6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
Twoofers...listen carefully: a pyroclastic flow/dust cloud is a volcanic event. Understand? unless you're saying that a volvano erupted under the WTC it makes no sense to claim this.
10. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
I wonder if they've made any effort to contact Jowenko for further comment.
11. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
Oh dear. They're already accusing the FDNY/NYPD huh? Well these jokers are off to a great start.
There is actually a list of supporters.
http://ae911truth.org/joinus.php
Engineers (licensed) Engineering Professionals (unlicensed)
Ken Kious, Electrical Engineer
Walnut Creek, CA Gregg Brazel, BSCNE, Constr. Engr'g
Evanston, IL
J. Marx Ayres, PE, Mechanical Engineer
Santa Monica, CA Ted Muga, BSCE, Civil Engineer
San Diego, CA
Robert Nielson, PLS, Land Surveyor
Walnut Creek, CA Kevin Ryan, BS Chem., Certified Quality Engineer
Bloomington, IN
John F. Shanahan, PE, Electrical Engineer
Rancho Cucamonga, CA Ken Jenkins, BS Carnegie Melon, Electrical Engineer
San Rafael, CA
John Shinn, phD., Chemical Engineer
Pleasant Hill, CA
David Gregg, phD, Chemical Engineer
Moraga, CA
John Rexroat, Mfr. Engineer
Walnut Creek, CA
Tony Szamboti, BS, Mechanical Engineering Professional
,
Doug Plumb, EE, Elecrical Engineering Professional
Thunder Bay, ON
Christopher Backus, BS, Mechanical Engineering
Redmond, WA
Jason Griffin, BS, Civil Engineer
Washington Dc,
I wonder why there are Electrical engineers and land surveyors on there tbh....
And more uinlicensed engineers then licensed....
So in short, this is a joke.
I think my Blog is more convicing, since it actually has Structural engineers on there...
http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/
Gee I wonder when their first peer-review will be.
It must have been the electrical wiring in the buildings that caused the collapses.
Jay
You should post your list to show the opposition
2.
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
Huh?
If any of the SLC guys (Pat? James B.?) want to take the first step and contact Jowenko with some questions/evidence regarding WTC7, then his contact info is on his webpage.
Better to have some answers to specific questions from the man himself rather than speculating on what he may or may not think.
2.
Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
This is a joke, I read all the transcripts, and i also read the paper that mentions the 118 first responders. It clearly states that they only read part of the transcripts and then calculated how much in total there would be.
Why do Twoofers fear independent peer reviewing and scrutiny?
Oh for the love of...
This is the only photo evidence of fires in Building 7.
And supposedly we're the ones with our heads in the sand... *sigh*
No, you're the ones with your heads up your collective arse.
I was quoting the source - obviously I'm not oblivious to the other evidence of fire in WTC7.
I was merely pointing out how ridiculous it is to claim that photo is the only evidence, whilst the same truther camp will accuse others who don't buy the CD theory of being ignorant and having their heads in the sand.
It looks most on that list are from Northern California, and many from the same city of Walnut Creek. I wonder why?
Tom | 05.28.07 - 11:52 am
Jay | 05.28.07 - 11:32 am
Who cares what Jowenko thinks. I think I'm going to win the next lotto. Big deal.
I want to see what Jowenko is willing to commit to writing about 9/11. Everything else, including all homemade youtube videos is/are baloney.
Also, this Richard Gage guy from Walnut Creek who is apparently a founder of that group, is also involved with that whacko "citizens grand jury" from San Diego.
Talk about guilt by association:
http://redeemingfeatures.blogspo...30%3A00-07%
3A00
If Jowenko is a valid source then why does he not produce a paper on it?
Brent Blanchard a 20 year expert and the Jack Loizeaux, the man who invented the concept of using explosives to "Drop" buildings says it was NOT a controlled demolition. Both by all accounts superior in that business than Jowenko. Jowenko is nothing more than a minor leager by comparason.
5 will get you 9 this Gage fellow turns out to be an old hippie "revolutionary" with a grey pony tail who re-designs fern bar interiors.
[rant]Well-educated physicists, mechanical engineers, and electrical engineers should be able to easily understand all the science and physics involved with the 911 building collapses. Architects and structural engineers have specialized knowledge and training but nothing that a physicist, ME, or EE should not be able to comprehend -- it's all specialized application of what MEs and physicists study; there are no unique concepts or mathematical methods, though there are, I'm sure, specific problem solving techniques. There is an electrical engineering analogy to almost every problem in classical physics, and modestly astute EEs should be able to use their education and experience and a little bit of thought to figure out enough.
The problem with these people (including Jones, Wood, et al) is not that they lack specific training in structural engineering or architecture or that they are electrical engineers. The problem is that they think they can look at a video and comprehend what happened without any resort to the tools and methods that their educations have provided them; that they think that because there is a video showing a fat OBL that the towers must have collapsed as a result of controlled demolition; that they think the towers should have "toppled" [Jones uses this word a lot] like trees without giving any thought whatsoever to what the structure would have to endure for that to happen; that both the fact that the towers collapsed mostly straight down and the fact that a lot of material was ejected from the towers laterally prove the "inside job". And, thousands of other silly things.
The problem is not that they are electrical engineers, the problem is that they refuse to consider what happened from a scientific or engineering perspective. I'm sure that there are structural engineers with the same deficiencies and sooner or later, the twoofers are going to be trotting out a whole lot more of them than just that one guy who had something to do with designing oil rigs.
Of course, the absolute worst people to depend on to figure out what happened are the theologians, the philosophers, the economists, and the assorted array of retired managers and government clerks and receptionists. These are the people that a famous physicist would group among the stamp collectors. Not only are they mostly ignorant of the science and engineering involved (including Fetzer, who holds himself out to be some sort of authority on the "philosophy of science") they have spent lifetimes trying to get around the laws of nature and profit by it. I should not forget to mention all the pilots whose closest encounters to Boeing cockpits have been from coach.
[/rant]
FatOllie | 05.28.07 - 2:43 pm
Yeah, well, that said, I'd still be willing to bet any number of these so called, "architects and engineers", have the same kinds of distinguished credentials as defrocked professor Steven Jones.
Or the members of that other distinguished group of deniers, pilots for 9/11 twoof.
The toofer movement depends on the big lie for it's lifeblood. Why stop at the events of 9/11?
Why shouldn't this flavor of the month just be the heir(s) apparent to soon to be discarded twoof guru, DRG?
Of course, the absolute worst people to depend on to figure out what happened are the theologians, the philosophers, the economists, and the assorted array of retired managers and government clerks and receptionists.
Sorry, I gotta defend my major. Philosophers are just as capable of understanding the science behind events as anyone else. Philosophy is well grounded in logic and reason which is more than enough to debunk 99% of claims made by CT's. Sorry, I just get a little offended when people lump philosophers in with kooks and generally unintelligent people.
I've never quite understood how they do it, but I've known many a dunderhead with with a Ph.D in science or engineering who, like Jones, has managed to acquire what appears to be an impressive resume'. If all you had to go on was Jones' resume' (and didn't know about that Jesus in America paper) you might suspect that he's a pretty bright guy. If he is, he conceals it well.
Bowman, too, although you have to wonder about a guy who includes good conduct medals from grammar school in his resume'.
Mo' Reynolds is easier to figure, being an economist and all.
Many reasonably intelligent people tend to compartmentalize their brain when it comes to certain things. I know a lot of scientists that are religious as well. The just either consciously or unconsciously section off a part of their brain as a no-logic zone. I think everyone does it to some degree. Normally its just little things like rationalizing speeding.
I think the collapse of all the towers is suspicious. I’ve heard the theories explaining the free-fall collapse of 7(that are very own eyes are deceiving us, and the collapse actually commences some 2 hours prior)
But could someone proffer an explanation as to why - if we suppose the steel gave way at the point of impact of the planes - the upper half of the towers seemingly grinds the bottom half of the building into the ground at a accelerating pace as if it was offering next to no resistance?
If you claim there was resistance by referring to the to the marginally faster falling ejected debris, can you seriously keep a straight face and tell me the resistance offered by the lower half -god knows how many hundreds of thousands tons of steel and concrete -was only marginally more than air?
And can you give me some assurances with this answer? Because the last time you spoke with such conviction you were extolling the wonders of the 'pan-caking' phenomenon.
Debunkers(just a note on nomenclature here, please be consistent in how you refer to skeptics of the official theory, some use 'truthers' others, hilariously 'twoofers', some use 'deniers' and the more scary ones amongst you mix it up with all sorts of profanities - its hard enough to follow your frothing rants as it is.
May I suggest, for the sake of consistency and brevity, that we adopt the following system?
A skeptic of the official theory shall be referred to as a 'truther'
And a proponent of the official theory shall be referred to as a 'sheeple'
I hope we can agree on this protocol at least.
I think the collapse of all the towers is suspicious.
-makker | 05.28.07 - 4:04 pm
Well, now. I need to listen to what this expert has to say from the depths of his personal opinion.
NOT!!!!!!!
LOL if he knew a little more about how the towers were built, he might understand
I think the collapse of all the towers is suspicious.
Well that's good for you but if your not an expert the best you can do is speculate
I’ve heard the theories explaining the free-fall collapse of 7(that are very own eyes are deceiving us, and the collapse actually commences some 2 hours prior)
But could someone proffer an explanation as to why - if we suppose the steel gave way at the point of impact of the planes - the upper half of the towers seemingly grinds the bottom half of the building into the ground at a accelerating pace as if it was offering next to no resistance?
If you claim there was resistance by referring to the to the marginally faster falling ejected debris, can you seriously keep a straight face and tell me the resistance offered by the lower half -god knows how many hundreds of thousands tons of steel and concrete -was only marginally more than air?
You already pointed out one visual example of resistance but it can also be determined mathematically. When the upper floors of the towers gave way they became one giant dynamic mass. The force behind this mass far exceeded the load capacities of the floors below. Each floor was only designed to hold its weight so as the collapsed progressed each floor added to the mass and therefor added more force to the falling debris. An ever increasing mass that's going against a static amount of resistance isn't just going to stop half way through.
And can you give me some assurances with this answer? Because the last time you spoke with such conviction you were extolling the wonders of the 'pan-caking' phenomenon.
Aside from video evidence the basic understanding of the collapse mechanism can be inferred by mathematics. The NIST report gives detailed information regarding the masses and resistance in play. Even if you dismiss it out of hand the basic information is still there. It's not like the formulas are top secret or anything. Check them yourself if your so inclined.
May I suggest, for the sake of consistency and brevity, that we adopt the following system?
A skeptic of the official theory shall be referred to as a 'truther'
And a proponent of the official theory shall be referred to as a 'sheeple'
I hope we can agree on this protocol at least.
Not really because sheeple is disingenuous. Debunker's arrive at their conclusions either based on their own analysis or by referring to people who have done their own analysis i.e. experts in relevant fields. However truthers tend to repeat debunked claims which would imply that they mindlessly repeat claims without actually looking into them. Perhaps it wouldn't be to bad of an idea to refer to truthers as sheeple.
I was quoting the source - obviously I'm not oblivious to the other evidence of fire in WTC7.
Ah, sorry dude.
Sorry, I gotta defend my major. Philosophers are just as capable of understanding the science behind events as anyone else. Philosophy is well grounded in logic and reason which is more than enough to debunk 99% of claims made by CT's. Sorry, I just get a little offended when people lump philosophers in with kooks and generally unintelligent people.
Apart from those bloody postmodernists and deconstructionists.
But could someone proffer an explanation as to why - if we suppose the steel gave way at the point of impact of the planes - the upper half of the towers seemingly grinds the bottom half of the building into the ground at a accelerating pace as if it was offering next to no resistance?
You seem to be assuming that the falling mass was striking the entire support structure below it. It hit one floor at a time.
In other words, you want to know why each floor failed to stop a dymanic load of 40,000 & 120,000 tons. Another well thought out twoofer question.
Richard, I recognize that there are a lot of real smart people who are philosophers. Within the last year or so, I saw a correlation study comparing college majors to scores on tests such as the GRE. Of all the majors, physics ranked highest with philosophy a close second. I recognize that this doesn't actually prove anything, but it does suggest that a lot of smart people choose to study philosophy. Or, it may just be that people who study philosophy (or another discipline high on that correlation) tend to do well on standardized tests.
I also recognize that philosophers claim to have expertise in critical thinking skills as compared to other well educated people, including scientists and engineers. My experience, in general, does not support that claim.
Of course, there are many philosophers who are quite capable and intelligent and well-versed in questions scientific and mathematical, but if I had a question about science or engineering, I wouldn't ask a philosopher for help. [hyperbole alert] In fact, I wouldn't ask anyone who hadn't completed at least a rigorous course in ODE and another in modern physics (or the equivalent). That is because we live in a very strange world. Every day, things occur that are, at first blush, beyond or contrary to our experiences. Every day, things happen that even very bright and informed people would predict would not happen.
A very famous (in some circles) example of what I am talking about is that of Richard Feynman and the rotating sprinkler. Search for "Feyman sprinkler" if you are not familiar with this. This started in 1940 among very astute people at Princeton and continues to this day, apparently. If you had a question about such a thing , would you expect a better, more thoughtful answer from S. Jones, James Fetzer, or D.R.Griffin, if all you had to go on was resume'?** If you had a notion as to the answer, which one do you think would be most capable of understanding your explanation?
Does the typical philosopher of science or theologian even have a rudimentary idea of what is meant by such terms as "conservation of angular momentum?"
** Jones would tell you that it's impossible and defies the laws of physics. Fetzer would tell you that it's a conspiracy and the evidence has been faked, and Griffin would spend a couple hours regurgitating the ravings of demented holocaust deniers and fellow travelers.
In hind sight there were a number of flaws in the construction IMHO, that may have helped the collapse. I saw piks showing the shear pins but they were designed for lateral loads not vertical. The truss mounts were simple "L" brackets, a dia brace on each would have made them much stronger and heat resistant. Perhaps this was the real weakness?
The floor joist trusses should have had vertical supports as well for stiffness they looked rather flimsey.
The floors were not designed to be self standing, had only 3-4 inches of concrete and the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and designed to withstand lateral loads, hence, can implode onto itself.
There were many thousand of tons of floor pushing down on the already weakened outer load bearing members.
They pushed down collapsing the truss supports which were the only support for the floors to the outer walls so the weight of the concrete floors fell in the hollow section of the building with little of no resistance one of the reasons the building was so light for its size, the only other floor support was from the core girders.
This is one of the reason the building was so appealing as it had lots of open space in the interior. There was also little or very little fire insulation on the upper floors and it was blown off at impact. There should have been 39mm min and there was only 19mm on average.
The 24' sections were the outer girders that were bolted to gether in sections thus creating a weak point at the joint. Every one knows that joints are always weak points.
LOL, I was just busting your chops. I'm not going to pretend that I know more about physics than an expert in the field but most of us philosophers at least know that we should consult experts! 
Ah but what is "physics"?
It's nothin man! Were just nothingness floating in a sea of self created anguish. Why even have children? How could moral beings bring children into such anguish?
Shudders...
Poop! My nihilism brackets got taken off! Stupid haloscan.
CHF wrote:
"You seem to be assuming that the falling mass was striking the entire support structure below it. It hit one floor at a time."
Not exactly right.(most of what follows is not aimed at you, CHF, I'm in a ranty mood)
The static load on a lower floor includes all the static loads of all the floors above it. When the static load on an upper floor increases, the static load on all the other floors increases by the same amount. When the falling mass descends upon an upper floor, the effect on lower floors is a little different. The collision between the falling mass and the floor it strikes is neither completely elastic nor completely inelastic. There is a dissipation of energy as the building changes shape, some material disintegrates, etc. But, the compressive load on the floors beneath is increased; the collision is elastic to some extent so it must be so. The amount of this increase in compressive load has a time component (like a wave, spring, or oscillator) and is not constant nor linear with respect to height; the collision is not perfectly elastic.
As the top floor of the tower stubb is hit by the falling upper floors, the compressive (or crushing) load on the entire remaining structure increases and that increase in load is most at the remaining highest floors. As the floors lose their structural integrity, from the top down, the upper portion of the building (the falling part) accelerates and the compressive load on lower floors increases and moves steadily down. There is no need for any additional energy source to remove the floors below so that the top of the building can accelerate -- it's all part of the same dynamic mechanical system.
"But, But, But, But, how can the building fall at so close to free-fall speeds? almost as fast as the 'speed of gravity?'" some twoofer might ask.
The answer is, that the building as a whole does not. What is actually being timed is the fall of the upper building section from the floor of impact until some arbitrary stop point selected by the observer -- and if selected by a twoofer it is always absurdly too soon. The time of the initial acceleration when the building first starts to collapse is being ignored and the height is being incorrectly calculated as the height of the building and not the height of the bottom of the falling section.
"But, But, But, But, when the upper section strikes the lower floors, the lower floors appear to collapse faster than 'the speed of gravity.' How can anything collapse 'faster than the speed of gravity?' "
When the lower section of the towers begin to collapse, their matter is being accelerated by two forces. One, is the force of gravity, the other is the force on the lower portion of the building imparted by the upper, falling, mass. The sum of these forces is greater than the force of gravity alone. If you want to establish that the lower portions of the towers collapsed too quickly, you have to do the math
Excellent Ollie
It totally slipped my mind that the start point was not the top of the building but the point where the collapse started
It totally slipped my mind that the start point was not the top of the building but the point where the collapse started
That's a minor point, as long as you chose your end-height correctly. The big problem is that it's almost impossible to accurately gauge to progression of the collapse once it gets past the 6 second mark, since at that point it's moving at extremely high speed, AND it disappears inside a giant dust cloud.
i think you better decide amongst yourselves first as to which theory you want to put forward.
However, A couple of points:
If the collapse is so obviously explained and predictable why does this nist paper contain the following statement:
"http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-PROGRESSIVE-
COLLAPSE-BAZANT.pdf
The destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11/01 was not only the biggest mass
murder in the U.S. history but also a big surprise for the structural engineering profession,
perhaps the biggest since the collapse of Tacoma Bridge in 1940. No experienced structural
engineer watching the attack expected the WTC towers to collapse. No skyscraper has ever
before collapsed due to ¯re. The fact that the WTC towers did, beckons deep examination."
yet you parrot the various theories so wearily as if nothing could be more plainly observed. The Nist authors obvioulsy overlooked the expertise of the posters on this forum.
Add to this the fact the Towers were designed to absorb a hit from a commerical airliner.(do you really want to make a point of the difference in sizes of airliners because it defies belief that the underlying principle used in the design would differentiate between slightly varying sizes of airliners)
But on the point of the falling section gradually increasing in mass as it compresses the floors below, why is this ever increasing solid mass not left at the bottom after the collapse is completed instead of the pulverised rubble and dust- (unless ive misunderstood, which is entirely possible considering that, admittedly, i dont fuly understand the physics behind it)
How does your theory allow for all the debris shooting out of the towers? wouldnt a lot of the kinetic energy of the falling section gone into this spectacular eruption?
As i understand it the 'progressive collapse' relies strongly on significant amounts of fire proofing being knocked off the steel columns, and for atleast half the columns to give way simultaneously, any proof this actually happened?
I also understand that the model constructed by NIST to simulate the trigger of the collapse didnt simulate the progression of the collapse beyond that point. Why not? why wasnt this included in the scope of their report? this this would surely put the conspiracy theories to bed...or maybe not.
The explanation of the collapse is still very much in contention.
It may well have happened as you claim, but to say it was entirely predictable and expected by the experts is false...according to NIST themselves.
Anonymous | 05.28.07 - 9:48 pm
You must be the guy that guaranteed the Titanic was unsinkable and the Iraq war would take two months and the Afghanistan conflict only weeks.
After all, they're just a bunch of Arabs wearing towels.
Either way, ask yourself this, who gives a shit what anyone named anonymous says about anything?
Add to this the fact the Towers were designed to absorb a hit from a commerical airliner.
Which they did. The planes didn't knock the buildings over. That has nothing to do with the fires or the structural damage that contributed to the collapse.
why is this ever increasing solid mass not left at the bottom after the collapse is completed instead of the pulverised rubble and dust
I dunno - 100 million pounds of debris falling at the speed of gravity on top of itself might have something to do with it.
How does your theory allow for all the debris shooting out of the towers?
It wasn't "shooting out." The steel sections and other debris were collapsing outward, being pulled from the top as the inter-connected pieces continued to fall. Gravity did the rest. This really isn't hard.
any proof this actually happened
Any proof that it didn't?
this this would surely put the conspiracy theories to bed...
Nothing will ever put the Twoofer morons out to pasture. Twooferism is a religious cult - they are functioning on belief in their theories, not on evidence of them. No amount of fact, research, expertise, etc. will cause them to reconsider. You must be new at this.
The explanation of the collapse is still very much in contention.
It really isn't. Only in Twooferia is it in contention.
The paper you cited is not from NIST, it is paper from Bazant and Verdure. Nice try though.
Anon, you actually ask some fairly logical questions. Problem is, most of them have been answered already, and we're getting tired of rehashing the same material over and over again. Lt. gave you some answers, for more stuff, try 911myths.com and other sites like it. The info is out there, try looking for it instead of just surfing twoofer sites.
Alex | 05.28.07 - 10:44 pm
The problem with newbie twoofers is that they're often pretty green about the ways of the internet.
So they do a google search and wind up victimized by all the twoofer sites that google bomb constantly to stay towards the top of the google search lists for 9/11, September 11, etc.
The newbie gets the impression these are the most reliable sources because that's the way the google system makes it seem.
Next step, circular logic, appeals to nonexistent authority, doctored video's and eyewitness accounts, and outright lies.
to the anonymous one, whoever and wherever you are:
"i think you better decide amongst yourselves first as to which theory you want to put forward."
And where does that obligation come from? And you know, we're mostly a bunch of fat guys sitting on the couch, not an organization.
The narrative that I wrote is mostly speculative, but it does include a bunch of facts about how dynamic mechanical systems behave and none of the speculation by any of the cters contains any. I don't propose that it is either a complete or accurate explanation of what happened, but I don't believe it contains any false assertion as to the physics or mechanics of how the towers might have collapsed. (I am open to correction) There are simplifying assumptions involved, some of which I am aware, others that I have implicitly made unwittingly.
The Bazant quote you cite is right on. The collapse of the towers on 911 was an extraordinary, unanticipated result and it is very probable that no observer can explain it without resort to very serious, detailed, and expensive research including state of the art computer modeling. You can't do it by surfing the web. I find no shame in not being able to explain it when you consider that much better minds than mine can be baffled over what appear to be quite easy problems. But Hell, what do I know, I'm just the night clerk at 7-11.
"Add to this the fact the Towers were designed to absorb a hit from a commercial airliner." I don't believe this is actually true. It is my understanding that the design was analyzed to assess if the towers could survive such an impact, but that it was not designed with that in mind. Perhaps I'm wrong, it's not important. The important thing is that nobody actually did a thorough analysis of how the towers would behave if subjected to such an impact as received on 911. Perhaps they believed it would survive, but it appears that they were wrong and nobody should be surprised about that. They certainly didn't consider that possibility of both severe structural damage as a result of the impact (which was in fact significantly greater that any considered during the design and building) and severe fires.
"But on the point of the falling section gradually increasing in mass as it compresses the floors below, " where did you get that idea? Not from what I wrote.
"why is this ever increasing solid mass not left at the bottom after the collapse is completed"
Because when it reached the bottom it slowed down really fast (i.e. crashed). Even if they could survive the impact of a 707 at 150 knots, or so, the structure couldn't survive a 70 to 80 floor drop. It's sort of like why the Titanic broke into pieces when it hit the sea floor. I can't understand that either. It doesn't happen that way in my bath tub. And again, I never said that the mass of the upper floor section increased as it fell.
[how about the debris expelled horizontally and the dust
here's what was truncated:
[how about the debris expelled horizontally and the dust cloud etc.]
Yes, all these things serve to convert potential energy into something other than accelerating the fall of the towers to the earth. Those of us who do not believe in some vast conspiracy believe that there was sufficient potential energy to do everything that was done. And yes, I don't know of anybody who has proved that there was, and I certainly can't do it in between sales of Colt 45 and Winstons. It is very much a matter of belief without proof -- what some would call faith. But, I know of nobody among the cters who has done anything other than do a Judy Wood and just declare that there was not. If an alternative theory to what the evidence implies is to be sustained and it is to be sustained because there was not enough potential energy, well, that's an assertion just waiting to be proven and S. Jones and Fetzer and Wood et al should get after it.
[any proof that the fire proofing was dislodged etc]
This has to do with collapse initiation and not hypothesis about global collapse or progressive collapse.
No actual proof, I would guess, but NIST satisfies me that it is entirely possible and probable. They created some diagrams showing the airplane impacts and where all the debris likely went etc. If you look at those (available on the web) you'll see that the damage the planes did to the towers just by impact, neglecting fire, was vast. A lot of the fire proofing (inadequate by current standards, I believe) was protected from flying debris by nothing but 1/2" (I believe it was 1/2") gypsum wall board. That is not tough stuff. What it is, is cheap (or it used to be).
About what NIST did in their study, I believe you are correct that they did not analyze "global" collapse and are not going to. I suppose it has to do with cash and motivation. In any case, the cters don't trust NIST to do anything, no matter how thorough, they'll never accept anything from NIST other than that a vast conspiracy perpetrated the crimes.
Finally, again. I'm not claiming that I can explain what happened with any degree of scientific or engineering certainty. Certainly not now as the bars are about to close. I don't believe that anybody actually believes that it was predictable or expected, and I never made such a claim.
Anonymous,
No experienced structural engineer watching the attack expected the WTC towers to collapse.
And why is that? Next sentence:
No skyscraper has ever
before collapsed due to fire. The fact that the WTC towers did, beckons deep examination.
In other words, they hadn't seen it before so they didn't expect it.
It's not that the plane-fire combination doesn't make sense; it's that the entire situation was unprecedented. So yeah, first reaction's were ones of surprise.
It's unfortunate that so many "truthers" are unable to accurately imagine both the scale of the Trade Center and what happened that day.
Because of this inability to imagine accurately what they never experienced they are forever looking for analogs to help them understand what might have truly happened.
And it this there is nothing that can help them.
Never before or since in history have two widebody commercial jetliners with a combined 20,000 gallons of fuel crashed into two 1360 foot tall by 209 foot by 209 foot skyscrapers at @500 miles per hour.
Having said that, I just know some twoofers eyes are glazing over as they read the above and they imagine building a functional model of the WTC out of, say, aluminum cans and welded nails.
There really is no reason to model the collapse after the point of initiation. Based on the data there was realistically no way that the towers could have supported themselves after the collapse began. Modeling after the collapse is also pointless because it was NIST's intention to find out what happened so that they could improve on future designs. I can't imagine any changes that would prevent something as catastrophic as the upper floors of a building crashing down on itself. Furthermore since most of the collapse was covered by smoke and dust there is really no way to confirm if the model was accurate so there is no point in running one.
Richard | 05.29.07 - 2:14 am
Twoofers want a cad model of the entire event(s) based on scientific principle, A. because they readily admit both directly and indirectly that science is not their strong suit and, B. so they can have a thorough and accurate starting point for constructing far better looking lies about 9/11 than they have so far, and then Google bomb the web sites where their fictions are posted.
Call it a version of Lenin's old dictum that capitalists would sell him the rope he would hang them with.
"Titanic broke into pieces when it hit the sea floor"
Actually, from witness testimony it is thought the ship broke in half before it sank. And the reason for this is as a structure the Titanic was designed to operate horizontally and was built that way. Once the nose of the ship got "pulled" (no explosives) underwater and it started to stand on end it was subjected to forces it was not designed for and it broke apart.
The WTC was designed as a vertical structure, you could not lay it on its side no more then stand the Titanic on its nose.
Looks like another recycling of the entire, debunked twoofer canon.
From scratch.
As though today were January 1st, 2002 and all the endlessly debunked canards were being pumped for the first time.
Must be some rich muslims in California.
I would love for the toofers to show us another skyscraper that was built like the towers. They were unique. There have never been buildings destroyed in the way that happened on 911 so there is nothing to gage from.
911_truthiness:
"Actually, from witness testimony it is thought the ship broke in half before it sank."
The Titanic broke apart before it sank. When the pieces hit the ocean floor, they were further damaged by the impact. That is what I meant, I should have worded it better.
When I first heard about sinking ships suffering damage when they collide with the ocean floor, I was surprised that that could happen. It would be my intuition that they would gently glide to the floor and rest there virtually undamaged, just like in the bath tub. But, when something sinks, it will accelerate until it hits the floor. Acceleration will be reduced because of the force resulting from buoyancy (and the water analog to air resistance), but there will be an acceleration. In the case of the Titanic, it fell somewhere around 2 1/2 miles, and it was moving quickly when it hit the floor.
I know there are references which specifically mention the damaging collision of the Titanic with the ocean floor, but I can't quickly locate one online. This quote, from a National Geographic site, though, makes it clear that I am not 'pulling' this stuff:
"A torn section of hull plating with all of its rivets missing. Whether they were popped by the iceberg that sank Titanic or by the collision with the ocean floor, or whether they merely became food for microbes, was unclear." see NG here
There should be some sort of competition like Junkyard Wars for truthers. Pit a team of structural engineers against the best the truthers have and see who can actually make a building that can actually stand and function for more than a second.
The bowing.jpg photo shows the exact moment of collapse. This fact is evidenced by the debris visible falling in front of the facade. The bowing is due to the collapse being photographed as it occurs. The bowing is a result of the collapse, not the casue of the collapse. Once again, the Official Conspiracy Theory faithful demonstrate manipulative interpretation of evidence.
Anonymous | 05.29.07 - 4:00 pm
That's completely wrong as befits any statement from any "anonymous".
Actually that is right before the collapse but seeing as how cutting charges or thermate wouldn't cause bowing I don't see your point.
No experienced structural engineer watching the attack expected the WTC towers to collapse.
Same rehashed bullshit. Since how many years now?
I had an achitect standing next to me on Kenmare and Lafayette Sts on 9:30 am 09/11/2001. We looked at the burning North Tower and he said to me "This building is going to fall". An architect, not even an engineer.
Maybe he had curious foreknowledge?
Let's fast forward another 6 years. Bet the same statement "No experienced structural engineer..." will be brought forth from the next generation of Troofers?
Thomas
As pointed out above, that statement is from a paper by Bazant and Verdure, Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions. This paper is the real deal, it's no Judy Woodism. It's written by a couple Northwestern University professors at least one of whom is a professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science.
I am sure that cters from now till doomsday will be repeating that quote as "evidence" of the big lie, but they won't tell you that it has been ripped from its context, kicking and screaming all the way. They won't tell you that in the same paper, in the abstract section, B&V write that in their paper:
It is shown that progressive collapse will be triggered if the total (internal) energy loss during the crushing of one story (equal to the energy dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential
during the crushing of that story) exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story. Regardless of the load capacity of the columns, there is no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse driven by gravity alone if this criterion is satisfied (for the World Trade Center it is, with an order-of-magnitude margin).
That's a pretty dramatic claim: as I interpret it, there was about 10 times as much potential energy in the towers as would be necessary to cause their collapses as observed. Personally, I am not qualified to rigorously prove or disprove their conclusions. But I would say that until S. Jones, Fetzer, Griffin, Wood, and that guy who had something to do with the design and/or construction of oil rigs get out their pencils and take it down, it's about the best there is. If they have made careless assumptions or mistakes in science or mathematics, let's hear it. If Fetzer or Griffin wants to accuse these guys of being complicit (or willfully negligent), he has all the evidence he needs to do it: just take what they have written and prove to those, unlike me, who are technically qualified to evaluate the science that only a charlatan could write such a paper. As they say in the more gentrified circles, putt or get off the green.
Stephen jones has studied the Berzant and Verdue paper, it essentially forms the basis of the nist report. Nist really didnt have the proper means to conduct a thorough investigation and so its report could in no way be considered definitive or authoritative. Its at best theoretical and is based on assumptions.
Its basically works like this:
A can only happen if both B and C happened, therefore B and C must have happened.
B and C caused A to happen
its circular logic, backwards circular logic for that matter.
you see it claims the fire and impact of the plane cause the columns to fail initiating the collapse. its claim is based on the fact that the columns gave way.
Now theres nothing wrong with that IF there is no other possible cause of the columns to fail. the theory is dependent on there being no other possible cause.
If there is another possibilty then it has to be prefered option as the complete failure of the columns is UNLIKELY to be caused by the fire, because the fires were not burning strongly enough or long enough - nists own tests proved this for the floors -which effectively led to the end of the pancaking theory. Now if the floors didnt give way under extreme fire why should the central columns? If not the fires then the impact of the plane severed all those columns? If this was the case the collapse would have begun immediately, it wasnt the planes impact. The impact of the planes would not in themsleves compromised the structure in any significant way, thats how the towers were designed.
many experts including one of the architects of the towers expressed shock at the collapse - not the impact but the resulting collapse - many have subsequently concurred with the progressive collapse theory out of necessity, necessity of the only other explanation incriminating the american goverement. Experts need to come up with a suitable explanation if they want to keep being referred to as experts.(as also expressed in the extract from the paper)-the spin the debunkers have given is not correct..read it as it is)
so a theoretically possible but realistically improbable theory has been favoured because controlled demolition is not an option.
watch this video:
http://www.jonhs.net/911/
improba...le_collapse.htm
Have you even read the NIST report?
watch this video:
Anonymous | 05.29.07 - 9:17 pm
Watch this space.
Yeah, NIST has a 10,000 page paper. This guy has about 300 words, can't spell Bazant, a cheap video and a handle named Anonymous. Very impressive.
Stephen jones has studied the Berzant and Verdue paper
Oh well as long as mormon boy is on the case...
Zdenek P. Bazant's Paymasters
Office of Naval Research
Army Reasearch Office
Department of Energy
Sandia National Labs
Boeing
Argonne National Labs
Department of Transportation
The result of his analysis is continued gravy train dollars to his college department.
The basic premise of his paper is the top of the buildings were severed by the fire and fell onto the structure below crushing it to the ground. However, the film of WTC 2 shows the destruction zone occuring far below the severed top. The premise is false.
What film was that, the Oliver Stone one?
CW he has never watches any of the tower collapses or he would not make such a stupid statement
Commenting by HaloScan
