New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001

Home Forums Discussion Forum New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001

  • This topic has 401 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 10 months ago by Clark.
Viewing 40 posts - 361 through 400 (of 402 total)
  • Author
  • #52226 Reply

    “Whose evidence? Mine or yours?”

    I’ve explained my reasons for trusting the Ioannidis evidence. He is an expert in that field with everything to lose if he gets it wrong.
    I’ve explained why I distrust the evidence you get through the MSM – it is subject to pressure from those who I believe are making the biggest power grab in history.
    So it’s fair to ask “my evidence or yours?” You claim I’m cherry-picking. I claim you’re doing the same.

    so your appeal the the UAF report is mere hypocrisy; had it contradicted your opinion you would have dismissed it, presumably as work dictated by “the elite”, a claim you can make of absolutely anything.

    No. I’ve also explained why I trust that evidence. It comes with the data, workings, and an invite for anybody to challenge it. Unlike the official narrative.

    You resort to mere conspiracy theory, because all the evidence you reject you can attribute to the conspiracy.

    I always know when you’re on the ropes – you resort to name calling 🙂

    What action do you recommend?

    I’ve told you this too. It’s too late for macro action, they are too powerful. They have you on their side, after all, shutting down the opposition. A continuing tactic of theirs for decades has been to attack families, communities, culture, religion – to break bonds that encourage people to stick together, to support each other. Therefore I put my energy into strengthening my community. Micro action – it is the only defense left.

    #52227 Reply


    “Pooh, I do apologise; I’ve ended up fielding other stuff.”
    “and I owe Pooh some of my time.”

    It’s kind of you to say that. Please don’t worry. I’m doing fine reading comments at the 911 link a mod kindly provided. It’s been quite a while since I paid attention to the ins and outs of 911. I can see you are very busy. Do carry on with the discussion and forget me for now, I have enough info from the comments and links to get on with. If I have a question that can’t wait, I’ll ask.

    Keep well. Many thanks.

    #52229 Reply

    “Therefore I put my energy into strengthening my community.”

    That’s a good thing to do. I praised you for it as soon as you revealed it.

    “Micro action – it is the only defense left.”

    I know you think XR is “controlled opposition” (an idea popular with conspiracy theorists) and that global warming is a hoax (a conspiracy theory), or unimportant or whatever, but we certainly had an effect, as revealed in polls. We also affected the corporate media.

    (and I can’t help it if you can’t tell proper scientific arguments from astroturf; read Bad Science.)

    Craig’s blog has also forced issues into the corporate media, and my actions improved policy at Wikipedia. So here are two other methods that work – non-violent direct action, and using the independent micro-media. At least you haven’t recommended removing or breaking the restrictions, but your arguments encourage others to do so, eg. Dave.

    “You claim I’m cherry-picking. I claim you’re doing the same”

    You haven’t addressed the sharp rise in overall mortality, now seen in multiple parts of the world. This refuted your “no worse than seasonal flu” cherry-pick, yet you made the same argument yet again today, complete with a cherry-picked quote-mine of a quote-mine, another common conspiracy theorist’s technique.

    Of course you’ve claimed I’m cherry-picking because you don’t know how to assess an argument rationally and scientifically, so opinion versus opinion is all you have left. Read Bad Science.

    “I distrust the evidence you get through the MSM”

    I don’t have a telly, I don’t listen to the radio, I don’t get a “news”paper and I only use their websites occasionally when following commenters’ links. My info was coming, privately and publicly, from Squonk. In your very own link above at 13:53 (where you claiming to be banned though you weren’t), Squonk told you:

    “I quote true experts in the field. […] I’ve been a member of two disease tracking forums for over 10 years including during the whole swine flu thing. […] I didn’t just start paying attention now with SARS-CoV-2.”

    Node: – “..the MSM – it is subject to pressure from those who I believe are making the biggest power grab in history.”

    It’s the corporate media; all of it is funded by advertising and much of it is owned by billionaires, so of course it projects the narrative of corporatism and the extremely wealthy. That doesn’t invalidate all reporting; you can’t just say “the Guardian says there’s global warming, therefore it’s a hoax”. Even corporatism and billionaires are right about some things, and a very few of them (one? two?) have funded XR (a tiny bit from their perspective), but maybe those few are fond of our lovely biosphere, or maybe they just have a bit more sense. Your assumption of monolithic evil is blinkering you.

    And why call it the MSM, “MainStream Media”? That’s something were trying to change, isn’t it?


    “Conspiracy theorist” isn’t an insult; it’s a description. Not a complimentary one, I agree, but it is a functional one; your theories are based on your assumed objectives of your purported conspiracy. Maybe your “elite” are as worried about getting covid-19 as everyone else is, so they’re encouraging media overdrive to slow it down until a vaccine is developed. Maybe they’re worried about it decimating the wage slave consumers. You don’t know what their objective might be, so you’re just seeing your own assumptions.

    How they will attempt to exploit the crisis can be explored with political and economic theory, but attempting to use conspiracy theory is bound to be circular – all you’ll be able to see are your own assumptions about the “elite”. Example:

    Option 1: global warming is a hoax, or unimportant.
    Option 2: global warming is a major threat to humanity.

    Option 1: the elite hype global warming to increase taxation.
    Option 2: the elite hype global warming because they want a future for them and their kids; they want their dominance to continue.

    So the elite hype global warming either way.

    Political, economic and conspiracy theories are all incorrect methods for assessing global warming. You need a scientific theory, because global warming is a physical issue. Same goes for covid-19.

    #52230 Reply

    “I’ve explained my reasons for trusting the Ioannidis evidence. He is an expert in that field with everything to lose if he gets it wrong.”

    But you didn’t really listen to Ioannidis. He said there are grounds for hope, that society can return to normal eventually; you only heard the bit you wanted to “no worse than flu”. He failed to make clear the difference between CFR Case Fatality Rate and the always lower IFR Infection Fatality Rate.

    But this is all besides the point. You’re starting from a political/economic assumption about the objectives of the elite, and working backwards to infer the nature of a virus and the epidemic it causes, and cherry-picking on that basis. But politics and economics don’t determine the epidemiology of a virus; the converse is true.

    #52231 Reply

    And Ioannidis hasn’t produced any evidence. He gave an interpretation, of one paper. You’d know the difference between evidence and interpretation if you’d read Bad Science, because that’s the sort of thing it teaches. And you’d be wary of anything based on one paper, because that’s cherry picking. But Ioannidis didn’t use the paper to invalidate the restrictions; he merely cited it as a hope for the future.

    #52235 Reply

    Pooh, thanks for your reply.

    As best I remember, I got Nikko to do the momentum calculations with his spreadsheet model; it’s probably around comment page 100. But Nikko had started wrong, by letting the topmost floor assembly fall onto the one beneath, and he got a collapse that stopped. In fact the damaged zone was over ten floors down. I pointed this out and Nikko corrected his model such that the top ten floors dropped, and he got a collapse that accelerated.

    But Nikko also had an arbitrary ejection of mass each time the falling material entrained another floor. I think he chose 5% or 10%, which is way too much, see this comment above. It took me a while to persuade him, but he eventually reduced the ejection to nothing, and thereby got the limiting case. It was well within the collapse as estimated from the video record, and accorded quite well with my manual guestimate, which might be around page 93 or 95 – basically a falling mass of ten units hitting one stationary unit slows the collapse by only one eleventh, and thus a twelfth at the next floor down, then a thirteenth, and so on.

    The spare energy calculations come later.

    #52251 Reply

    Many thanks, Clark. I take note of what you’ve said.

    To begin with, it seems that for your calculations to come close to being correct, you would have to demonstrate that at the relevant time the live load bearing capacity of the floors you consider was zero, that is to say that each floor could support no more than its own weight + whatever other weight it was already supporting, and, therefore, its reaction to what was falling on it was due to just its own inertial mass (<b>1</b>/11, <b>1</b>/12, etc.).

    I have been under the impression that, according to NIST, I think, the live load bearing capacity of a non-service floor was, for a static load, 12 non-service floors, and for a load dropped – 6 non-service floors. These numbers might be wrong, but the live load bearing capacity of all the floors at the time of collapse is most unlikely to have been zero unless some other factors you have not taken into account had been at play.

    I will read in due course all the comments you’ve mentioned.

    Keep well.

    #52253 Reply

    Pooh, I was developing and refining my understanding of the Twin Tower collapses as I went along, mostly from watching the collapse videos, sometimes frame by frame, and occasionally by reading engineers’ comments, and some of the academic papers. So my ideas changed and evolved as the thread progressed.

    One thing I did that seemed to help me a lot was that I read up on the structure and construction of the Twin Towers, including dimensions of steel columns, floor assemblies etc., and then visualised it as a 1/100 scale model. The Twin Towers were just too big for me to think about directly; imagining the scale model helped me to fit it into my mind, my experience, as it were.

    Something that really disappointed me was that no one anyone else really joined in with trying to work it out, for instance no one shared my wonder at the delicacy of the 1/100th scale visualisation. Nikko was occasionally helpful with some basic calculations, but mostly it seemed that everyone had already decided upon pre-rigged demolition, and just wanted to shut me up or ridicule my efforts. The ridicule in particular really pissed me off, and I got in a very bad mood at times; there was just more every time I returned to the thread.

    #52255 Reply

    Once I’d got a handle on it, the Twin Tower collapses made perfect sense. Not so WTC7; I still don’t know what happened to that. I’m not surprised that it fell down, but its relative neatness seems decidedly odd. Weird building, weird circumstances, weird collapse.

    That said, I had another look at Chandler’s measurements last night, and that gave me another new idea. But it’s not likely to reveal anything about intent.

    #52256 Reply

    Morning, Clark

    “… if WTC7 was indeed brought down by thermite, and residue was found in New York dust, then the thermite residue isn’t specific to the Twin Towers.”

    Not necessarily so. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.

    See The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2: 7-31 ‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe’ Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen3
    (This paper is still unchallenged as far as I’ve been able to ascertain)

    #52257 Reply

    April 21, 2020 at 09:32

    “The ridicule in particular really pissed me off, and I got in a very bad mood at times; there was just more every time I returned to the thread.”

    I’ve noticed. You won’t get any of that kind of attitude from me, I promise. My word is my bond. I admit I like smiling and having a laugh, but ridiculing another is an absolute ‘no’.

    Take care.

    #52265 Reply

    I doubt I have the background knowledge to assess a chemistry paper.

    But thermitic materials make no sense for the Twin Towers. If structural failure were to occur across a full cross-section, there’s no way they could not collapse. If an aircraft had failed to arrive, there’d be a tower full of thermite and detonation equipment, so it’d make more sense to dispense with any destructive materials and just let them burn, even if they didn’t collapse.

    If the paper is right, the thermitic material presumably came from somewhere else. It would seem more likely that it was deliberately added to the dust; a psi-op to help protect the Saudi-jihadi-NATO collaboration.

    #52272 Reply

    Thank you, Clark

    “I doubt I have the background knowledge to assess a chemistry paper.”

    I understand. No problem.
    Selected excerpts from the article at GlobalResearch.

    Full text. Have a look. It’s not difficult to follow the argument if you are interested and have a bit of time to spare.

    Niels Harrit interview, 10min

    “But thermitic materials make no sense for the Twin Towers. If structural failure were to occur across a full cross-section, there’s no way they could not collapse.”

    I’d like to reserve judgement on this for the time being.

    With respect. The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer-reviewed publication. It is available to everyone to read, find errors and make them public. As far as I know, no valid criticisms have come to light in the eleven years since its publication.

    Please don’t think I’m trying to blind you with science. Reading through many of your comments, I’ve noticed that you have cited many academic papers. Am I now to understand that you neither have personal knowledge of their contents, nor are able to follow their authors’ arguments? Say, for instance, I peruse a paper you cite, find errors and tell you about my findings. Will you reply that you are not in a position to judge, and if so, what’s the purpose of your citing the paper? The way I see it is that we got talking about something we both are interested in, and I presumed that it would be ok to accept your format of discussion. Now it appears that I might’ve been mistaken.

    If you really would like to continue our discussion, perhaps it would be a good idea for you to tell me how you would like me to go about it.

    Incidentally, I was in the Oxford Circus-Marble Arch area on 15 April last year.

    Stay safe.

    #52285 Reply

    In Newtonian physics and engineering, I may have something useful to say. Chandler’s Downward Acceleration of WTC1 is well within my understanding. I have pointed out many papers, as part of some lists, to show that the collapses have not been ignored by the physics and engineering community, as had been claimed. On other occasions I read some papers, in which case I probably commented about them. If you cite a paper I will read it, and I’ll tell you how much of it I understand.

    Some years ago I read the Harrit paper, but I didn’t understand enough of it to have anything useful to say.

    I was on the Marble Arch camp April 2019 for nine days. I was leafleting at the Pink Boat on the first Monday. The April Uprising was one of the best experiences I have ever had. October was far more difficult and stressful. I have been with XR since the Halloween action in 2018. It is a wonderful organisation.

    #52342 Reply

    Pooh, sorry, I’ve only just noticed your April 21, 03:51 comment #52251; don’t know how I missed it.

    Yes, I ignored mechanical resistance because I couldn’t do those calculations. So I went a different route.

    I had a look at the truss seats (the connection of horizontal floor assemblies to the vertical frame), and they seemed pretty insubstantial, I thought they wouldn’t really slow things down much. But momentum transfer might, so I checked that manually for the first floor assembly below the damaged zone, and that didn’t slow things much either (~9%, and less each subsequent floor). Then came the discussion with Nikko and the spreadsheet, the one floor / ten floor correction, then eliminating Nikko’s arbitrary ejections, and it came out within the measured / estimated* collapse time (*we can’t quite see the end because the big dust cloud is welling up).

    Then I calculated the energy available for deformation of materials when the falling stuff entrained another floor assembly. I chose a high collision for that because there’s more mass and velocity the lower you go. You know; you calculate the final velocity from the momentum equation, and then from the initial V and the final V, and the mass, you work out the kinetic energy before and after, subtract one from the other, and you’re left with the energy dissipated into deformation of materials, sound etc.. Convert that to TNT equivalent, and it looked plenty to break the truss seats. It doesn’t matter whether it breaks the floor assembly or the truss seat because this is a collapse, a failure; either will do.

    I still didn’t have a conclusive collapse time, but then I realised, so what? Who’d run the risk of getting caught by lacing the towers with thermite or TNT or anything, just to make a tower collapse four seconds or whatever faster than it would have done anyway, without? They’d have to be stupid beyond comprehension.

    So I put myself in their position and thought, what am I trying to achieve? An atrocity; loads of dead people. Well structural failure across a cross section would achieve that; the buildings will be a write-off anyway, everything’s well fucked, that’ll do. I don’t really care how big a stump of unusable building is left after, it’s going to be a massive problem to clear up no matter what. No, I don’t feel any need to lace the building with explosives or thermite or whatever, and all the hassle and risk that would entail. Just ensure structural failure across a complete cross-section; job done.

    And then I found this:

    #52343 Reply

    Regarding live loads etc, I think each floor assembly was rated to take something like ten times its own weight, static. John Goss said eleven. But in the more conservative case, WTC1, there were at least ten floor assemblies, plus the top mechanical floor (heavier than a standard floor assembly), plus the hat truss, plus the roof, and all the contents, which included heavy stuff like elevator winches etc. Oh, and there’s an aircraft in there too. That lot has to come to more than eleven times the weight of a floor assembly, so even if we gently lowered it onto the highest floor assembly below the damaged zone, it’s too much, the floor’s going to go. The floor is only four inch concrete on one inch bar joists, no way it can hold that lot. And it wasn’t gently lowered; it was dropped 3.7 metre at 2/3g. No way. Not worth calculating. It’s not going to hold, and the next floor down is even worse of course. Collapse ensues.

    #52451 Reply

    Second attempt (first submitted 23.04.20 at 02:28)

    Thank you, Clark

    Clark September 5, 2019 at 15:03

    “Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1” theory applies only to a contiguous block of material, not to a lattice of steel supporting thousands of tonnes of concrete in a structure that was over 90% empty space.”

    Chandler’s observations rely on Newton’s laws, the law of conservation of energy etc., and logic. Could you please substantiate your above statement?

    Clark April 21, 2020 at 14:38

    “If the paper is right, the thermitic material presumably came from somewhere else. It would seem more likely that it was deliberately added to the dust; a psi-op to help protect the Saudi-jihadi-NATO collaboration.

    What do you mean by “came from somewhere else”? Who would deliberately add it “to the dust”, and how?

    What do you think about my remarks with regard to your calculations?

    #52453 Reply

    Thanks, mod.

    Clark I’ll try to reply later today to your points still outstanding.


    #52459 Reply

    Chandler’s Downward Acceleration predicts that no structure can undergo top-down accelerating collapse.

    When I realised that I knew there had to be something wrong with it; it must be possible to contrive a structure that can. Then I realised the problem; his model is one dimensional. The diagram is two dimensional, but only one dimension appears in the maths; the vertical. Nothing can go past anything else on the way down; the material above is forced to go through the material beneath by this limitation of the model.

    Chandler’s model can be applied in three dimensions, but there must be no variation in the structure in the two vertical dimensions. It applies to a block, and indeed Chandler refers to the sections above and below the damaged zones as blocks, but they are not, they are mostly empty apart from air.

    So I immediately wondered what would happen if the vertical frame members got displaced laterally ie. they got out of line, and that starting point eventually led me to understanding the way the collapses proceeded.

    #52462 Reply

    “What do you mean by “came from somewhere else”? Who would deliberately add it “to the dust”, and how?”

    Oh, the CIA probably. By “any means necessary” of course!

    #52467 Reply

    “What do you think about my remarks with regard to your calculations?”

    Do you mean your April 21 03:51 comment #52251?

    Yes, I took the load bearing capacity as zero since I couldn’t calculate it, and because the truss ends and truss seats look like almost nothing compared with the perimeter and core columns:

    Instead, I did the momentum transfer calcs, or rather I guestimated them and Nikko’s spreadsheet did it more thoroughly, and then I went back to ensure there was enough energy dissipated in inelastic collision momentum transfer to tear out the truss connections. There’s enough spare energy throughout collapse; not a huge excess at first, but the initial part of the collapse was the slowest anyway. Once the collapse accumulates mass and velocity there’s loads of spare energy, and momentum transfer becomes the main thing holding it back.

    This is what I meant a few comments above: April 23, 02:20 #52343

    #52590 Reply

    Part of my justification for delaying examination of mechanical resistance is that it doesn’t have to be the truss seats that failed. If we imagine a falling pile of rubble between perimeter and core, rather than a regular pancaking/stacking of whole floor slabs, it’s the centre of the long floor spans that are most vulnerable; the rubble would smash through rather than decoupling floor assemblies from the vertical core and perimeter columns at the truss seat connections.

    If indeed the floor slabs were getting smashed through, that’s entirely within the realm of “deformation of materials”, which is where kinetic energy dissipates to when inelastic collisions occur. In this scenario, momentum transfer and overcoming mechanical resistance are pretty much the same thing.

    Whichever failure demands least energy is the one that will occur quickest; a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

    Remember that we’re considering failure, but the ordered geometry of the building is its main source of strength, especially in structures that are as lightweight as possible like the Twin Towers were. Any event which disrupts that order weakens the structure. The second law of thermodynamics is on the side of collapse – disorder tends to increase.

    #52600 Reply
    Tony M


    Full paper:

    […] that 3 deep under-
    ground nuclear explosions occurred on
    September 11, 2001 under the World
    Trade Center site, each of them at
    least of 50 kt and more probably on
    the order of 100 kt of TNT.[…]

    Stop tying yourselves in knots trying to deny this.

    #52614 Reply


    #52684 Reply

    Pooh, Nikko presented some of his spreadsheet results here, regarding an idealised internal collapse of floor assemblies of WTC1:

    “The 10-storey section would take 0.88 s to fall the 3.8 meters before hitting the first floor below and in that time its velocity would increase from 0 m/s to 8.6 m/s. The collision with that floor (law of conservation of momentum) would reduce its velocity to 7.8m/s and the now 11-storey equivalent block would take 0.39 s to accelerate to 11.6m/s before again colliding with a floor, the impact of which would slow it down to 10.7 m/s. And so on and so on all the way to the ground through the remaining 98 floors, which it would hit after 11.7 seconds with a speed of 50 m/s.”

    That’s well within the ~15 seconds of WTC1’s collapse.

    My “back of a fag packet” momentum calculations are here. If you can face technical reading, the ROOSD collapse progression process is here. ROOSD is Rapid Open Office Space Destruction – cascade destruction of the floor assemblies, confined and thus channelled by the perimeter.

    #52783 Reply

    Evening, Clark

    I haven’t been feeling too well, and my mind, if there is such an entity, has been elsewhere. Once I recover, I hope I’ll able to play a straight bat (no, not a white bat) to hit whatever you throw at me. 🙂


    #52789 Reply

    Pooh, thanks for checking in. I have been on the thread under Craig’s latest post, frantically countering anti-lockdown rumours with evidence so we don’t end up inadvertently suffocating 400,000 old folk to death with no hospital care.

    Sorry to hear you’ve been unwell. I hope it’s not the covid, which is known to sometimes produce neurological effects. Day ten is said to be critical; if you take a downturn around ten days after first noticing symptoms, get yourself checked over.

    Get well soon; Love and Rage 🙂

    #52795 Reply

    Thanks, Clark. Nah, no virus has been able to penetrate my aura. Let’ say it’s an epiphany occasioned by loving and raging. We’ll soon lovingly rage forward and clash in the bright future of loving rage and set our encrypted event notes free to embrace and love-dance in the gravitational aftermath of our mutual rage-assisted free fall destruction. 🙂

    Do good and take care.

    #52817 Reply

    Here’s what’s making me want to dance these days. Teardrop by Massive Attack is the love; can our teardrops quench the fire? I hear they played at Marble Arch, but there was so much going on, so many places to be at once.
    For the rage, The Comet is Coming:

    Blood of the Past:

    Imagine a culture that has, at its root
    A more soulful connection to land and to loved ones
    But I can hear the lie before you speak
    There is nothing but progress to eat
    And we are so fat and so hungry

    Start Running:

    #53274 Reply

    You think the complete collapse (disintegration of reinforced concrete and steel into dust) of both towers (110 stories high each) is elementary following the impact of two planes. Would your calculations need revising if there were only one or no planes? And what has your research revealed about the size of the planes and exact impact points?

    #53397 Reply

    What I calculated concerns only collapse progression ie. progressive collapse, not collapse initiation ie. structural failure.

    Collapse progression is the part that Chandler claimed to have proven to be impossible in his “Downward Acceleration of WTC1” (link), which is the reason that demolition theorists so often cite Newton’s laws. The critical part is on page 9 of the link; it’s very simple and the physics is right which is why it has convinced so many people, but there’s only height in the equations, there’s no width or breadth, so it doesn’t apply in the real world. It “proves” that nothing can ever collapse, which is clearly absurd.

    The collapses of the Twin Towers clearly proceeded from the aircraft impact zones downward, and that, and Chandler’s paper, are the reasons that demolition theorists have to postulate charges on every storey – a type of demolition never seen in the demolition industry, a massive amount of work and an absolute pig to synchronise and sequence – I’ve done a bit of theatrical pyrotechnics in my time, plus a few gas explosions; purely for entertainment. And if an aircraft had failed to arrive or hit they’d have had a very embarrassing pre-rigged skyscraper to explain.

    The NIST reports don’t cover collapse progression; they only go as far as collapse initiation ie. structural failure, and then say that complete destruction was thereby assured, citing Bazǎnt, 2001. But Bazǎnt’s paper is entirely theoretical, and inspection of the wreckage proves that that isn’t the way the Towers collapsed. There’s been loads of hoo-ha over this but it’s entirely irrelevant to anything in the real world because the collapses proceeded by ROOSD (see my comment #52684 above) not Bazǎnt’s theory. My observations and calculations confirm ROOSD. I discovered ROOSD after I’d worked out the same thing myself.

    Far more important is that NIST couldn’t make their proposal for structural failure work, and it appears to be wrong. NIST said that heat made the floors sag, pulling in on the perimeter causing the perimeter to buckle, but when they tried it with a full scale model it didn’t work. But you only have to watch the collapse videos to see that it’s wrong, because for WTC1 the antenna starts falling before the top section begins to descend, indicating that the core must have failed first not the perimeter.

    My best guess about structural failure is that the buildings had become overloaded in the years since construction, and that’s what the cover-up is about. They were designed before there was any idea that everyone would have a computer on their desk, with a big old-fashioned glass monitor. Remember how heavy computers and monitors were in the 1990s? Plus loads of ancillaries had been installed; escalators between floors, all the massive screens of stock market trading rooms, whole rooms full of racks of what were effectively lorry batteries for uninterruptible power supplies for computer data centres… I reckon the Twin Towers were loaded beyond their design capacity, they were in an illegal state even before the aircraft hit, and that’s part of the reason that the victims’ and families’ compensation was settled out of court.

    The Twin Towers were of an experimental design and wouldn’t have been permitted in any state of the US; they only got permission because the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had an exemption from New York State building regulations. By 2001 they were loaded way beyond capacity I reckon and were disasters waiting to happen.

    #53464 Reply

    So a collapse progression followed a collapse initiation, but your calculations do not involve any study of the initiation, you just accept planes hit the towers, but you don’t their size, weight and where they hit the towers! Is this correct, if not please reference the information?

    #53493 Reply

    I accept the copious evidence that aircraft hit the Twin Towers, in such places as to cause the extensive damage and fire, all as indicated by countless videos, photographs witness testimony and debris. I expect they were the passenger flights as claimed because this would be almost impossible to distort, but I haven’t looked into it.

    The calculations for the structural failures which initiated the collapses are beyond my expertise, and in any case the extent and disposition of internal damage can only be estimated.

    #53583 Reply

    So you can calculate and speculate about progressive collapse at considerable length, promoting an impressive “spontaneous combustion due to shock and sympathy collapse theory”, but freely admit you haven’t considered the initiation! Bit of an admission don’t you think?

    #53598 Reply

    ? :/

    Humans seem weird to me.

    #53603 Reply

    You are arguing a progression theory, but if planes hit the towers and unless they were exactly the same shape, size and weight, and unless they hit in exactly the same spot, then surely your back of the envelope calculations would need revising, and require an initiation theory?

    PS. Was that you sitting on the throne?

    #53609 Reply

    Any structural failure across the entire cross-section of the tower would cause the section above to begin descending, initiating progressive collapse. It doesn’t matter what causes the structural failure. If it occurred very high in the tower, the section above might be light enough that the structure beneath could arrest its descent. If it occurred low enough, the section beneath would suffer complete accelerating progressive collapse, but the top section might also topple; this partially happened to WTC2.

    Christianity teaches that all should emulate Jesus. I think there’s great value in that, and I think the story of Jesus is profound, powerful and highly political – a man gave up all pursuit of wealth to become a travelling healer and a teacher of peace and comradeship. He taught that relationship with the divine is personal rather than the preserve of a privileged class, whom he called out as corrupt and hypocritical. He travelled to the capital city where he engaged in civil disobedience, overturning the tables in the temple and dispelling the traders. He foresaw his own end, and thus transformed the traditional ritual of his culture. He was betrayed to the authorities who put him on trial, but they could find no crime. But a rabble had been roused against him and so he was tortured to death in public.

    An early chapter in The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov fictionalises a meeting between Pontius Pilate and Jesus. I found it electrifying. But I do not call Jesus ‘Christ’ and I will not call myself a Christian, because I am not superstitious, I reject resurrection, and because Christ means ‘saviour’ and I don’t believe that anything or anyone was saved. On the contrary; since 9/11, it has seemed that all is lost, and the first thing lost was rationality, which I struggle to restore.

    #54017 Reply

    @ Clark

    “Any structural failure across the entire cross-section of the tower would cause the section above to begin descending, initiating progressive collapse”.

    So you’re accepting this happened, without any consideration of whether it was possible, by the means alleged?

    #54019 Reply

    No, and for WTC1 it looks like NIST’s proposal is wrong. From the video record, the antenna began descent before the perimeter failed, and the antenna was near the centre of the roof and thus over the core, so it looks like the core failed first, whereas NIST claim the perimeter failed first.

    But I am sure that structural failure due to damage and fire was possible; NIST tested their proposal with a full-scale mock up, and it nearly worked; the floor systems sagged, but not enough to cause structural failure. Ultimately, anything can break, and it is likely to break in a way that hasn’t been thought of, and don’t trust any engineer who tells you otherwise; he’s over-confident. NIST made their mock up for the test, so it was brand new, whereas the Twin Towers had stood there for decades, suffering metal fatigue, rusting, modification and whatever else. And we can’t be sure it was ever constructed to full specification, or that the steel components didn’t have manufacturing weaknesses. And as I said before, the towers could have become overloaded with contents of excessive weight.

    Failure is always possible, but the art of engineering is to make failure as unlikely as you can. But it ultimately comes down to thermodynamics – every structure suffers random changes over time, there are infinite ways that changes can cause failure, but theres’s only one way a structure can avoid failure which is not to change too much, so ultimately luck and time are against you. Your structure will fail eventually, even half of Stonehenge has fallen down. Smashing an aircraft into a structure and setting it on fire speed up the rate of change, and thus hasten failure.

    Structural failure is proven, by the photographic and video record of gradual deformation of the buildings at the damaged zones prior to collapse, and by the wreckage, which includes some vertical column members bent double.

    I rule out pre-rigging with explosive demolition systems as the initiator of structural failure because, in both cases, structural failure occurred at the damaged zone, but that’s where any pre-rigged system would have had to operate properly, despite aircraft impact damage and extensive fire.

    I don’t rule out assistance by explosives placed in or near the damaged zone after impact of the aircraft, and here’s a little snippet you probably haven’t seen on Truther sites.

    #54020 Reply

    WTC2’s structural failure was almost certainly just the aircraft. NIST’s test was marginal, failure almost occurred. WTC2 was struck lower down, so there was over twice the load on the damaged zone, and it was struck off-centre, so the damage was less symmetrical – if you want to break a stick or a tube, start by cutting a notch in it, and then bend it about the point you weakened.

Viewing 40 posts - 361 through 400 (of 402 total)
Reply To: New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001
Your information: