167

On the physics of high-rise building collapses

by Steve Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter
Reproduced with permission of the authors from Europhysics News

In August 2002, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) launched what would become a six-year investigation of the three building failures that occurred on September 11, 2001 (9/11):

  1. the well-known collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers that morning and
  2. the lesser-known collapse late that afternoon of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which was not struck by an airplane.

NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the

WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.”

Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, whereby explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.

Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.

Preventing high-rise failures

Steel-framed high-rises have endured large fires without suffering total collapse for four main reasons:

  1. Fires typically are not hot enough and do not last long enough in any single area to generate enough energy to heat the large structural members to the point where they fail (the temperature at which structural steel loses enough strength to fail is dependent on the factor of safety used in the design. In the case of WTC 7, for example, the factor of safety was generally 3 or higher. Here, 67% of the strength would need to be lost for failure to ensue, which would require the steel to be heated to about 660°C);
  2. Most high-rises have fire suppression systems (water sprinklers), which further prevent a fire from releasing sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state;
  3. Structural members are protected by fireproofing materials, which are designed to prevent them from reaching failure temperatures within specified time periods; and
  4. Steel-framed high-rises are designed to be highly redundant structural systems. Thus, if a localized failure occurs, it does not result in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
.FIG.1:WTC5 is an example of how steel-framed high-rises typically perform in large fires. It burned for over eight hours on September 11, 2001, and did not suffer a total collapse (Source: FEmA)

.FIG.1:WTC5 is an example of how steel- framed high-rises typically perform in large fires. It burned for over eight hours on September 11, 2001 (a), and did not suffer a total collapse (b) (Source: FEmA)

Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steel-framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1 a and b) [1].

In addition to resisting ever-present gravity loads and occasional fires, high-rises must be designed to resist loads generated during other extreme events — in particular, high winds and earthquakes. Designing for high-wind and seismic events mainly requires the ability of the structure to resist lateral loads, which generate both tensile and compressive stresses in the columns due to bending, the latter stresses then being combined with gravity-induced compressive stresses due to vertical loads.

FIG.2: WTC7fell symmetrically and at free-fall acceleration for a period of 2.25 seconds of its collapse (Source: NIST).

FIG.2: WTC7fell symmetrically and at free-fall acceleration for a period of 2.25 seconds of its collapse (Source: NIST).

It was not until steel became widely manufactured that the ability to resist large lateral loads was achieved and the construction of high-rises became possible. Steel is both very strong and ductile, which allows it to withstand the tensile stresses generated by lateral loads, unlike brittle materials, such as concrete, that are weak in tension. Although concrete is used in some high-rises today, steel reinforcement is needed in virtually all cases.

To allow for the resistance of lateral loads, high-rises are often designed such that the percentage of their columns’ load capacity used for gravity loads is relatively low. The exterior columns of the Twin Towers, for example, used only about 20% of their capacity to withstand gravity loads, leaving a large margin for the additional lateral loads that occur during high-wind and seismic events [2].

Because the only loads present on 9/11 after the impact of the airplanes were gravity and fire (there were no high winds that day), many engineers were surprised that the Twin Towers completely collapsed. The towers, in fact, had been designed specifically to withstand the impact of a jetliner, as the head structural engineer, John Skilling, explained in an interview with the Seattle Times following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing:

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,” he said. “The building structure would still be there.”

Skilling went on to say he didn’t think a single 200-pound [90-kg] car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to either of the Twin Towers.

“However,” he added, “I’m not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage […] I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”

In other words, Skilling believed the only mechanism that could bring down the Twin Towers was controlled demolition.

Techniques of controlled demolition

Controlled demolition is not a new practice. For years it was predominantly done with cranes swinging heavy iron balls to simply break buildings into small pieces. Occasionally, there were structures that could not be brought down this way. In 1935, the two 191-m-tall Sky Ride towers of the 1933 World’s Fair in Chicago were demolished with 680 kg of thermite and 58 kg of dynamite. Thermite is an incendiary containing a metal powder fuel (most commonly aluminum) and a metal oxide (most com- monly iron(III) oxide or “rust”).
Eventually, when there were enough large steel-framed buildings that needed to be brought down more efficiently and inexpensively, the use of shaped cutter charges became the norm. Because shaped charges have the ability to focus explosive energy, they can be placed so as to diagonally cut through steel columns quickly and reliably.

FIG. 3: The final frame of NIST’s WTC 7 computer model shows large deformations to the exterior not observed in the videos (Source: NIST)

In general, the technique used to demolish large buildings involves cutting the columns in a large enough area of the building to cause the intact portion above that area to fall and crush itself as well as crush whatever remains below it.

This technique can be done in an even more sophisticated way, by timing the charges to go off in a sequence so that the columns closest to the center are destroyed first. The failure of the interior columns creates an inward pull on the exterior and causes the majority of the building to be pulled inward and downward while materials are being crushed, thus keeping the crushed materials in a somewhat confined area — often within the building’s “footprint.” This method is often referred to as “implosion.”

The case of WTC 7

The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of an implosion:

  • The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3].
  • Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second.
  • It fell symmetrically straight down.
  • Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles.
  • Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds.

Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.

FIG.4: The above graph[10]comparesDavid Chandler’s measurement[9] of the velocity of the roofline of WTC 1 with Bažant’s erroneous calculation [11] and with Szamboti and Johns’ calculation using corrected input values for mass, acceleration through the first story, conservation of momentum, and plastic moment (the maximum bending moment a structural section can withstand). The calculations show that—in the absence of explosives—the upper section of WTC 1 would have arrested after falling for two stories (Source: Ref. [10]).

Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.”

NIST, meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to November 2008. As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying,

Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.

All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying,

[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.

But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed,

there was structural resistance that was provided.

Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article), who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowledge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report. Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories.

Instead, NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoining girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections — also due to thermal expansion — left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle.

FIG. 5: High-velocity bursts of debris, or “squibs,” were ejected from point-like sources in WTC 1 and WTC 2, as many as 20 to 30 stories below the collapse front (Source: Noah K. murray).

FIG. 5: High-velocity bursts of debris, or “squibs,” were ejected from point-like sources in WTC 1 and WTC 2, as many as 20 to 30 stories below the collapse front (Source: Noah K. murray).

This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3].

NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation, less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse.

Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”

The case of the Twin Towers

Whereas NIST did attempt to analyze and model the collapse of WTC7, it did not do so in the case of the Twin Towers. In NIST’s own words,

The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower….this sequence is referred to as the ‘probable collapse sequence,’ although it includes little analysis of the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.”[5]

Thus, the definitive report on the collapse of the Twin Towers contains no analysis of why the lower sections failed to arrest or even slow the descent of the upper sections — which NIST acknowledges “came down essentially in free fall” [5-6]— nor does it explain the various other phenomena observed during the collapses.

When a group of petitioners filed a formal Request for Correction asking NIST to perform such analysis, NIST replied that it was

unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse

because

the computer models [were] not able to converge on a solution.

However, NIST did do one thing in an attempt to substantiate its assertion that the lower floors would not be able to arrest or slow the descent of the upper sections in a gravity-driven collapse. On page 323 of NCSTAR 1-6, NIST cited a paper by civil engineering professor Zdeněk Bažant and his graduate student, Yong Zhou, that was published in January 2002 [7] which, according to NIST, “addressed the question of why a total collapse occurred” (as if that question were naturally outside the scope of its own investigation).

FIG. 6: molten metal was seen pouring out of WTC 2 continuously for the seven minutes leading up to its collapse (Sources: WABC-Tv, NIST).

FIG. 6: molten metal was seen pouring out of WTC 2 continuously for the seven minutes leading up to its collapse (Sources: WABC-Tv, NIST).

In their paper, Bažant and Zhou claimed there would have been a powerful jolt when the falling upper section impacted the lower section, causing an amplified load sufficient to initiate buckling in the columns. They also claimed that the gravitational energy would have been 8.4 times the energy dissipation capacity of the columns during buckling.

In the years since, researchers have measured the descent of WTC 1’s upper section and found that it never decelerated — i.e. there was no powerful jolt [8-9]. Researchers have also criticized Bažant’s use of free-fall acceleration through the first storey of the collapse, when measurements show it was actually roughly half of gravitational acceleration [2].After falling for one story, the measurements show a 6.1 m/s velocity instead of the 8.5 m/s velocity that would be the result of free fall. This difference in velocity effectively doubles the kinetic energy, because it is a function of the square of the velocity.

In addition, researchers have demonstrated that the 58 × 106 kg mass Bažant used for the upper section’s mass was the maximum design load—not the actual 33 × 106 kg service load [10]. Together, these two errors embellished the kinetic energy of the falling mass by 3.4 times. In addition, it has been shown that the column energy dissipation capacity used by Bažant was at least 3 times too low [2].

In January 2011 [11] Bažant and another graduate student of his, Jia-Liang Le, attempted to dismiss the lack-of-deceleration criticism by claiming there would be a velocity loss of only about 3%, which would be too small to be observed by the camera resolution. Le and Bažant also claimed conservation-of-momentum velocity loss would be only 1.1%. However, it appears that Le and Bažant erroneously used an upper section mass of 54.18 × 106 kg and an impacted floor mass of just 0.627 × 106 kg, which contradicted the floor mass of 3.87 × 106 kg Bažant had used in earlier papers.

The former floor mass is representative of the concrete floor slab only, whereas the latter floor mass includes all the other materials on the floor. Correcting this alone increases the conservation-of-momentum velocity loss by more than 6 times, to a value of 7.1%. Additionally, the column energy dissipation has been shown to be far more significant than Bažant claimed. Researchers have since provided calculations showing that a natural collapse over one storey would not only decelerate, but would actually arrest after one or two stories of fall (see Fig. 4) [2, 10].

Other evidence unexplained

The collapse mechanics discussed above are only a fraction of the available evidence indicating that the airplane impacts and ensuing fires did not cause the collapse of the Twin Towers. Videos show that the upper section of each tower disintegrated within the first four seconds of collapse. After that point, not a single video shows the upper sections that purportedly descended all the way to the ground before being crushed.

Videos and photographs also show numerous high-velocity bursts of debris being ejected from point-like sources (see Fig. 5). NIST refers to these as “puffs of smoke” but fails to properly analyze them [6]. NIST also provides no explanation for the midair pulverization of most of the towers’ concrete, the near-total dismemberment of their steel frames, or the ejection of those materials up to 150 meters in all directions.

NIST sidesteps the well-documented presence of molten metal throughout the debris field and asserts that the orange molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2 for the seven minutes before its collapse was aluminum from the aircraft combined with organic materials (see Fig. 6) [6].

Yet experiments have shown that molten aluminum, even when mixed with organic materials, has a silvery appearance — thus suggesting that the orange molten metal was instead emanating from a thermite reaction being used to weaken the structure [12]. Meanwhile, unreacted nano-thermitic material has since been discovered in multiple independent WTC dust samples [13].

As for eyewitness accounts, some 156 witnesses, including 135 first responders, have been documented as saying that they saw, heard, and/or felt explosions prior to and/or during the collapses [14]. That the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives appears to have been the initial prevailing view among most first responders. “I thought it was exploding, actually,” said John Coyle, a fire marshal.“Everyone I think at that point still thought these things were blown up” [15].

Conclusion

It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Steven Jones is a former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University. His major research interests have been in the areas of fusion, solar energy, and archaeometry. He has authored or co-authored a number of papers documenting evidence of extremely high temperatures during the WTC destruction and evidence of unreacted nano-thermitic material in the WTC dust.


Robert Korol is a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, as well as a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engi- neering and the Engineering Institute of Canada. His major research interests have been in the areas of structural mechanics and steel structures. More recently, he has undertaken experimen- tal research into the post-buckling resistance of H-shaped steel columns and into the energy absorption associated with pulverization of concrete floors


Anthony Szamboti is a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries. Since 2006, he has authored or co-authored a number of technical papers on the WTC high-rise failures that are published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and in the International Journal of Protective Structures.


Ted Walter is the director of strategy and development for Architects & En- gineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers. In 2015, he authored AE-911Truth’s Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. He holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley.
References

[1] NIST: Analysis of Needs and Existing Capabilities for Full-Scale Fire Resistance Testing (October 2008).
[2] G. Szuladziński and A. Szamboti and R. Johns, International Journal of Protective Structures 4, 117 (2013).
[3] NIST: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (November 20, 2008).
[4] R. Brookman, A Discussion of ‘Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse, Journal of 9/11 Studies (October 2012).
[5] NIST: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (December 1, 2005).
[6] NIST: Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investi- gation (Updated September 19, 2011).
[7] Z. Bažant, Y. Zhou, Yong, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 128, 2 (2002).
[8] A. Szamboti and G. MacQueen, The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refu- tation of the NIST-Bažant Collapse Hypothesis, Journal of 9/11 Studies (April 2009).
[9] D. Chandler, The Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics, Journal of 9/11 Studies (February 2010).
[10] A. Szamboti and R. Johns, ASCE Journals Refuse to Correct Fraudulent Paper Published on WTC Collapses, Journal of 9/11 Studies (September 2014).
[11] J.-L. Le and Z. Bažant, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 137, 82 (2011).
[12] S. Jones, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse Completely? Journal of 9/11 Studies (September 2006).
[13] N. Harrit et al., Open Chemical Physics Journal (April 2009).
[14] G. MacQueen, Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions in the Twin Towers, Chapter Eight, The 9/11 Toronto Report, Editor: James Gourley (November 2012).
[15] Fire Department of New York (FDNY): World Trade Center Task Force Interviews, The New York Times (October 2001 to January 2002).


avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
jj4747
Reader
jj4747

The Main premise of this article is that never before or since has a fire cause the collapse of a High Rise Building. Setting aside the evidences that there were shortcuts made on this building that contributed to its collapse, the obvious actual question here is has there ever been another instance of the high speed collision of jet airplanes hitting a high rise building? That is a whole different situation than a typical fire in a high rise. The whole initial premise for this article is faulty.

Vman
Reader
Vman

According to the official story the force of gravity pulled the top fifteen percent of the north tower through the bottom 85 percent !!! This violates two of Newton’s laws of mechanics which are taught in High School Physics classes all over the world….. Thos cannot be a gravitational collapse , there has to be other energy to disintegrate the thousands of tons of steel and concrete! Best source for further understanding : YouTube “ experts speak out”

Admin
Reader

1) Is there a source for the claim of shortcuts in the construction of the buildings?
2) Didn’t NIST rule out the airplane impact as a cause of the building collapse? And of course, WTC7 was NOT hit by a plane.

Karl R Kaiser
Reader
Karl R Kaiser

You don’t need an engineer to tell you that the hole in the Pentagon was half as wide as the wingspan of the plane which supposedly went through it (about 55 feet to 120 feet) – not to mention the gap between the aluminum light poles surrounding the building.
And what kind of pilot who was not trained to land a plane can come in without electronic guidance to the side of a building, on sloping ground, in a city – not a flat, level runway – and hit that building square on in the first two floors – not overshooting it and not bouncing off the ground?
The tide has shifted here and it’s the people who believe the government’s nonsense who are loony.

umbrarchist
Reader

The Twin Towers had 116 levels counting the basements. With 100,000 tons of steel in each building does anyone believe every level had the same amount of steel? So how do experts spend 15 years not discussing the distributions of steel and concrete in relation to the collapse time?

Brian Hatzelhoffer
Reader

I love how the beginning of the article says that the steel would need to be 660 degrees celsius or more to weaken the structure. Jet fuel burns at 815 plus wind increases that and the fire suppressant foam was knocked off in the impact.

Admin
Reader

The temp of the jet fuel would not be transferred directly to the steel though would it? With the thermal conductivity of steel you would need a fire a great deal hotter than that in order to transfer enough heat to the steel to reach 660deg and beyond. The fire would also need to be long lasting. The jet fuel would have burned off in minutes.

United Access Services
Reader

Came to know some unknown facts regarding the collapse of WTC. I found the demolition technique very useful. Also, I would like to know some tips to take care in the demolition of the 100 floor structure.

jahkay
Reader
jahkay

The reason this obvious conclusion and rebuttal of the nist report is so hard for a lot to accept is because some people find it extremely hard to achieve cognitive dissonance and open their eyes for the first ever time. I think that this is partly because of the embarrassment of accepting that you have been led down the garden path and gang raped by a group of 18 stone pro wrestlers a hard thing to realise. it probably is, but better accept it now and realise what has happened before the aids kills you.
Gentlemen, it is basic physics and common sense, the hows, what’s, why’s and who’s are irrelevent prior to grasping the basic facts. It is not possible and completely improbable for fire to be the reason for collapse. In the realm of physics it is as absurd as beleiving you could fart your way to the moon.

anthony hall (@UptiCToc107)
Reader

the fires in the debris pile at Ground Zero burned for 90 days, hot enough to melt Steel. the only other Fire in a building to replicate this was Reactor No.4 at Chernobyl ; which was a Meltdown due to coolant failure in a Nuclear Reactor.
The Fires at Ground Zero were Self Fueled at 1580 degrees Centigrade plus for 3 months. Only an Atomic Fire fits the Physics.

Antony Wooster
Reader
Antony Wooster

“https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Third+Truth”
Anthony Hall, I think this would interest you if you have not already come across it.

marc
Reader
marc

@anthony hall – nothing atomic about it, otherwise New Yorkers would have been down with obvious radiation sickness. Also, no significant radiation levels found by various researchers.

Jerome Fryer
Reader
Jerome Fryer

This is a clearly set out response to the article quoted here.
http://blog.daimonie.com/2016/09/europhysics-truther-rebuke.html?m=1

Rebuke: “On the physics of high-rise building collapses”.

From the concluding remarks:

The authors have quite clearly been shown to misrepresent and cherry pick the NIST report fragments they present, in order to cling to a preordained conclusion even after it has been considered and subsequently demonstrated to be unpalatable. Amusingly, this is exactly what the accuse the NIST of.

Norman Pilon
Reader

@ john miller, September 21, 2016, (https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/07/on-the-physics-of-high-rise-building-collapses/comment-page-1/#comment-42444)
Alaska University model by PROF.Hulsey has apparently shown that WTC7 could NOT have collapsed due to FIRE:
Here are the credentials of an absolute duffer, unlike you Mr. John miller the engineer-cum-pilot:
Leroy Hulsey
Department Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering
Professor, Ph.D., P. E., S.E., Civil Engineering
(907) 474-7816
Duckering 243B
[email protected]
http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx
I mention Hulsey only because he corroborates everything that you glibly assert, Mr. john miller the engineer-cum-pilot, if what you assert is being asserted with your tongue through your cheek, eh:
A) To save yourself some time, start @ 29 minutes and listen carefully, contra NIST:
WTC 7 Evaluation Finds: Fire DID NOT Cause the Collapse of WTC 7

B) To save yourself some time, start @ 14 minutes and listen carefully, contra NIST:
Attorneys Are Told: “Possibility of WTC 7 Collapsing Due to Fire is ZERO”

C) To save yourself some time, start @ 29 minutes and listen carefully, contra NIST:
WTC 7 Evaluation Finds: Fire DID NOT Cause the Collapse of WTC 7

Because, eh, Mr. john miller the engineer-cum-pilot, “no newspaper will team with these clowns [i.e., Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti, andTed Walter], they have no evidence, no proof,” and they have no evidence, no proof, because you say so, eh, Mr. john miller the engineer-cum-pilot.

Jerome Fryer
Reader
Jerome Fryer

Discussed on the ISL forums here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311698&page=5
You should be more interested in Hulsey’s ability to prove a negative, Norman. Ground-breaking work in overturning the scientific method.

Chris
Reader
Chris

Wise words.
I’ve never heard of a cum-pilot before, is that like a jizzom-monkey?

Norman Pilon
Reader

I’m not sure, Chris. But a bit of background for you:
Mr. john miller seemed to think it was important, at first, to let us know he was a pilot when he discredited “Pilots for 9/11 Truth;” the that he was an Engineer when he discredited “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:” and just in case that wasn’t enough unsubstantiated authority for all of us, he also threw in the “alleged” fact that he has a masters degree. Now whenever we see the name ‘john miller,’ our reaction is to fall into a cringing and intimidated silence.
Now if I’m not mistaken, cum is the Latin word for “with” and is usually used to conjoin two nouns, showing that something serves two purposes.
As the “thing” in question, i.e., Mr. john miller, seems to serve the two functions of, on the one hand, engineering and, on the other, flying a plane, I thought to join these two nouns together and always append them to Mr. john miller lest we should ever forget the very heavy credentials that he brings to this forum, eh.
On the other hand, given that masturbation is pretty much a proven universal form of behavior that humans engage in, I think it entirely appropriate to take it as a given that Mr. john miller the engineer-cum-pilot with a masters degree is also and undeniably a jizzom-monkey.
But since I’m from Canada, and a French Canadian to boot, we, the French part of the Canadian tribe, use the spelling “jisum” to denote “seamen,” which is what I think you mean by “jizzom.” So yeah, I’ll go with “Mr. john miller is doubtlessly also, along with his heavy creds, a “jisum-monkey-cum-engineer-cum-pilot.”

Vman
Reader
Vman

Has Albury Smith shown up here yet?!😀

Chris
Reader
Chris

Phew. Sounds like he’s got his hands full.

john miller
Reader
john miller

The article is based on speculation, no valid evidence for the claims implied or made. No Pulitzer, no newspaper will team with these clowns, they have no evidence, no proof. Even the magazine knows it is BS based on speculation; they are too polite to people who mislead and spread false claims.
“”This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.”” Very polite as they explain it is not science, it is speculation. 15 years of no evidence for nonsense like this.

John Goss
Reader

Everything is speculation until it is proved. That goes for the NIST report too. The third law of Newtonian physics about every action causing a reaction is dead and buried if we are to believe that all the floors below the fire-damaged floors would not have put up resistance to the few damaged floors above. Be careful when describing engineers and scientists as clowns or you might end up wearing a dunce’s hat with a bobble on the top!

vectormatrix
Reader
vectormatrix

This article is a critique of the NIST report, and it shows it to be fraudulent and false.

Chris
Reader
Chris

Yes it pretty much demolishes the report – but no surprises there. The true cause of the collapse had been common knowledge for several years before the report even came out, plus we all saw the towers being blown up live on tv. It was an impressive operation, and then they followed up with the anthrax to make sure. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall during the initial pitch. It’ll make a great movie one day. I wonder who they’ll get to play Donald Rumsfeld.

Antony Wooster
Reader
Antony Wooster

I have read that WTC6 also fell down in a similar fashion to WTCs 1, 2 & 7 the same day without even a fire to account for it. Is this true?
Another point which I think is very “questionable” is the way the airplanes (presumably made of thin sheet aluminium and maybe some composite) sliced into the steel and concrete building without leaving anything outside and without slowing down and then burned up so that not even the jet engines (Which work at much higher temperatures than were postulated here) survived in recognizable form.

Admin
Reader

No, building 6 did not fall down in a similar fashion. It partially collapsed and remained mostly standing until demolished.

Jerome Fryer
Reader
Jerome Fryer

“Yes it pretty much demolishes the report – but no surprises there.”
I have considerable doubt that you could back that assertion up. No surprises there.
“It was an impressive operation, and then they followed up with the anthrax to make sure.”
That appears to have been unrelated to Al Queda’s operation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021902369.html

Chris
Reader
Chris

I can categorically assure you, that when “On the physics of high-rise building collapses” was published, demolishing the NIST report, it contained no surprises. On a side note, I think Clooney would be good as Rumsfeld. Obviously Jim Carey would play Bush. Cheney – I’ve still got an open mind.

Admin
Reader

Again, just to clarify, you are alleging 9/11 was completely unrelated to the anthrax attacks that began a few days later?

BigB
Reader
BigB

If Jerome isn’t going to answer, perhaps I can. After all, I would hate the official AMERITHRAX narrative to be left as a final word.
It would be impossible to unravel these attacks from the engineered ‘official’ truth – particularily as the FBI were ‘told’ to blame al Qaeda; to link it to Saddam to justify the upcoming war; and “the anthrax letters pushed a terrified Congress into approving the Patriot Act without even reading it.” Yet it wasn’t al Qaeda or even Dr Bruce Ivins (its usually a lone nutter – but not this time) that were responsible. The weaponised anthrax more than likely didn’t even come from Ft Detrick – yet it had to come from another government facility, in Utah (Dugway) or Ohio (Batelle) are possibilities: it wasn’t made in a cave in Pakistan. This leads me to be able to say that persons unknown – with close ties to the US military – perpetrated these attacks.
See: http://www.globalresearch.ca/head-of-the-fbis-anthrax-investigation-says-the-whole-thing-was-a-sham/5443516
(One for the conspicists – Cheney and the White House staff start taking Cipro (anthrax antidote) ‘as a precaution’ after 9/11 – just sayin’.)

Chris
Reader
Chris

One of the authors, Tony Szamboti, was recently answering technical questions regarding this issue on reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/53cz63/ama_on_the_nist_wtc_reports_the_collapse_dynamics/

sojourner
Reader
sojourner

Reblogged this on An Outsider's Sojourn II.

rtj1211
Reader
rtj1211

Here are a few questions posed because I don’t know the answers, not because I’m the whizkid genius:
Were WTC1 + 2 built with materials containing any nano-thermitic materials? Did, in fact, nano-thermitic materials exist in the early 1970s during construction?
Were the levels of nano-thermitic materials found in dust samples consistent with ‘trace amounts in construction materials’ or were levels indicative of much higher levels?
In steel-structured buildings which have collapsed in demolitions not utilising nano-thermitic explosion protocols, do dust samples taken from the scene contain nano-thermitic materials?
What magnitude of nano-thermitic explosive materials would global demolition experts use to bring down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7?
Is that amount a signifiant percentage of world sales of such materials in 2001?
Do any organisations selling nano-thermite explosive materials have records of such amounts being purchased in the 24 months leading up to 9/11?
If they do, would they indicate who the purchasers were??

Antony Wooster
Reader
Antony Wooster

Q. Are nano thermite like materials used in building highrise buildings?.
A. No. Not as such, but the buildings in question had steel beams which, I have read, were clad with aluminium as a protection against corrosion. Since the buildings were turned largely to dust one might expect to find aluminium and iron oxide dust particles in the rubble and scattered around.
Have a look at this video. I have no idea how much weight to give to it but it is certainly intriguing!
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Third+Truth

Dimitry K.
Reader
Dimitry K.

It has a weight of both WTC1&2. It explains why there was no rubble of a 200 stories, concidering the last 15 to 20 stories and the rooftops were freefalling after the explosions like there was no construction beneath them. It explains the whole incident to the tiny detail. It also kicks out thermite theory.
Thermite tech was always here to move you from the truth. Except for the WTC7 which was obviously conventional demolition.

Paul Barbara
Reader
Paul Barbara

‘…Were WTC1 + 2 built with materials containing any nano-thermitic materials? Did, in fact, nano-thermitic materials exist in the early 1970s during construction?…
These are the important points, and in both cases the answer is no. Nanothermite started being produced, I believe, in the early 1990’s; it was certainly not available in the 1970’s when the Towers were built.
Thermite, however, has been around for yonks; it used to be the way steel railroad tracks were welded together.

PainedScientist
Reader
PainedScientist

Good questions.
1) You’d have to be some sort of raving lunatic or comic book Super Villain to even think about using thermitic material in a building. It’s only good for igniting things and blowing them up. Just watch the stuff in action (plenty of videos on Youtube).
2) You wouldn’t find trace amounts of thermite in construction materials. It just has no business being there.
3) I can’t think of how you would find evidence of thermite post-demolition unless there was thermite used in the demolition. It has a very unique signature and behavior. But not many civilian demolition firms would routinely use thermite, it’s much more commonly used by the military.
4) I can’t answer the amounts of thermite used in demolitions, maybe someone else can.
5) I don’t think anyone has pursued the last two questions. But it’s probably fairly safe to assume if thermite, or nanothermite was used on 9/11 it wasn’t purchased through regular channels.

Jen
Reader
Jen

“… But not many civilian demolition firms would routinely use thermite, it’s much more commonly used by the military …”
So why would thermite have been used in the demolition of the WTC towers? This sounds like a case of overkill. It would be understandable though if there were something in the towers already whose presence had to be destroyed and any and all traces of it completely wiped out.
Could the thermite have been placed to obliterate other explosives or materials and equipment placed in the towers , and any software or databases the equipment contained, that was of a sensitive nature?
The other, more mundane possibility is that the building complex was slated for demolition but contained huge amounts of asbestos, and no civilian demolition company was willing to undertake demolition of such buildings in a densely built urban area. Could the thermite have been used to destroy as much asbestos as possible in a demolition job disguised as a terrorist attack that could be used as a convenient excuse and catalyst for plans and actions that could never be executed otherwise?

Willem
Reader
Willem

According to Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am sorry to say that this article doesn’t produce the extraordinary evidence that is needed for the extraordinary claim that planes did not bring down the WTC. Extraordinary evidence would mean: evidence from whistleblowers who admit that they detonated the bombs and/or placed them in the WTC. Or documents that show that this is a governmental conspiracy.
That doesn’t mean that for that reason the official story is true of course.
What it means is that we do not know who – and how the WTC buildings were brought down.
3 options
1) Occam’s razor, will lead you to nowhere. All the stories on 911 and the WTC have assumptions that do not make sense
2) Cui Bono. As explained by Chomsky*, the most powerful country always benefits most of terror attacks, even if it did not set up the event. Leads you to nowhere
3) Who cares. Aim for things that are not enigma’s by nature or by design. Aim for reasons that were brought to us by the US government why 911 was a catalyst to start illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I would opt for option 3.
*Here is Chomsky talking about this matter in more dept: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m7SPm-HFYLo

Karl R Kaiser
Reader
Karl R Kaiser

Why isn’t the claim that randomly dispersed kerosene could cause three steel structures to collapse neatly into their own footprint “extraordinary”??
And the rest of your post is a tautology masquerading as an “argument”:
Why does an inside job imply governmental participation? This could just be “ordinary” insurance fraud.
And why aren’t the testimonials of firefighters who heard explosions in the building “extraordinary”? Only an insider confession is “extraordinary”?
And why aren’t photographs of explosions ejecting pieces of the building BELOW the collapsing structure “extraordinary”?

marc
Reader
marc

Willem, where is the extraordinary evidence to support the US’s extraordinary claim that planes can implode quarter-mile high steel structures, dropping them through their vertical axes – path of greatest resistance – shredding all that cold hard steel in around 10 to 12 seconds?
If this was possible, demolition companies (as we know them) would be out of business.
No need for careful pre-assessment and wiring. You could just fly decommissioned Boeings at asymmetric angles into tall buildings and – despite the jet fuel burning off in the first few minutes – an hour later you would have a full, symmetric take-down.
Given the implosion of Building Seven, there is also evidence that demolition companies don’t even need to fly planes into structure: just see to a couple of random office furnishing fires on a small percentage of floors and a couple of hours later you’ll get a textbook demolition.

PainedScientist
Reader
PainedScientist

Oh dear God Willem.
1)Three buildings fell down. Only two were hit by planes.
2)The official report does NOT claim planes brought any of them down. It claims the planes damaged WTC1 and WTC2 but that FIRE brought them down. It claims FIRE alone brought down WTC7.
3)No steel frame high-rise building ever before in the history of construction has EVER been brought down by fire.
In this situation Willem, it’s painfully obvious the Extraordinary Claim is “fire brought down the buildings,” NOT “fire didn’t bring down the buildings.” Because the first claim defies known and observed physics while the second does not.
The question is did NIST produce the Extraordinary Evidence to back up its Extraordinary Claim?
Who cares?
Who cares if it was really a bunch of terrorists or if some section of the US government conspired to murder thousands of its own citizens, firefighters, police, office workers in the most heinous and psychopathic false flag ever perpetrated?
What diff, right? They’re all dead now.
Are you fucking serious?

Chris Godwin
Reader
Chris Godwin

Willem, which is the extraordinary claim: a) that planes brought down the towers even though no one making this claim has ever been able to provide a slightly credible explanation of how they did this; or b) that ample lines of evidence exist to indicate that controlled demolition is the most likely mechanism?
Calling Chomsky in aid of your argument doesn’t help. He has consistently refused to engage with the rather crucial questions of How and Who on 911 (maybe not unconnected with his career at a leading MIC research base, personally funded by several military research grants.) If you brush aside the How and Who questions, you can’t grasp just how powerfully 911 has shaped the world these fifteen years. Who cares? We should all care. The criminals are still in control.

Chris Godwin
Reader
Chris Godwin

Bravo Off-Guardian! I first came across this paper via Zerohedge this morning, but the comments and discussion here (even the exchanges with the tiresome fellow) have been outstanding. (Though not hard to do better than ZH in that respect.)
One rather plausible theory about the timing of WTC7’s collapse that I came across somewhere involves the downing of the 3rd plane in Pennsylvania: it had been planned to fly that plane into WTC7 once the Twin Towers were down; but the loss of the plane necessitated a new game plan. Eventually the players just decided to “pull it” (WTC7) anyway, surmising (correctly) that the day’s confusion would make a cover up rather easy. They were right, given that most people, thanks to a media blackout, don’t know / have forgotten about the third tower.
Here’s a question for the tiresome fellow: If fires alone brought down these three buildings, why has there not been a world-wide review of building codes for steel-framed high rises?

bevin
Reader
bevin

Louis Proyect is a prolific troll. As his remark on Counterpunch’s recent Syrian article-an apology for NATO- suggests he is a member of the curious pseudo-marxist ISO, which is rapidly becoming a cult, rather like the Iranian emigre group MEK .
Best not to feed this troll.

marc
Reader
marc

“Canadian civil engineering researchers disprove official explanation of Building WTC 7s destruction”
“Dr. Robert Korol, professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, has led a team of academic researchers in preparing two peer-reviewed scientific papers on the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7.
Both papers were published in the Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics — the first one in July 2015, the second in February 2016…. ” /
article continues here http://www.ae911truth.org/news/275-news-media-events-canadian-civil-engineering-researchers-disprove-official-explanation-of-wtc-7-s-destruction.html

Norman Pilon
Reader

@ Louis Something and anyone else who, unable to imagine how the WTC buildings could have been mined and prepped for demolition, conclude on nothing but the utterly irrelevant basis of the “evidence” of their obvious lack of imagination that the demolition could not possibly have happened, despite all physical evidence to the contrary, a bit of help to get the slow and ponderous machinery of your “imaginations” creaking in at least a plausible, as yet purely speculative, albeit decently “informed” direction:
A)
Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part One – Tenants
by KEVIN RYAN
August 9, 2009
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html
B)
Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part Two – Security
by KEVIN RYAN
August 22, 2009
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p2.html
Disclaimer: You will have to read. You might even have to think about what your are reading. I cannot think for you. For this I apologize. If I could, I would. But I really can’t. Therefore, any failure to understand the implications and reasoning of Kevin Ryan’s work here being offered to you for perusal is entirely your own and no one else’s. Of course, read it or not. But then don’t come back here and whine about the fact that you just can’t wrap your head around “how they could possibly have prepared the buildings for demolition.” Ryan provides you with a schema, a plausible and highly detailed possibility, which may not in fact be “how it happened.” The truth or falsehood of Ryan’s speculations on this issue is, however, completely irrelevant to the “fact” that physical evidence exists as incontrovertible proof that WTC7 (i.e., free fall / NIST / David Chandler) and WTC 1 & 2 (i.e., elemental iron and unreacted thermitic material in dust samples from the crime scene / Harrit et al.) were brought down with explosives. Now go and exercise your minds, at least for a while, eh.

marc
Reader
marc

Thanks Norman Pilon, for those links.
People like LP “can’t imagine” how the WTC buildings could have been prepped for demolition.
Chemist Kevin Ryan and others found that powerful nano-engineered incendiaries come in a sol-gel form – easily painted on to steel beams.
This sol-gel could have been painted inside lift shafts where there are no cameras – and elsewhere.
Small teams of painters let in over weekend as ‘maintenance teams’ wouldn’t have raised eyebrows.
Wireless demolition by means of remote control means no one needs screeds of obvious wiring.

louisproyect
Reader

The articles linked to above miss the point. In controlled demolitions, explosives are placed in the wall of a high rise, not the floor. If you put explosives in the floor, they would demolish the floor–not cause the building to collapse. You need to have worked in a Wall St. high rise as I did for 15 years on and off. There is no place to put explosives in the perimeter walls of an office. In fact the whole idea is absurd.

PainedScientist
Reader
PainedScientist

@LouisSomething. You will be amazed to learn that even all your years pontificating about Marx and class war to people who just want you to shut up, and even – yes even – your extensive experience of sitting at a desk inside a tall building is not helping you understand the physics of demolition.
Let me explain: If you want to bring a building (any building ) down safely in its own footprint you need to progressively and in exactly the right order demolish its support structure so that first it sags inward and then it implodes – neatly.
You do NOT do this by packing “the walls” with TNT.
I know, who knew, right.
What you do is place shaped charges on key elements of the supporting structure, which in the case of WTC 1 and 2 would be the inner “tube”, the hat truss, the perimeter columns and similar.
Was any of the work being done before 9/11 giving access to these structures? I don’t know. But if we’re all really sincere about wanting to find the truth here, shall we try and find out?

deschutes
Reader
deschutes

In Greg Felton’s book titled ‘The Host and the Parasite’ he writes about a total power-down of both buildings that happened on Sept. 8-9th. The Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade, says Scott Forbes who worked for Fiduciary Trust on the 97th floor. So basically WTC2 was left utterly vulnerable with no security cameras or security door locks functioning. What’s more, on Thurs Sept 6th bomb sniffing dogs were also removed. Forbes says many anonymous technicians came in and out of the tower that day. Forbes also says he kept hearing construction sounds from the floor above his–even though it had been empty for a month.

louisproyect
Reader

After being posted on scores of websites for over a year, this story has failed to elicit any corroborating reports, even about the identity of ‘Scott Forbes’. Aside from the fact that the sourcing of the story doesn’t meet the most basic journalistic standards, its content is thoroughly implausible.
It makes no sense that the perpetrators would do something so obvious as powering down half of a tower so shortly before the attack. This would create a profound disruption of business for dozens of companies, and would be noticed by thousands of people. Thousands of e-mails would have been broadcast and a great deal of work would have been done by scores of employees to prepare for the outage.
It makes less sense that they would take such a drastic action but only for one half of one tower. Why was the disruption only necessary for the upper floors of the South Tower, or how would similar power-downs of the other sections have gone unnoticed?
Powering down for cabling upgrades is laughable as a cover story for demolition preparation work. Cabling upgrades for data bandwidth do not require interrupting AC power at all. Even if the AC wiring were being upgraded, the new wiring would have been installed and powered up in parallel with the old wiring. Any interruptions would be minimized to a few minutes. Powering down large portions of a tower, and for 36 hours, would have generated numerous protests from tenants.
Contrary to the e-mail’s assertion, security cameras are designed to use independent uninterruptible power supplies. If power to the security systems were interrupted, many doors would remain unopenable except by key.
full: http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

deschutes
Reader
deschutes

Everything you said in your post is pure rubbish. Greg Felton’s book is thoroughly researched and footnoted. It more than meets ‘basic journalistic standards’. In fact, the footnote source for Scott Forbes’ quotes in Felton’s book are from an interview Felton did with Forbes on Sept. 23, 2004. Not only that, a quick google search shows numerous websites quoting Forbes. So Scott Forbes is a real person who did in fact work in the WTC2 with Fiduciary. Forbes reported facts of what he saw in the days leading up to the attacks. Facts are not “implausible”–except for you in your little subjective world. God what a troll you are. Epic fail dude.

Norman Pilon
Reader


Power Down before WTC Demolition and Marvin Bush was director of security

Norman Pilon
Reader


Scott Forbes discusses the WTC power down.

deschutes
Reader
deschutes

Wow! Kudos to Norman Pilan for finding this interview! Mr. Forbes certainly comes across as very lucid, cogent, and factually accurate. He even goes out of his way to point out he is not a ‘conspiracy theorist’; rather that he wants his facts acknowledged by the Port Authority and the 9-11 commission (they weren’t). But troll ‘louisproyect’ doesn’t think Mr. Forbes even exists! 😀 ….god what a loser you are ‘louisproyect’.

Norman Pilon
Reader

You are doing better, Proyect. You addressed one claim with a logically relevant counterclaim, and provided the source for the quote that is your comment in its entirety.
How reliable the source of your quote might be is something that I have yet to determine to my satisfaction. But this is definitely an amelioration in your style of argumentation. I may or may not do my due diligence as pertains your source. But if I do and find it wanting, I’ll be sure to return to it in this string of comments. . .

PainedScientist
Reader
PainedScientist

@ Louis Something – so with your usual grasp of common sense you’re arguing we should ignore the evidence for explosives in the debris dust of 9/11, because your humungous brain can’t figure out how they got there?
You’re good comic relief son, I’ll give you that.

louisproyect
Reader

My comment was not about explosives but the dubious testimony of Scott Forbes.

Admin
Reader

You discussed SF but only as part of your larger point that planting explosives in the WTC was per se impossible/improbable.

Moriarty's Left Sock
Reader
Moriarty's Left Sock

If the research that claims to have found evidence of explosives in the WTC dust is valid then there WERE explosives in the WTC prior to collapse. Finding out how they got there is as relevant as finding out where the knife that’s covered in a murder-victim’s blood was bought. Viz – it’s possibly valuable additional info but it’s not needed to prove someone got stabbed.

Norman Pilon
Reader

“…explosives are placed in the wall of a high rise, not the floor.”
Oh, finally I think I understand:
a) explosives can only and only ever be placed in the wall of a high rise and never ever anywhere else. Like the phenomenon of “gravity,” you can take this as an established and incontrovertible law of nature.
b) any “speculative” effort at placing explosives anywhere but in the walls of a high rise reduces the speculative effort to the absurdity of an internal contradiction and is therefore by that fact completely unrelated to anything in reality, except as evidence as what did happen sometime somewhere.
c) therefore, because Kevin Ryan’s “speculation” violates the long established “universal and natural law” of explosives in high rises, the demolition of the WTC buildings by explosives never happened. Quod erat demonstrandum!
Bravo, Something Proyect! A fine example of the law of epistemological parsimony in action, although perhaps taken a tad too in that using your brain is not actually an added element of complexity in the argument itself and should not be entirely foregone.

PainedScientist
Reader
PainedScientist

I think Louis Something is under the impression that when the author of the article refers to “floor numberX” and talks about “modifications to this floor” he is talking – literally – about the floor, as in the portion that is being walked on.
His comprehension skills are not well-honed. Good luck trying to make him understand what is actually meant by “floor” in this context.

Norman Pilon
Reader

Well, to be fair, there is some unavoidable ambiguity in language. But that’s where the use of your brain should enter into your attempt to understand what another has otherwise clearly intended in print.
For example, is it Fryer or Fyer? True, you can’t do one without the other, and it may well be that the “r” is silent. And then there is the letter “y.” What are we to make of that?
But I will grant you that we do need a “New Proyect for a More Intelligent 21st Century,” and indeed, we will need a huge amount of luck to achieve our objective.

Norman Pilon
Reader

Minor edit:
that would be “. . . although perhaps taken a tad too far in that using your brain . . .”

PainedScientist
Reader
PainedScientist

@Louis Something : Can you maybe tell your Facebook Friend (who seems as clueless of science and the NIST report as you do) that the official explanation for the collapse of WTC7 is NOT that parts of WTC 1 and 2 fell on it.
Oh and can you remind him (and yourself) that personal belief systems about plausibility are NOT a refutation of hard evidence. Eg – if you have video and DNA and eyewitness evidence that Santa Claus is alive and well in the North Pole, I can’t use my conviction Santa isn’t real as a rebuttal. His and your discursive whimsies on the perceived absurdities of wiring buildings for demolition undetected might pass the time for you but it’s just not relevant.

Jerome Fryer
Reader
Jerome Fryer

The NIST explanation is, in fact, that damage and fires were caused by the WTC 1 collapse. That collapse also crippled the water supply to the building, preventing the sprinklers from operating effectively.
https://www.nist.gov/node/424566

PainedScientist
Reader
PainedScientist

Since fire alone has never brought a steel-frame high-rise down before or since – even when said fires blazed out of control for days and reduced the building to a shell – the fact the water supply was cut off doesn’t explain anything at all.
Fires, even uncontrolled fires, don’t bring down steel-frame high-rises.
The sprinklers are a red-herring.
So, what was unique about these three buildings on this on day that allowed relatively minor fires to induce total, symmetrical collapse at free-fall?

Jerome Fryer
Reader
Jerome Fryer

The towers did not collapse symetrically, nor at free-fall speed. You can easily check this yourself by watching video footage — large sections of wall fell outward from the buildings and fell faster than the collapse propagated: those sections were in free-fall.
This is absolutely basic stuff. If you have been mislead by the selective video edits used by ‘truthers’ then seek out better sources.
WTC 7 was extensively damaged and set ablaze by the tower collapse nearby. Most of one face was essentially destroyed from ground level up to around seven or eight stories up. Again, easily verified by looking for video and photographs of the event.
No commercial building is designed to withstand such worst-case scenarios.

deschutes
Reader
deschutes

Laughable post. You have a childlike understanding of the basics of the tower construction, steel beams, burning jet fuel temp, and that the architect of the towers designed them to specifically withstand the impact of a jetliner. Goo-goo ga-ga.

Moriarty's Left Sock
Reader
Moriarty's Left Sock

Just out of curiosity, can you post up the vid which shows most of one face having been essentially destroyed from ground level up to around seven or eight storeys up?

PainedScientist
Reader
PainedScientist

Are we just gonna keep going round and round Jerome?
1) NIST has acknowledged WTC7 fell at free-fall.
2) Symmetrical collapse doesn’t mean stuff doesn’t fall off ffs. It means the entire structure implodes simultaneously and completely.
3) Asymmetrical damage – even if sufficient to compromise structure (which is highly debatable) would NOT produce a symmetrical collapse that is indistinguishable from controlled demolition even for experts in the field.
4) WTC7 was never “ablaze”. But even if it was , let’s say it again – FIRE HAS NEVER BROUGHT DOWN A STEEL-FRAME HIGH-RISE BEFORE OR SINCE 9/11 EVEN WHEN THE BUILDING BURNED TO A SHELL.
5) Don’t try and and pass off stupid claims even NIST hasn’t made, that kind of hand-waving only works to convince under-informed bystanders.

William Savory
Reader
William Savory

Everyone here seems to agree that the WTC7 collapse was impossible to explain and that this is the crux of the problem. The impending collapse of WTC7 was announced on the news way before it happened (I even remember that from having watched the whole event at the time). How is this possible, and how could have anyone known that building was coming down when WTC7 wasn’t hit by anything and just had a few offices (not from jet fuel) on the third floor (the cause of which is never explained)? NIST doesn’t go there before there is no plausible explanation for it.
So, given the fact that the third building did a free fall collapse, obvious to anyone as being a controlled demolition, puts the whole story in doubt. Because to have organized this event, so closely coupled with the other two towers collapsing, had to have been planned before. Is someone trying to assert that after the first two towers were struck by planes, someone had the bright idea to do a controlled demolition of WTC7 and was able to set that up in midst of all the chaos taking place at that time? I suppose that is possible but it would certainly would have had to have been carefully planned beforehand, and that is the main point, I think.
The trouble with this kind of reasoning, though, is that it leads down a twisted trail of hypotheses that are very hard to believe in themselves. First of all, it is difficult for me to imagine that any human being could be so heartless as to kill 3000 or more of their own country’s citizens in this single event in order to create a pretext to kill thousands more. And all this just to make money? This is what I find hardest to accept.

vectormatrix
Reader
vectormatrix

It is true that it is very hard to accept. However remember that even before 9/11 and all the wars that followed, the US-led sanctions on Iraq were known to have caused the death of 500,000 children. How much more important are US citizens in the eyes of Western leaders than foreign children? 20x? 50x? 100x?
Be that as it may, I think the crux of the article is that the NIST report on the building collapses is flawed and inaccurate. The first step is to have a truly impartial and scientific new investigation into the building collapses. We cannot just sweep everything under the rug because of fear of where a true investigation may lead us.

marc
Reader
marc

William Savory > “it is difficult for me to imagine that any human being could be so heartless
as to kill 3000 or more of their own country’s citizens”
Perhaps the perpetrators had no particular loyalty to the country or its citizens?
Perhaps the perpetrators were dual-passport holders, loyal also to other countries which stood to benefit?
Perhaps the perpetrators were very disciplined, top secret teams who had been “out-sourced” the work and told “to do a job” – in which case emotions are set aside?
See “Minimised Fatalities”
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/bodycount.html
here’s a quote:
“The death toll of the September 11th mass murder was large by historical standards of massacres. Yet it would have been much larger if not for a number of characteristics of the attacks which appear planned to minimize the death toll while still carrying out the unprecedented terror of flying jetliners into two of the largest buildings in the world, then demolishing them with people still inside. The characteristics include the selection of flights, the timing of the attacks, the selection of targets, and the positions of the aircraft collisions in each of the three targets.
The timing of the attacks greatly reduced the human carnage. September 11th was an election day in New York City, and the first day of primary school for many parents. 1 These factors must have delayed the arrival of many World Trade Center workers. The portion of the Pentagon that was hit had just been retrofitted with bomb-resistant walls, and the office space lethally affected by the attack was only partially occupied. The timing of the attack seemed calculated to minimize the loss of life while still maximizing the psychological impact….” [read more at the provided link]

Álvaro Aragão Athayde
Reader
Álvaro Aragão Athayde

USS Maine (ACR-1), 1898.

mohandeer
Reader

Reblogged this on Worldtruth.

mohandeer
Reader

Thanks for this. I watched the first video of the purported collapse by Lear Jet images of 9/11 and knew something didn’t make sense and I put it down to shock and awe. One day it suddenly dawned on me what was wrong. Fred Dibnah!!!
Fred Dibnah was a Lancashire chap who amongst other things, as well as repairing chimneys, also demolished them. He could set the percussion charges and light ’em up and the chimneys would implode under gravity after the jolt of the charges and he would do this standing only yards away from the collapsing entity. It was called “controlled demolition”.
The difference is, of course, that no structures built the way the Towers were, could perform in this same way no matter how much heat was applied (and high octane fuel would have instantly dissipated in the oxygen rich environment of the glass expanse of the OUTSIDE it had crunched). Only thermite and nuclear (even depleted) “heat” could cause the outside beams and the Inner core steel beams which ran from bedrock to the top some 47 of them, to twist or distort to the degree needed.
Ergo. The “collapse” was controlled and had to have been carefully planned and orchestrated and the Lear Jet collision was serendipitous or a coincidence too far. The aluminium nose of the plane could not have caused the damage that occurred, the engines in the fuel filled wings would never have made it more than a few metres in and the little red circle the BBC put round the site where the jet was supposed to be was nothing more than sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors and an attempt to lead the mind’s eye away from the really weird stuff – that of the impossible occurring.
This article explains very well what others have tried to do. Others do a lot of talking but aren’t actually saying anything, this article is far more concise and is easy reading.

Husq
Reader
Husq

Having mastered his trade repairing chimneys, Dibnah became aware of the demand for a cost-effective method of demolishing them. He offered to remove them without using explosives, by cutting an ingress at the base of the chimney—supporting the brickwork with wooden props—and then burning away the props so that the chimney fell, hopefully in the intended direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dibnah#Chimney_felling