Investing in Precious Metals 101 Ad

Book Review: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Login or register to post comments Last Post 77617 reads   570 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 21 through 30 (of 570 total)
  • Fri, May 16, 2014 - 07:15pm

    #21

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4511

    count placeholder

    No disrespect?

Sorry Bowskill, but plenty of disrespect is being given and you're not really hiding it.

Those who wish to discredit honest and legitimate explorations of the data, the facts and the conclusions of 9/11 routinely use the same tactics you are using.

Deflecting the discussion to the possible motives, suggesting that such a grand scheme could not possibly be kept secret, and finally linking such inquiries to your crazy friend who thinks UFOs fly specifically over his house are all classic techniques used by those who do not want the data to be examined.

All of these are meant to (quite) unsubtly imply that anyone who explores 9/11 with an open mind must be some sort of nut.  Failing at that, perhaps you can get everyone derailed on a pointless venture like trying to guess at motives.

In the future, please constrain your inquiries and observations to the facts as they have been presented. 

How do you account for the law of conservation of momentum given the column layout and the ~2.5 seconds of free fall for bldg 7?  That and other open questions were posed and remain completely unaddressed by anyone 'taking the other side' in support of the official story.

Or pick any other physical, measureable event in question and give it a go.  But please reconsider the smear by association approach, if that's what's going on here, as those are not in keeping with the thrust of this site or this thread.

 

  • Fri, May 16, 2014 - 07:43pm

    #22

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    count placeholder

    Bowskill…

This short video was an important part of my own awakening to this… I think it was probably first posted by Sandpuppy;

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

  • Fri, May 16, 2014 - 09:34pm

    #23

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1846

    count placeholder

    When my nephew first mentioned….

that one of his professors (Steven E. Jones) had raised some questions about the collapses I rolled my eyes in disbelief.  I "knew" that my nephew was "being crazy." 

Then I actually listened to the lecture by Steven Jones, started gathering data and thinking…..

  • Fri, May 16, 2014 - 10:58pm

    #24

    Boomer41

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 30 2008

    Posts: 109

    count placeholder

    Destruction of Evidence

Given that no steel framed, high rise building had ever collapsed as a result of fire anywhere in the world prior to 9/11, it would be reasonable to assume that NIST would have been extremely interested to know why building 7 collapsed so catastrophically. One would expect that they would want to know exactly what failed – and why – so they could promulgate improved standards for the construction of such buildings in the future.

After an airliner crashes, a train derails, a bridge collapses or a ship sinks the physical evidence is examined in microscopic detail to determine the root cause of the failure. A proper forensic examination of the wreckage after any catastrophic failure enables engineers and scientists to determine exactly how the structure failed and why.

The wreckage of the twin towers and building 7 was not subjected to any such examination. On the contrary, the structural steel from the twin towers and building 7, which was critical evidence, was removed from the site with unseemly haste and, despite the vociferous protests of structural engineers, fire engineers and architects, was immediately shipped to China as scrap metal. Was this incompetence, stupidity or deliberate destruction of vital evidence?

If NIST is correct and building 7 did collapse as a result of an office fire, we must assume that all steel framed skyscrapers are at risk of a similar fate.

 

 

 

 

  • Sat, May 17, 2014 - 12:12am

    #25

    darbikrash

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 297

    count placeholder

    I think Sand Puppy has done a

 

 

I think Sand Puppy has done a good job pulling together putting together various reports and conclusions presenting an alternative explanation to the collapse of Bldg. 7.

 

As I mentioned on the previous thread, based on (my) very limited examination of the “evidence” I do not see that laws of physics and basic engineering principles were violated- nor do I find the alternate theories plausible- certainly well short of the hysterical claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and while such claims that “the fire simply could not be hot enough using office furniture as a fuel” may resonate with people’s common sense, these are neither engineering explanations nor scientific ones.

 

Any first year physics student is shown the video of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsing, one minute it was just fine, the next it suffered immediate, catastrophic – and unprecedented collapse. This takes a fair amount of advanced engineering understanding to explain the technical details of this collapse. I can well imagine the stories that might have come of this if a US war was linked to the collapse of this bridge (it wasn’t of course). But to the layman of 1940, this must have been extraordinary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xox9BVSu7Ok

The simple truth is that the explanations of failure and damage mechanics are complex and non-intuitive, and oddly, neither the vast majority of engineers and certainly not physicists are competent in this discipline. It is akin to the difference between a brain surgeon and a general physician, while the generalist may understand the elementary principles, damage mechanics and failure theory is arcane and not well understood for many materials.

 

We routinely do tensile tests to failure of metallic coupons, and it would shock the layman to see how much variability there is between six identically prepared samples, under precise temperature controlled conditions, with tightly controlled stain rates, and literally men with white coats running around. The variation to the failure point under controlled conditions is often 50%-70%. As to modeling or predicting this, well that is why we have safety factors, to mitigate variability and uncertainty.

 

To expect that a building undergoing a catastrophic collapse can be explained rigorously at the element level is asking a bit much. There is simply too much uncertainly to call this a “scientific” debate, yes, we can assess if fundamental laws of physics are being violated, as high school professor Chandler does in his “truther” videos, but what I found in the little bit of research I did as a result of the comments on this thread and the other Kunstler thread convinced me this is not about science or physics at all.

 

It reduces to interpretation of the time scale of the collapse event, with Chandler and the conspiracy theorists focusing on their measure of the time duration, and you guessed it, others contradicting that interpretation-as we shall see.

 

In the previous thread, I had asked for a time stamped video of WTC 7 collapse, as in my business this is the logical starting point. Not “plans and blueprints of the structure” but a reliable and impartial time stamped accounting of the event. No such video was produced, although excerpts from David Chandler’s interpretation were posted.

 

I did some research, and I did find such a video. This seems to be an amateur attempt, so I cannot vouch for the accuracy, but I see nothing wrong with it in the context of a first order approximation- adequate to debunk the claims that conservation of energy was violated. Notably, this video is a direct challenge to the widely circulated ”truther” video of David Chandler- debunking his claims –based on the observed time scale- word for word.

 

I suggest it boils down to this, if Chandler’s interpretation of the timing is correct we have some problems with the physics, but it seems that there is credible disagreement, and if the debunking is correct, that we do not have a problem at all.

Another comment, I would expect that these controversies would make their way into the reach of peer reviewed journals, can anyone point me to reputable professional journals that have subjected these claims to peer review and critique? I am not aware of any, but admittedly, I have not done an exhaustive search.

Where is the professional peer review, and if none exists, than what does this tell you?

 

One alternative explanation for all of this is psychological. Some claim that rejection of these conspiracy theories is because we as the feeble proletariat cannot fathom that our government would conspire against us in such a manner.

Perhaps.

Or perhaps this strain of conspiratorial theory is borne of a sect that conjures the government as being responsible for everything that is wrong, the FED is responsible for debasing the currency, crushing the “free market” with unreasonable and nonsensical regulation, fabricating fiat money to destabilize the economy, and if that wasn’t enough, why spraying us all down with chem trails.

 

In this context a government plot to bring down the Towers makes perfect sense.

 

 

 

  • Sat, May 17, 2014 - 12:52am

    #26
    bowskill

    bowskill

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 16 2012

    Posts: 69

    count placeholder

    Sorry folks…

Wow. Being admonished by Chris is not much fun.

I was trying to describe my reaction to this topic, definitely not to infer that sand_puppy, Chris or anyone else are "goofy" or nuts for their beliefs.

Obviously my post was not well constructed and it horrifies me that anyone would think I was simply making a thinly veiled and closed minded swipe at anyone holding the views articulated by sand_puppy.

Thanks to those who pm'd me – that was appreciated. I will send a personal message to Chris then retire from this thread, although I will continue to read with interest.

  • Sat, May 17, 2014 - 02:28am

    #27

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    count placeholder

    More on Building 7

Another opinion by a guy that seems.. well.. pretty well qualified to render one;

"The whole idea of the pancake theory and this progressive collapse that NIST talks about means that you have no resistance on the way down…what an amazing thing that all of the bolts would have failed at the same time.  All of the welds would have failed at the same time…And there isn't even an explanation for how the core of the structure — an extremely highly structurally-resisting part of the structure that basically takes the lateral loading — collapsed. NIST just talk about the trusses that go across from column to column.  And all of them fail at the same time? Even if you were to accept that, you've got resistance as the floors come down.  And they did an analysis there, … It should have taken 96 seconds for that total collapse to have occurred in a pancake manner down to ground zero.  It took 9. I think Building 7 is the big, big question mark and I don't know that there is an engineering explanation for that other than controlled demolition."

— Robert M. Korol, BA Sc, MA Sc, PhD, PE, F.C.S.C.E. – Professional Engineer and Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University.  Elected Fellow of the Engineering Institute of Canada for exceptional contributions to engineering in Canada. Well known for his research on steel structures; the plastic theory of metal structures, inelastic buckling, limit analysis, environmental assessment and life cycle analysis methodologies.

source:  http://www.thepowerhour.com/news3/mysterious_building_7.htm

 

  • Sat, May 17, 2014 - 02:51am

    #28

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4511

    count placeholder

    Please respond to the evidence

[quote]In the previous thread, I had asked for a time stamped video of WTC 7 collapse, as in my business this is the logical starting point. Not “plans and blueprints of the structure” but a reliable and impartial time stamped accounting of the event. No such video was produced, although excerpts from David Chandler’s interpretation were posted.

(…)

It reduces to interpretation of the time scale of the collapse event, with Chandler and the conspiracy theorists focusing on their measure of the time duration, and you guessed it, others contradicting that interpretation-as we shall see.

I suggest it boils down to this, if Chandler’s interpretation of the timing is correct we have some problems with the physics, but it seems that there is credible disagreement, and if the debunking is correct, that we do not have a problem at all.

[/quote]

Darbi – above I provided a link to the NIST website which confirms that freefall acceleration was observed for 2.25 seconds according to NIST, but 2.5 seconds according to others.

By your own assessment if there's freefall there's a physics problem, and there is, indeed, freefall.  NIST says as much. Why have you skipped over this point?  It's the most important one…

Are you saying that you do not believe NISTs assessment of the freefall speed and that you have other 'contradicting interpretations'?  Please share them. If you don't believe NIST on the freefall issue, can you explain why not?

As to your other points, I am not sure what to make of them.

The videos that are available are all easily enough analyzed as they have a defined framerate.  A simple frame by frame analysis will do the trick, no timestamps needed….a frame is, after all, a frame.

And the Tacoma narrows bridge behaves exactly like I would expect something shaking itself apart via harmonic oscillation to behave.  It takes time for such an event to occur and that's exactly what happened.  You've completely lost me with how that is any way relevant here or indicative of why I should view WTC 7 differently.

I am seriously looking for anything remotely in accordance with simple physics that would allow three visible corners of WTC 7 to all fall at free fall rates seemingly in violation of the conservation of momentum (unless all structural resistance was removed, obviously).  That's all.  Can you help?  

 

  • Sat, May 17, 2014 - 04:38am

    #29

    darbikrash

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 297

    count placeholder

    ,,

Sure I can help.

 

But now we get to the substance of this claim, that apparently, if any component of the collapse shows free fall velocities than we have a conspiracy? Is that your claim? Because it appears that is what you and the conspiracy theorists are claiming.

 

My concern with the timing accuracy is to validate the dominant characteristic of the entire event- not just a portion. If David Chandler is showing that the velocities evident throughout the whole event is free fall- then yes, we have a problem. If other video sources are demonstrating that there are large differences from the theoretical free fall timing- then the claims of conspiracy are vastly overblown.

 

Is it not possible that a period of the collapse- in a section of the building will show free fall? Of course it is. This simply means, as the NIST clearly states, that for a period, there is an insignificantly robust load path to support the building dead load. From your link to the NIST report:

 

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

 

 

 

You said this

 

However, in the interest of the 1% chance I've missed something I'm curious.  What's your explanation for achieving freefall with resistance or, alternatively, for how structural steel can suddenly become resistance less across all four corners of a 47 story building that occupied a full city block.

 

Use science and engineering principles please,  bearing in mind that I have the data for bldg 7 in terms of its construction, types of girders, and total mass in tonnage (framing elements only, I don't have any data on the furnishings and such, but assume those to be negligible for our purposes).

 

Intermittent free fall due to a buckling failure is entirely within the realm of physics and the presence of a buckling failure is quite common, perhaps even dominant, in structural failures. If useful, we could have a detailed discussion on how buckling failures occur, and spend some time on the characteristics of these types of failures as sudden, violent, and chaotic. A vertical beam that undergoes a buckling failure even if instrumented may show no signs of structural distress prior to failure, e.g. they do not approach yield strength (and may never hit UTS), the classic definition of impending failure of steel beams. When such a failure occurs, the result is the immediate and total loss of the ability to carry load, not because of heat, not because of anything to do with mechanical properties, but because the beam sees a sharp “snap through”, this is akin to knocking the legs out from under a chair, the result is a large and catastrophic displacement.

You also said this:

Scientifically we can say, without any doubt and in conformance with the law of conservation of momentum, that there was no structural resistance during the free fall phase.

The only explanation that conforms to that is that the steel framing members were somehow removed or cut.

 

 

No, just no. You do not agree with the explanation of buckling- that's fine. But this is a well known engineering failure mode capable of exhibiting exactly these characteristics and disagreeing or claiming implausibility is not the same as presenting evidence.

 

Let’s be clear, the claim using a time scaled video, that IF a building in a total accounting, start to finish, shows free fall collapse for the entire event, then yes, this is indicative of a building that was detonated.

 

Timing wise, the further away we get from an idealized free fall event indicates that energy is being used to slow that collapse, which is not what happens when a building is detonated, characterized by instantaneous (and continuous) loss all of its support. This is substantially different from a buckling failure, which may show periods of free fall until other load bearing members come into play.

 

A quick accounting of the time required for WTC 7 pure free fall nets ~ 7 seconds if the building was detonated and experienced true free fall as one would expect in a detonated building, however, we have by most accounts 14-17 seconds. Where did this energy go? Frankly, the vast discrepancy between the free fall equation I posted earlier and the actual measured time duration is so large as to render claims that this building was detonated to be suspect at first principles.

 

For the purposes of comparison, have you looked at a similar time/velocity plot of a building that actually was detonated, like the large multi story hotels in Vegas? The graphs would not look anything like the Chandler graph.

 

It seems that the claims again reduce to discrepancies to the time series, and discomfort and unfamiliarity with the damage mechanics of a buckling failure.

 

Nowhere near enough “evidence” has been posted to support the conclusion that heat induced buckling failures cannot be entirely to blame for the collapse.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and unless there is something else, I’m not seeing it.

  • Sat, May 17, 2014 - 06:57am

    #30

    Bankers Slave

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2012

    Posts: 513

    count placeholder

    What about

the lack of funding of the so called official investigation, they spent way more investigating the Clinton sex scandal than they did on 9/11. The commission was underfunded, set up to fail they were not given enough time or access to important documentation. None of the pertinent questions were answered, the whole thing was a sham. 

NIST did not even look for evidence of explosives material in the debris afterwards, then they admit freefall  of WTC 7 after years of ignoring it.

I could go on but its up to the doubters to rethink this through for themselves.

Viewing 10 posts - 21 through 30 (of 570 total)

Login or Register to post comments