have one huge problem.
You are not an architect or structural engineer I would hazard, so you have to completely rely on what people on these sites tell you.
You are not able to make these decisions for yourself.

Edited by longshot on Thursday 25th August 12:59

This research and information here is provided by a non-profit organization consisting of over 2,600 professional architects and engineers.

They are very easy to find. Assuming you are qualified and have first-hand experience investigating the matter, I'd be interested in reading a transcript of any dicussions you might have with them in the future.

[Rollin]

ralphrj said:

dazwalsh said:

I would have thought the design of the building would have been sufficient to withstand days of fire not just a few hours, much like the various skyscrapers you see on fire all over the world being able to shrug off huge fires without free fall collapsing. But I know comparing Wtc7 to these is pointless.

I'm not aware of any other skyscrapers catching fire because a 100+ storey building had collapsed on top of them to make a meaningful comparison.

However, it is now known that WTC7 had a poor sprinkler system to protect it from fire. The pumps needed to be manually activated and the system on each floor was supplied by a single connection. If these were damaged then there would be no protection.

dazwalsh said:

I am happy to be proven wrong and I'm in no way technically qualified to offer an explanation I'm just coming at it from a much more simple approach of "hmm that looked dodgy ad hell"

And this is what infuriates people. Admitting that you aren't in a position to offer an explanation but then assuming that the answer must be something else.

Everyone is fed up of experts and they'll get offended if you point out their opinion is worthless. Makes you wonder what the fking point of education is.

[Hugo a Gogo]

scherzkeks said:

Hence why NIST's forced admission of freefall is so critical. There is no way freefall could have occured unless all supports gave out at once.



"Office fires"

there is no way all supports could be blown out, all of each floor at once, sequentially by floor, in a controlled demolition stylee without stripping out the building, drilling big holes, laying literally miles of det cord etc

which would be pretty hard to hide

[scherzkeks]

Hugo a Gogo said:

there is no way all supports could be blown out, all of each floor at once, sequentially by floor, in a controlled demolition stylee without stripping out the building, drilling big holes, laying literally miles of det cord etc

which would be pretty hard to hide

What you need to keep in mind is that AE does not focus on conspiracies, but rather science.

And the science of freefall is what it is. Freefall is impossible unless the material below the falling section is pulverized or otherwise removed entirely. Keep in mind NIST would not admit freefall initially; they were forced to.

[WinstonWolf]

scherzkeks said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

there is no way all supports could be blown out, all of each floor at once, sequentially by floor, in a controlled demolition stylee without stripping out the building, drilling big holes, laying literally miles of det cord etc

which would be pretty hard to hide

What you need to keep in mind is that AE does not focus on conspiracies, but rather science.

And the science of freefall is what it is. Freefall is impossible unless the material below the falling section is pulverized or otherwise removed entirely. Keep in mind NIST would not admit freefall initially; they were forced to.

Science; how does the building get rigged for demolition and NO ONE notices?

[longshot]

scherzkeks said:

longshot said:

You do understand that a building is designed to support a stationary weight and not to resist the kinetic forces of the above floor(s) collapsing?

Fire/heat has this annoying habit of 'weakening' steel.

You have an enormous amount of forces bearing down on supports that are barely doing their job. The building is effectively being supported by half of the structure and you are surprised when it appears to free fall.

I'll go back to something I quoted the other day.

One of the big 4 on your 9/11 truth site was surprised when 2 identical buildings, built in identical ways and attacked in identical ways collapsed in identical ways.

These are the people you rely on for your 'facts'.



You have one huge problem.
You are not an architect or structural engineer I would hazard, so you have to completely rely on what people on these sites tell you.
You are not able to make these decisions for yourself.

Edited by longshot on Thursday 25th August 12:59

This research and information here is provided by a non-profit organization consisting of over 2,600 professional architects and engineers.

They are very easy to find. Assuming you are qualified and have first-hand experience investigating the matter, I'd be interested in reading a transcript of any dicussions you might have with them in the future.

Just because they have letters after their name doesn't automatically mean that what they have to say is credible.

These are the sort of people who could find a conspiracy in the colour being changed of a milk bottle top.

You go and speak to them and ask them for any evidence that actually stands up to any degree of scrutiny because I haven't seen any yet.

Let me ask you the question.

What would you expect 2 identically design and built buildings to do when they are attacked in an identical way?
Would you expect them to act in identical ways and collapse in identical ways?

[Hugo a Gogo]

scherzkeks said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

there is no way all supports could be blown out, all of each floor at once, sequentially by floor, in a controlled demolition stylee without stripping out the building, drilling big holes, laying literally miles of det cord etc

which would be pretty hard to hide

What you need to keep in mind is that AE does not focus on conspiracies, but rather science.

And the science of freefall is what it is. Freefall is impossible unless the material below the falling section is pulverized or otherwise removed entirely. Keep in mind NIST would not admit freefall initially; they were forced to.

NIST said:

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_publi... NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol...

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

[scherzkeks]

Hugo a Gogo said:

scherzkeks said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

there is no way all supports could be blown out, all of each floor at once, sequentially by floor, in a controlled demolition stylee without stripping out the building, drilling big holes, laying literally miles of det cord etc

which would be pretty hard to hide

What you need to keep in mind is that AE does not focus on conspiracies, but rather science.

And the science of freefall is what it is. Freefall is impossible unless the material below the falling section is pulverized or otherwise removed entirely. Keep in mind NIST would not admit freefall initially; they were forced to.

NIST said:

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_publi... NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol...

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

And now I revert you back to the links I posted earlier regarding their methodology, the initial claim, and the revised claim (as if proof was needed that no one reads).

[WinstonWolf]

scherzkeks said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

scherzkeks said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

there is no way all supports could be blown out, all of each floor at once, sequentially by floor, in a controlled demolition stylee without stripping out the building, drilling big holes, laying literally miles of det cord etc

which would be pretty hard to hide

What you need to keep in mind is that AE does not focus on conspiracies, but rather science.

And the science of freefall is what it is. Freefall is impossible unless the material below the falling section is pulverized or otherwise removed entirely. Keep in mind NIST would not admit freefall initially; they were forced to.

NIST said:

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_publi... NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol...

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

And now I revert you back to the links I posted earlier regarding their methodology, the initial claim, and the revised claim (as if proof was needed that no one reads).

Can we just deal with this one first?

Science; how does the building get rigged for demolition and NO ONE notices?