Book Review: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7

459 posts / 0 new
Last post
sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1623
Book Review: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7

 

Book Review—The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:  Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False.  By David Ray Griffin

 

 

“A definitive study of what happens when political concerns are permitted to override science and the scientific method.  With intellectual finesse worthy of a scientist, Griffin shows that NIST’s WTC7 report has no scientific credibility.”

-- John D. Wyndham, Ph.D., Physics, Cambridge University, former Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology

 

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
—Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1841

 

If human beings do indeed recover their senses slowly, and one by one, David Ray Griffin and a loose association of scientists have done much to lead the way.  Griffin, a retired college professor, theologian and minister, has devoted his impressive intellect and energies to critically examining and deconstructing the Great Myth or our day; the story told about how Osama bin Laden destroyed 3 New York City skyscrapers by hitting 2 of them with airplanes.

 

In this book, Griffin takes on the particular issue of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7), the 47 story skyscraper in the World Trade Center complex that was NOT hit by an airplane, yet collapsed on 9/11.  He critiques the report made by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the US Commerce Department which is under the supervision of the white house.  Readers are encouraged to download the 3 versions of the reports (1,000+ pages) so as to follow the discussion and peruse the graphics.

NIST NCSTAR 1-9A 

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 1

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 2

 

 

Griffin draws on the significant work of structural engineers, fire safety engineers, first responders, metallurgists, architects, physicists and various other professionals who have analyzed and responded to the NIST report.  Some of their analyses are gathered on the AE911Truth.com website, some in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and many from the NIST website itself as public comments, corrections and requests for clarification in the NIST report as it went through a several iterations leading to the final report.  Griffin includes over 1,000 referenced footnotes in his book.

 

Griffin concludes that the NIST report was above all motivated by the political need to obtain a specific conclusion.  In pursuit of this goal, uses of logical fallacies (such as straw man arguments), breaches of the principles of scientific reasoning (such as failing to start with the most likely hypothesis) and the omission of a large volume of material evidence that contradicts the sought conclusion.  Two instances of fraud are reported.  Meticulously, thoroughly and unrelentingly, he deconstructs the NIST explanation of why the WTC7 collapsed and frames its report as a process directed to a politically motivated conclusion rather than a work of investigative science.

 

 

The two “challenges” NIST faced

 

The first “challenge” NIST faced was to explain the collapse of a building that appeared classic for an explosive demolition (an implosion) as being due to some non-explosive cause.  About one hundred video recordings of implosion demolitions can be found on youtube (for example: hereherehere) and at implosionworld.com

Picture 1:  The general detonation pattern of a typical implosion.

Articles describing how an implosion is structured are available.  Thus is easy for anyone interested to become familiar with what an implosion looks like. Yet NIST took a different path:  They endeavored to develop an entirely novel explanation for what appears to be another example of this familiar event.

 

 

Appearance of an implosion

 

The collapse of WTC7 shows the cardinal characteristics of explosive demolition; more specifically, the pattern called “an implosion.”

1.  Collapse started at the bottom.

2.  The onset of the collapse was sudden.

3.  The collapse was total

4.  The building came straight down (the tall building did not tip)

5.  The acceleration approximated that of a free-falling object.

6.  Most of the concrete was pulverized into tiny particles producing a large dust cloud.

7.  The building ended up as a relatively small pile of debris showing “high-order damage.”

 

This 2.5 minute compilation of video footage of the WTC7 collapse shows most of these features, the clearest between the 2:00 and 2:30 marks)

 

Fire-Resistance Classifications of Building Constructions

 

The second “challenge” was that WTC7 was a Fire-Resistance Class 1A building, universally regarded as impervious to destruction by fire.  And, in fact, historically no FR class IA building has ever, either before or after 9/11, collapsed due to fire.  Class IA buildings are made of incombustible materials (steel, cement and glass) and by definition “can withstand complete combustion of their contents” without collapse.

 

NISTs appears to have framed their task as: How can we explain the collapse of WTC7 as the result of:

1.  a progressive process  

2.  initiated by fire.

 

Griffin draws on the critique of the NIST report by a grass-roots gathering of professionals who conclude that the work is an example the use “science” to deceive.

 

 

Breaching fundamental scientific procedure: Failure to entertain the most likely hypothesis

 

The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association, recommends beginning with a search for explosives when there is “high-order damage characterized by shattering of the structure producing small, pulverized debris with the building completely demolished.”  “High order damage” certainly describes Building 7. But NIST did not do take this advice.

 

Physics professor Steven Jones to NIST:  “Did you find any evidence for use of explosives?”

NIST:  “No. We found no evidence for use of explosives.”

Jones:  “Did you LOOK for evidence of explosives or residues of explosives?”

NIST:  “No we did not.”

 

Hence, the story begins with NIST deviating from a fundamental fire safety forensic procedure by declining to consider the most probable hypothesis, explosive demolition, in a building whose appearance is classic for explosive demolition.  Instead NIST simply asserts: “This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.”

 

Pictures 2 & 3:  Collapsed buildings without “high order damage.” We can see the architecture and easily see the windows, balconies, stairwells, etc.  The structure is recognizable post collapse.

 

 

Picture 4:  Contrast this with the WTC7 debris pile (bottom of page 3): a collapsed building with “high order damage.”

 

[I am unable to load this picture, so the link is included.]

Picture 5:  Another example of severe “high-order-damage.”

 

 

Dismissing explosive demolition with a “straw man” argument

 

Why did they decide not investigate the possibility of explosive demolition? NIST explains that they did not feel that the hypothesis of explosive demolition was “credible.”  Griffin points out that the reasoning used to dismiss this hypothesis uses a classic straw man logical fallacy.  NIST explains:  if explosives were used, the “most likely blast scenario” would be 9 pounds of RDX explosive applied in a linear shaped charge to column 79 below the 25th floor.  However, this would have produced window breakage on the north-eastern face of the building and a sound of 140 decibels in the street.  These were not observed.  Therefore, they concluded, explosive demolition is not a credible hypothesis.

 

Proponents of the explosive demolition hypothesis have never suggested RDX was used, or column 79 (or any single column) targeted.  Instead, nanothermite, a new high explosive compound developed by the military in the 90’s is suggested.  Neils Harrit, chemistry professor at the University of Copenhagen, and Steven E. Jones, physics professor from Brigham Young University, analyzed WTC dust taken from four different sites finding both unexploded chips of nanothermite and chemical residues of this new explosive.

Picture 6.  Unexploded reddish-grey nano-thermite chips found in all four of the WTC dust samples.

Spectroscopic profile of one component of the dust.

 

NIST never responded to this published paper, these findings posted on its website, allowed Dr Harritt to testify as he requested, or gave any indication that this paper was received even though it was sent to them by multiple professionals.  It seems that maintaining its “no evidence for use of explosives” stance even prevented them from acknowledging evidence delivered to them directly by the professional community.

 

Jim Hoffman, a metallurgical engineer, summarizes the large body of evidence pointing towards nano-thermite usage in his essay “Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives

 

The majority of people who watch this 9 second collapse video of WTC7 immediately suspect explosive demolition. David Chandler, a high-school physics instructor who writes about 9/11, observes:  “People are not stupid.”  Even people who have never taken formal physics courses intuitively recognize that this collapse looks like an explosive demolition.  So it is very telling that NIST was able to watch this same video but find NOTHING to suggest explosive demolition. This observation alone indicates that NIST was completely dedicated to developing an explanation that did not include explosives.

 

 

Ignoring testimony of the fire department and city officials reporting explosions.

 

Griffin reviews the testimony of people who heard, saw and felt explosions in WTC7 including Barry Jennings, a city official, who was in WTC7 on the morning of 9/11 and who reports being blown to the floor by an explosion and blinded by smoke about 9:30 am.  Graeme MacQueen, professor at the University of Ontario, reviews testimony of dozens of firefighters (The Oral Histories of 9/11) who heard explosions before the collapse and knew hours in advance that WTC7 was going to collapse. And most curiously, three news reporters mistakenly reported WTC had collapsed 30 minutes BEFORE it actually had!  If the collapse were indeed due to a natural process, that resulted from a novel and completely unexpected mechanism, why would so many (correctly) be expecting collapse in advance and seem to know its timing?  This testimony is striking in its omission from the report.

 

 

Griffin begins by documenting the exclusion of evidence for explosive demotion using willful blindness, logical fallacies and the scientific fraud of excluding the huge body of data that contradicts its conclusion.  In Part 2 we ask: How does NIST explain the collapse?

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1623
Parts 2 & 3 tomorrow .....

Time to go to work.....

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1623
Book Review Part 2: How did NIST explain the collapse?

 

Book Review—The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:  Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False.  By David Ray Griffin  

 

 

Part 2:  How did NIST explain the collapse of WTC7?

 

In Part 2 I begin by summarizing the key points in the 1,000+ page final report and finish by including pictures and diagrams where helpful.

 

1.  Debris from the collapsing North Tower struck Building 7 at 10:28 am starting fires on a couple of floors beginning in the south-west corner.

2.  Office workstations caught fire.  The fire spread from workstation to workstation moving across the building to the north-east corner (where the collapse would be initiated 6-1/2 hours later).

3.  Fires on the 12th and 13th floors play a big part in the story.

4.  Horizontal steel beams in the floor of the 13th floor (which was the ceiling of the 12th floor) expanded (lengthened) more than the cement floor slabs to which they were attached, severing the shear studs that attached the cement floor slab to the support beams.

5.  These floor support beams, now detached from the cement floor slab and elongated, pushed the horizontal girder connecting vertical columns 79 and 44 out of place.  (I’ll call this the “crucial girder.”)

6.  After elongating and pushing, the floor beams then sagged and gave way causing the 13th floor in the northeast corner to collapse crushing the floor below it, which in turn collapsed crushing the one below it, sequentially, collapsing 7 floors.  The loss of these 7 floors deprived vertical column 79 of lateral support.

6.  Vertical column 79 buckled.  This produced the first visible drop in the roof line as the penthouse dropped first.

7.  The collapse of column 79 started a progressive, cascading destruction of the inner portions of the building, where each failing component pulled down the neighboring structures to which they were attached.

8.   The collapse proceeded in a step-wise cascade from the north-east towards the south-west through all of the central columns until the building was a hollow shell without any functioning central columns.

9.  In the final step, the unsupported outer walls (the façade) buckled and were pulled inward, then, fell towards the ground in a total global collapse.

 

In pictures:

1. Layout of the WTC complex. NW is at the top.  The SW corner of WTC7 was damaged by falling debris from the North Tower (WTC1).  Fires started in the SW corner.

 

2. Floor plan of the 13th floor. Note core column 79 and outer column 44 (both in the upper right) and the “crucial girder” connecting them.  Floor beams attached to the crucial girder on its right are the ones that expanded and pushed the crucial girder off its supports.  The NE corner where the NIST collapse scenario is triggered by the heating of the floor beams causing expansion, and later collapse.

3. A picture of a typical WTC7 floor (taken during a renovation) showing the cement slab floor at the bottom, and overhead, girders (running right to left), floor support beams (running away from viewer) and the cement floor slab of the floor above. Vertical external columns are visible on the right side. Core columns are just out of view to the left of the photo and others are hidden behind drywall on the left.  This view is taken from the north-east corner. The “crucial girder” is the one visible in the overhead foreground, and the floor support beams that pushed it are the ones visible here running away from the viewer.  The viewer is standing in the location of the fires that initiated the collapse sequence.

 

4.  A close up view of a beam with some spray-on fire-retardant material removed.  The beam is lying on its side.

 

5.  Office furniture was the fuel for the fire.  This become important when we consider the amount of heat produced.  Pictured is a “typical WTC office.”

 

6.  Graphic from NIST’s simulation:  The expanding floor beam (green) pushed the “crucial girder” (blue) off its connection (red) to vertical column 79 (purple).  There are no photographs of the actual connection piece, just this animation from the computer model. (I suspect that an actual photograph of the connection would have appeared more substantial than the flimsy looking connector from the computer model pictured here.)

 

 

 

7.  Animation of floor beams collapsing.  After the floor beams lengthened and pushed the crucial girder out of place, they then sagged and collapse.  Red indicates the hotter portions of steel beams where sagging and breakage are predicted.

 

 

8.  Unsupported column 79 buckles starting the cascading destruction of the building core. NIST NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 p 573

 

9.  Progression of collapse through the central columns as each failing structure pulls down everything attached to it.  This begins with “Group 1” (which including column 79) in the NE and proceeds in a wave through the entire core to the SW finally bringing down “Group 8” on the opposite side of the building. 

10.  More computer animations of progressive destruction of the core columns.  Here you can clearly see the progressive quality and the wave of movement of destruction beginning in the northeast corner and finishing in the southwest corner. NIST NCSTAR 1-9 v2 beginning on p590  [Critics of NIST point out that there is absolutely nothing even remotely like this wave of destruction observed on videos of the actual collapse.  We will return to this criticism in part 3]

 

11.  Computer animation of the predicted appearance of the outer surface of the building.  Core columns were attached to the outer façade of the building and as they sequentially collapse, the outer façade is, in the computer model, deformed and twisted. Please review the larger and much clearer images in the report itself.  (This is another prediction of the computer model that is in sharp disagreement to actual observations of the building itself.) NIST NCSTAR 1-9 v2  p593

 

This summarizes the NIST computer simulation. 

In part 3, we will look at specific objections to the NIST report raised by scientists.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1623
Book Review Part 3: Criticisms of the NIST Report

 

 

 

Book Review—The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:  Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False.  By David Ray Griffin  

 

Part 3:  Criticisms of the NIST Report.

 

 

The proposed NIST scenario was developed using computer modeling not any physical experimentation.  A limitation of computer models is that it is possible to fudge inputs pursuing a desired outcome. Griffin summarizes criticisms of the report that suggesting that this is exactly what happened.

 

I will just mention a couple of criticisms without discussion:  gross over estimation of the amount of combustible fuel in the offices, exaggeration of the duration of the fires (when compared to photographs of the building), and exaggeration of the temperatures achievable by burning office furniture.

 

Now we will turn to a four specific technical criticisms with the NIST scenario.

 

Two specific distortions, absolutely critical to the story, are worthy of detailed examination:  First, the failure to quantify the initiating event, the magnitude of floor support beam thermal expansion, and, second, the way that NIST explains the failure of the shear studs that attached the cement floor slab to the steel support beams beneath them. This will focus on a deception and fraud in computer modeling process discovered by fire safety engineers, Proe and Thomas.

 

Third, we will touch on the discrepancy between the computer model and actual observations of the building collapse.  And last, we will address the special issue of free-fall and its profound implications as to the cause of collapse.  Specifically, we will show that the observed free-fall acceleration is completely incompatible with a progressive collapse mechanism.

 

 

How much did the floor support beams expand?

 

 

How much did the floor support beams supposedly expand?  NIST does not quantified this critical dimension despite the fact that it is the lynch pin of their proposed collapse initiation mechanism.  NIST simple states that the expansion was “enough."  Referring to diagrams, Kevin Ryan reviews the amount of linear expansion required to “walk the horizontal girder off its supports” between columns 44 and 79.  According to Ryan’s calculations, even assuming the exaggerated steel temperatures and fire durations NIST proposes, expansion of only about an inch or two would be produced. He advises that this is “not nearly enough.”  Despite a thousand page report with ten thousand other measurements, this measurement, the critical initiating step of their entire collapse mechanism, is not quantified. The complete omission of this most critical data element in a report otherwise full of fine grain data is most curious especially in the light of the impressions of other engineers that NIST has exaggerated the magnitude of thermal expansion possible. They also do not include any picture or blue print of the connector to column 79.

 

 

 

The mysterious vanishing (and failing) shear studs

 

The importance of the shear studs to the NIST proposed mechanism cannot be over emphasized.  A shear stud is a 0.75” x 5” nail-like device that pins the cement floor slab to the supporting beams and girders beneath it. With shear studs in place, the cement floor slabs would have stabilized and prevented the displacement of the crucial girder between columns 79 and 44.  Thus, the entire mechanism NIST proposes requires an absence of functioning shear studs.  How was NIST able to remove all functioning shear studs in their simulation?  It is quite a story.

Picture 1:  The red dots represent the shear studs in the computer model.

 

 

 

Picture 2:  Shear studs connect the bottom of the corrugated steel floor pan (shown here) to the flange of the beam beneath it.  (In construction of a floor, the steel floor pan was anchored to the underlying beams with and girders with shear studs, then filled with cement about 4” deep and a welded wire mesh is set into the cement before drying.)  The shear studs make the cement and steel “composite” (function as a unit).

 

 

Picture 3:  Larger picture here.  This picture is taken from the shop blueprint drawing of Cantor, the WTC architect, showing the way the cement floor slab is attached to the support beams and girders (shown in end view) with shear studs.

 

 

 

 

What happened to all the shear studs?

 

1.  Shear studs on the girders:  Between NIST’s 2004 and 2008 reports, the shear studs along the girders simply disappeared from their model.  In the 2004 report, shear studs were present “on girders and beams,” but in the 2008 report, were only present “on beams.”  Shear studs on girders appear to have been simply deleted from the computer model. The scientific community reacted to this with outrage and accusations of fraud, and demanded an explanation.  No response or explanation has been offered by NIST.

 

2.  Shear studs on the floor support beams:  NIST reports that the heat of the fires caused differing expansion of the steel floor support beams relative to the cement floor slab causing the shear studs to break.  The heated steel expanded more than the heated cement and that this difference in thermal expansion severed the shear studs.

 

Fire safety engineers David Proe and Ian Thomas, faculty (and director) at the Environmental Safety and Risk Engineering department of the University of Melbourne, were most perplexed about this.  The linear thermal expansion coefficients of cement and steel are very similar (1.20 vs. 1.24) so a structure made of cement and steel, pinned together, should have expanded as a unit without significant shear stresses between components.  In fact, the use of cement/steel composites is a widely used principle of designing buildings for fire safety. Proe questioned NIST:

 

“The assessment of WTC7 appears to conclude that composite beams [i.e., beams connected to floor slabs with shear studs] are extremely susceptible to failure due to thermal expansion.  This is not our experience at all.”

 

And later:

 

“We are particularly interested in the finding that the shear studs failed at low temperature.  Having conducted numerous fire tests on composite beams, we have never observed this.  Was there any physical evidence obtained of this type of failure?”

 

NIST never made any direct response to the questions and comments posted by Proe on the NIST website.  However, deep in their 2008 report, buried in a single sentence at the bottom of page 351, the reason for the finding was discovered:

 

“No thermal expansion … was considered for the concrete slab as the concrete slab was not heated in this analysis.”

(TMCWTC7 p220 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9 vol 1: p 351, last sentence)

 

 

Incredibly, NIST applied “simulated heating” to the steel support beams (in the computer model) without “simulated heating” of the concrete slab to which the beam was attached, and then attributed breakage of the “virtual shear studs” to the difference in thermal expansion between the two!  A real world fire would have obviously heated both together and they would have expanded as a unit.  This critical deception is documented in only this single sentence of a 1,000-page report and was uncovered by fire safety engineers, David Proe and Ian Thomas.

 

The handling of the shear studs is fraudulent from start to finish.  “Virtual shear studs” in “virtual girders” were simply deleted from the computer model, and those in “virtual floor support beams” were “virtually severed” by an impossibly unrealistic selective heating shenanigan possible only in the simulated world of computer modeling. 

 

This episode should serve as a reminder that with computer modeling, the unscrupulous can tweak inputs until a desired outcome is produced.  It also serves as a reminder that the NIST report is not a physical study, but only a computer simulation where problematic structures that get in the way of a desired conclusion can be altered with a few taps of a keyboard. 

 

 

Discrepancies between the NIST predictions and the observed behavior of the building during collapse.

 

1.  Failure of one end of the building to fall before the other.  Frank Greening, physicist, notes that the NIST scenario indicates that the NE end of the building begins its collapse a full 4 seconds before the SW end.  This creates a prediction that can be compared to the observable event.  Please watch the initial 2.5-minute collapse compilation video again specifically looking for any evidence that one end of the building is collapsing ahead of the other. Do both ends of the building start to drop at the same time and stay even throughout the drop?  It is clear that they do.  (There is a kink in the middle of the building, but the two ends fall together.) This finding is incompatible with the wave like progression of collapse described by NIST that spreads from one end of the building to the other.

 

2.   Failure to observe the predicted buckling of the façade.  NIST explains that the NE half of the core was destroyed several seconds before the visible drop in the roof line began.  Yet the core columns are connected to the façade at every floor by steel girders.  A collapsing core would pull in the façade and deform the flatness of its surface.  Even NIST’s simulations predict the outer surface of the building (the facade) will buckle and warp.  Needless to say, there is no visible buckling of the façade at all seen in any of the videos.  The observed uniform smoothness of the façade profoundly undercuts any progressive collapse explanation in which the core is destroyed asymmetrically or prior to the façade.

 

Please compare this animation of the crumbling facade from NIST with the actual observed behavior of the building again.  Both are viewed from the north side of the building.  How well do they match?  Brief video source link.    and NIST NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2, p 593

 

 

Thus we see that two major NIST model predictions of the global collapse are easily seen to not even remotely close to the observable appearance of the building in videos.

 

3.  Free fall:  The nail-in-the-coffin of any progressive collapse theory.

 

David Chandler, a high school physics teacher, has written on the basic physics of the WTC collapse  very eloquently and is quoted by Griffin. Chandler begins by documenting 2.5 seconds of free fall from a video software tool used by physicists applied to a video clip of the collapsing WTC7.  He finds that there is a 2.5 second period where the building is accelerating at free fall speeds.  It continues to accelerate after that, but not quite as quickly.

 

 

Chandler points out that FREE FALL is the antithesis of a PROGRESSIVE collapse.  They are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist.  A collapse can either be at free fall or it can be progressive, but not both. He explains:

 

What if a heavy object falls through other objects, breaking them, crushing them or bending them as it goes? Newton's third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in free fall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down, and by Newton's third law, the falling object cannot be pushing on anything else either.

 

Stated another way, Chandler explains the significance of the observed free fall:

 

Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.  In other words, the gravitational potential energy of the building is not available to crush or deform anything.  During free fall, all of the gravitational potential energy of the building is being converted into kinetic energy, and nothing else.  Any breaking, bending, crushing or pulverizing of the building components is occurring without the assistance of the free-falling portions of the building.  Any force the top portion of the building might exert on the lower portions would be reflected in a reaction force that would produce an observable slowing of the rate of fall.  Source (at 2:45).

 

Progressive collapses cause crumbling of the building structure that appears halting, tumbling and irregular.  He concludes:

 

“In short, the evidence is clear.  We are not witnessing the collapse of a building but its demolition.” Source (at 8:10)

 

 

Near universal intuitive recognition of a demolition

 

Though most people have not taken a physics course, most intuitively recognize a demolition when they see it.  This is the reason that most everyone who views the 9 second video immediately recognizes that “something is wrong.”  “It looks like it is being blown up.”

 

Conclusion

 

The “challenge” NIST faced in explaining the collapse of WTC7, as due to a non-explosive mechanism, was indeed very formidable.  This is because its appearance is so classic for an explosive demolition.  NIST would further have us believe that WTC7 is the first and only Fire-Resistance Class IA building ever to collapse due to fire. Witnesses reported hearing explosions, firefighters and newscasters knew in advance that its collapse was imminent, and chemists found nano-thermite, a high-tech military explosive, in the dust.  NIST ignored the wealth of information pointing towards explosions.

 

Griffin drew together the technical objections to the NIST report itself.

He points out significant omissions of data, deviation from accepted scientific method, deceptions and several instances of overt fraud.  Particularly disturbing is the failure to quantify the degree of thermal expansion of floor support beams, the initiating event of the NIST scenario.  Overt fraud was found in the handling of the vanishing shear studs.

 

He concludes that the NIST report is above all else a political document that chases a foreordained conclusion and should not be mistaken for an inquiry driven by scientific method or a search for truth.

 

Fortunately, we can compare the NIST predictions with actual video footage of the building as it falls.  The predictions not match at all:  Both ends of the building fall simultaneously and evenly and no deformation of the façade is seen.  And, most importantly, the building falls at free fall acceleration, an observation absolutely incompatible with a progressive collapse process.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1623
Book Review Part 1's Pictures

 

I inadvertently deleted pictures from Part 1.  I will reinsert them here.

 

Picture 1:  The general detonation pattern of a typical implosion.

Source:  http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm 

 

Pictures 2 & 3:  Collapsed buildings without “high order damage.” We can see the architecture and easily see the windows, balconies, stairwells, etc.  The structure is recognizable post collapse.

 

Picture 4:  Contrast this with the WTC7 debris pile: a collapsed building with “high order damage.”  (A larger and much clearer picture is found at the bottom of page 3.  http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

Picture 5:  Another example of severe “high-order-damage.”

 

Picture 6.  Unexploded reddish-grey nano-thermite chips found in all four of the WTC dust samples.

Source Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31

rrevard's picture
rrevard
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 3 2009
Posts: 1
NIST

Do they address the reported fact that no one who worked in that building showed up for work that fateful day?

RNcarl's picture
RNcarl
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 13 2008
Posts: 382
Sick Feeling Again

Thanks Sandpuppy!

I mentioned WTC Bldg. 7 in reply to another post because things, "just don't add up" with building 7. Different topic about the Deep State but the information presented here makes the point of Chris' post on the Deep State. Actually, several things don't add up about that day. But I won't go into it now. Let's just say, the information about how bldg. 7 collapsed is the "smoking gun" that is needed to get folks to think about all the events on that day. I just hope that some day before I die, some truth about the events come out.

Who knows, it could have been a, "wake-up-call" given to the financial sector about who really is in charge. Or, it could be just the opposite. The financial sector could have needed a "big event" to cause a correction and got the puppet government to supply one. I prefer the first assumption because the "attack" was directed toward the financial sector. And somehow, I feel the Deep State can be changed. The festering greed of the financial sector cannot.

I do understand why folks just can't come to terms with what really happened that day. Heck, I don't even really want to think about what I see now with my own eyes could be the truth. After all, free falling 47 story buildings that look exactly like controlled demolitions and a "disappearing plane" that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon, leave too many unanswered questions.The answers to those questions and more is what is greatly disturbing. It shakes the very foundation about our trust in The U.S. governmental system.

After all, this country is where folks come to escape tyranny. The U.S. is where one can come and feel safe that the government does NOT wage war on it's own citizens. Here is where freedom from oppression was "born" over 200 years ago. However, the evidence, well, the evidence isn't so clear. Because, if what we see with our own eyes and feel in ours collective gut is true... Then my friends, we all have a great big problem. Or is it a predicament? If it is, a predicament and not a problem, then JHK was right, we should just tend our gardens because there is no solution.

It is an exciting time to be alive.

C.

Bankers Slave's picture
Bankers Slave
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2012
Posts: 512
You are right

its a problem as opposed to a predicament. There are many so called conspiracy theories out there, just like 9/11 popularly used to be, that need to be revisited. 

It would appear that Hollywood has been dropping the hints regarding the twin towers terrorist target for many years, in fact right back to the 1980s. There has been so much of it that I cannot put it down to being just pure coincidence or accident. Nothing appears in the movies by accident, that's how they tell us what they are going to do before they do it. They cannot help themselves its all part of being a control freak of megalomaniac proportions. 

Boomer41's picture
Boomer41
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Posts: 130
Great Review

Thanks, Sand Puppy, for an excellent review of Griffin's book.

By now it should be obvious to any sentient person that 9/11 was not what the official story would have us believe. Exactly what it was that happened on that day is something we need to find out.

Many people I talk with on the subject (usually the older group) refuse to believe that explosives could have been used. Because, they say, "Such things cannot happen in America" or "Too many people would have been involved and it couldn't be kept secret". (The Manhattan Project was kept secret with many more people involved.)

Younger people are generally more skeptical and have no problem believing it was an inside job. Many of them point to the total lack of forensic investigation - Instead of the structural steel from the three buildings being scrupulously examined to determine the root cause of the failure, or re-assembled (as in the case of an airplane crash) all of the steel from all three buildings was promptly shipped to China as scrap.

As an engineer, I have no doubt that all three buildings were demolished. The evidence is overwhelming. http://www.ae911truth.org/ No steel frame, high rise building anywhere in the world has ever collapsed due to fire, despite some very spectacular fires which engulfed the whole structure. Nevertheless, we are expected to believe that three such collapses on the same day are somehow normal.

Of course, the greater implications of controlled demolition are truly profound. What we need is a new, unbiased, independent investigation into the whole 9/11 event.

leweke1's picture
leweke1
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 18 2008
Posts: 101
The Elephant in WTC7

I remember watching WTC7 burn most of the fateful day.  Getting explosives to work after cooking in a fire all day would have been a true engineering miracle, since even the best degrade very quickly (HNS ~1 hour) at >500F.  Protecting explosives from the heat (probably exceeding 1000F) would have required a massive effort at heat shielding which would have made everything quite conspicuous, no?  And the sequenced explosives required for an implosion are all controlled with precise delays initiated through lengths of detonating cord...protecting thousands of feet of det-cord from the heat would have been impossible.  And all of those explosions would have been very visible with the smoke and flame present...note video of an explosion in a burning house yesterday (5/12/14).  It was pretty obvious looking at the flame and fire that an explosion had occurred.  So, no I don't buy the propositions that explosives brought down any of the towers, but find it completely normal that their own weights eventually exceeded the load capacity of the structures undergoing progressive damage.

Bankers Slave's picture
Bankers Slave
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2012
Posts: 512
Listen to the experts

if you deny what your eyes see!

 

ae911truth.org

tomccoy1's picture
tomccoy1
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 8 2010
Posts: 21
Ramifications of WTC 7

WTC 7 is what woke me up to what happened on 9/11.  I discovered the story in 2005.  

I my mind, the much larger ramification is that there appears to be so much mis-information, especially from governments in the world we live.  The WTC 7 is cannot be refuted.  Govt. corruption/tyranny gives a much greater credence to the underlying principals of the crash course, and why global media and others would be trying to deceive the public about that reality.  

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1623
Fires in WTC7

 

Fires in WTC7

I am very happy to have people thinking critically about the subject of what happened to World Trade Center 7.  The problem is not that we may disagree, but that we may fail to look and think critically for ourselves.  If we should accept the view of an “authority” that is not being truthful, we are vulnerable to being bamboozled.  Lets not do that.  We will think for ourselves.

Sometimes when we hear people talk about WTC7, the verbal description creates a picture of a “towering inferno.”  But that is just not the case.  The fires in WTC7 were confined to a few floors and many had consumed their fuel (office furnishings) and gone out before the collapse just after 5 pm.   I’ve picked out some photographs to show the (lack of) extent of the fires.

Intro:  Summarizing the fire situation from NIST:

1.  What material was the building made from? 

Steel and cement (with glass windows).  The structure itself was not combustible.

2.  What set the fires initially?  

Debris falling from the North Tower started fires in WTC7 on several floors.

3.   What was the fuel of the fires? 

Office furnishings (such as desks, computers, paper, copy machines, etc).

4.   How did the fires spread across the floor? 

It moved from work station to work station.

5.   Was there fuel oil burning in the building? 

No.  Earlier reports suggested this possibility but NIST decided there was no fuel oil feeding the fires.

6.   Did fires spread from floor to floor? 

No.  The building was a Fire Resistance Class 1A building whose design resisted floor to floor spread.  Each fire was confined to the floor where it started and burned in the area where office furnishings were available as fuel.  When the fuel source was consumed, they went out.

7.   Was there anything flammable in the central core of the building? 

No.  The fires were fueled by office-furnishings located outside the core area (grey in the diagram below).  The core (dark blue) contained stairs, elevators, and utility lines but no combustible material. 

 

 

Lets look at some pictures.   A question to ponder as we review the pictures below:  Is it reasonable to expect burning office furniture to melt steel?  Many of us have wood burning stoves.  Does the steel of your wood stove sometimes melt when you put too much wood in it?

 

Lets look at the pictures taken between 2:30 pm and 5:00 pm when the fires were at their peak.

 

Picture 1:  About 4:00 pm.  A close up at of the 8th floor, currently burning, and the 7th floor, where fires have gone out.  (Pointing out the warped frames on windows in the lower right, the Daily Mail article explains that “the fire was so hot that it melted steel!”)

 

 

Picture 2:  Close up of a single burning floor on the east face.  Note the emergent flames and broken windows that signal a hot fire.

 

Picture 3:  The north face at 3:15 pm showing fires on floors 7 and 12.  Note that the overwhelming majority of the building is NOT on fire.  The great majority of the building was untouched by any fires at any time.

 

Picture 4:  The west face at 2:30 pm.  Damage on the upper floor is visible and lots of smoke.  But very little evidence of fire.

 

 

Picture 5:  An areal view of the west face.  Again, damage from the debris of the North Tower is seen but little fire.

 

Picture 6:  Northwest corner at 3:42 pm.  Note a single window with emergent flames.   Window breakage and smoke damage is seen on floors 7 and 8, evidence of earlier fires that have gone out.

 

Summary

What I am trying to point out here is that there were a few pockets of intense fires, areas where fire had burned out well before collapse, and that the great majority of the building was completely untouched by any fire at any time. 

This was not a wood-framed house fire:  it was a Class 1A building made of steel and cement and engineered for fire resistance.  When one of these collapses for the first time in history we need to really look closely at the situation.  (Especially when it drops vertically at free-fall speed and gives the largest military in the history of the Planet Earth carte blanche to wage war on every continent!  How handy!)

 

 

Is it feasible that explosives could be present in a building with a few isolated fires without extensive heat shielding?

 

1.  The design of an implosion typically begins by detonating the central core columns in multiple SUB-BASEMENT levels.  I have never heard basement fires mentioned in WTC7.  And, of course, the great majority of the building was not ever on fire at any point.

 

2.   The building core did not have office furnishings and would not have been on fire.  Explosives placed in the core would not have been exposed to heat. 

 

3.   DetCord could be run up the utility access routes through the core.  Or radio controlled detonators could be used.

 

 

bowskill's picture
bowskill
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 16 2012
Posts: 78
Motive

What motive might "deep state" have had for demolition of any WTC buildings? Grateful for the opinion of anyone for the demolition theory.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1623
Create a Great Myth

Though I was not at the planning meeting wink, the way that things unfolded since 9/11 suggest the role it was designed to play.  

David Ray Griffin, a theologian, explains in his paper and lecture:  9/11: The Myth and the Reality

According to the official story about 9/11, America, because of its goodness, was attacked by fanatical Arab Muslims who hate our freedoms. This story has functioned as a Sacred Myth for the United States since that fateful day. And this function appears to have been carefully orchestrated. The very next day, President Bush announced his intention to lead “a monumental struggle of Good versus Evil.” Then on September 13, he declared that the following day would be a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for the Victims of the Terrorist Attacks. And on that next day, the president himself, surrounded by Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi, and an imam, delivered a sermon in the national cathedral, saying:

 

(George Bush's speech)  "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of Evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. . . . In every generation, the world has produced enemies of human freedom. They have attacked America, because we are freedom’s home and defender. . . . [W]e ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come. . . . And may He always guide our country. God bless America."

Through this unprecedented event, in which the president of the United States issued a declaration of war from a cathedral, ...the American government consecrated its version of events. ... When anyone asks what right the administration has to invade and occupy other countries, to imprison people indefinitely without due process, or even to ignore various laws, the answer is always the same: “9/11.” Those who believe that US law and international law should be respected are dismissed as having “a pre-9/11 mind-set.”

The Great Myth of the 9/11 Attacks were spun to give the US Military the legal and moral justification to wage war on any nation, to assassinate hundreds of civilians, and to re-institute the practice of torturing prisoners of war-- all in the name of God.

bowskill's picture
bowskill
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 16 2012
Posts: 78
Motive continued

Thanks sand_puppy. So if that were true, surely just having planes hit the twin towers was enough? Why the need to help the story along by adding pre-positioned explosives? "deep state" took a huge risk by doing so.

Has anyone claimed to have been involved in the demolition and spoken out as a whistle blower? I just can't imagine how such a large group could conspire to cause such innocent collateral damage and not one of them speak up.

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 836
sandpuppy

Thanks for the effort you have put into this thread. Whenever I become complacent about things, I just watch a video of WTC7 again and it brings me back into focus. It has been that way for me for a long time now.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1623
Excellent questions, bowskill

Rebuilding a new understanding of what happened on 9/11 is a process.  It is intellectually challenging as you must read and integrate lots of new data, and you must address the many questions and contradictions that come up, exactly like you are doing with these questions.  And, as Sterling noted, the whole thing "is like a sucker punch to the gut."  And this information is not being brought to you by the media.  You have to dig it out for yourself.

Let me point you back to David Ray Griffin's  9/11:  The Myth and Reality lecture (on youtube) and the written paper linked above as he addresses 2 of the questions you raise.  This is a good starting place.  His book "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About Bush and 9/11" is also very good.

From his lecture:

Myth Number 3: Such a big operation, involving so many people, could not have been kept a secret, because someone involved in it would have talked by now.

 

This claim is based on a more general myth, which is that is impossible for secret government operations to be kept secret very long, because someone always talks. But how could we know this? If some big operations have remained secret until now, we by definition do not know about them. Moreover, we do know of big some operations that were kept secret as long as necessary, such as the Manhattan Project to create the atomic bomb, and the war in Indonesia in 1957, which the United States government provoked, participated in, and was able to keep secret from its own people until a book about it appeared in 1995. Many more examples could be given.

We can understand, moreover, why those with inside knowledge of 9/11 would not talk. At least most of them would have been people with the proven ability to keep secrets. Those who were directly complicit would also be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace and the gas chamber. Those people who had knowledge without being complicit could be induced to keep quiet by means of more or less subtle threats—such as: “Joe, if you go forward with your plans to talk to the press about this, I don’t know who is going to protect your wife and kids from some nutcase angered by your statement.” Still another fact is that neither the government nor the mainstream press has, to say the least, shown any signs of wanting anyone to come forward.

 

 

On the subject of the risk / benefit of blowing up the buildings in plain sight:

You will find that, incredibly, it is possible to HIDE an explosive demolition right in front of an intelligent person's eyes and not have them be able to see it.  You can show them an exploding building, and before they have time to think critically for themselves, a trusted authority says "It is collapsing" and they will nod and say "OK."  They then buy into that viewpoint, own it as a part of their identity, and will actually fight to defend it!

Much has been written about this phenomenon. It is amazing.

 

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2363
Bldg 7 "melted steel"

(Pointing out the warped frames on windows in the lower right, the Daily Mail article explains that “the fire was so hot that it melted steel!”)

It's not clear to me that those drooping strips are actually steel.. they may very well be non-structural Aluminum trim around the windows.  Aluminum melts at 1221 deg. F, 660 deg. C... much lower than steel.  

bowskill's picture
bowskill
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 16 2012
Posts: 78
sand_puppy I still don't get

sand_puppy I still don't get why they would have wanted to accentuate the plane crashes with pre-placed explosives - especially in WT7 which was not even hit.

Up until you posted this topic I had ignored such discussion as paranoia. But people that I have come to respect are weighing in on the side of the deep state demolition theory. Including yourself and even Chris. This has completely astonished me.

I have a good friend whom I also respect greatly other than that he is completely convinced that alien UFO's are flying through the sky over his house daily. He has online friends with whom he shares his observations and they collectively amass evidence to confirm their beliefs. 

Now I feel just like I would if I were to learn that PeakProsperity.com backs the alien UFO theory.

I mean no disrespect sand_puppy. I am just describing my own reaction. You have put a lot of thought into your position and it's not like a bloke down the pub saying after his fourth pint that the CIA done it. You really put some effort into this and put yourself on the line laying it out there. But for me to even begin to read more about this (the detailed engineering reports etc) is like acknowledging that maybe alien UFOs really do fly about under our noses.

If I may ask one more question. You described that moment for you as like a sucker punch to the gut. What was the single most compelling piece of evidence that got you to take this topic so seriously?

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5392
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.

 

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2363
Bowskill...

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

 

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1623
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.....

Boomer41's picture
Boomer41
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Posts: 130
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.

 

 

 

 

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
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.

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.

 

 

 

bowskill's picture
bowskill
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 16 2012
Posts: 78
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.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2363
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

 

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5392
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.

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?  

 

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
,,

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.

Bankers Slave's picture
Bankers Slave
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2012
Posts: 512
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.

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5392
Extraordinary Claims...

Darbs, well in the sense that I was looking for analysis and data rather than assertions and claims, I confess to not feeling very 'helped' right now.   At this point it would seem that conflicting belief systems are preventing progress here, but let's give this go nonetheless.

I'll begin where you ended:

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

Indeed, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence so we agree on that.  However, given that exactly zero steel framed class 1A buildings have ever collapsed due to fire before in history or after 9/11/01 I would submit to you that the official story is the extraordinary 'explanation' that requires extraordinary proof.

So far the investigatory lapses and lack of scientific rigor (see 'missing shear bolts' as prime example) fall far short of extraordinary, at least in the good way.

Next: 

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.

What I am claiming, as a scientist and as a logical person addicted to common sense, is that free fall indicates no resistance.  No resistance means the steel members below the free fall section were providing no resistance.  That is the claim, and it is not a 'conspiracy claim' as you seem intent on characterizing it, but a simple logical statement.

Next:

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.

Excellent.  That's a strong assertion that seems steeped in experience.  Now we can get to some data!

 Unfortunately after some mildly extensive Googling I could surface exactly zero examples of a modern steel frame building failing due to buckling, fire induced or otherwise.

I did find this top ten building failure list, but none of these really apply and, significantly, the list leaves off WTC 7 specifically, so I don't think it's a very definitive list.  Can you please provide better examples for study?  Let's get some other examples we can wrap our minds around to compare to the WTC hypothesis as put forth by NIST.

Next you made another strong assertion, but one that is completely in  error:

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.

Building demolitions happen lots of different ways, but the instantaneous and complete removal of all supports leading to a start to finish free fall experience is the rare form.

This video compilation of controlled demolitions reveals as much, and is kind of fascinating to watch.

Sometimes the technique of complete support removal is used, but far more often there is partial removal followed by the use of potential energy to complete the job.  Which only makes sense...why waste perfectly good explosives when you have so much potential energy at your disposal?

While I have not performed the frame by frame analysis of these or other demolition videos, by eye it's pretty apparent that many of them will have an initial period shuddering/collapse, a free fall period and then a final slower period as the debris pile and remaining structural integrity work themselves out as a slower rate of final collapse.

Yes, I have a bad habit of trusting my eyes.

But your final claim cannot be made given the actual practices of controlled demolition:

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.

There's no discrepancy unless you are making the claim that the only form of controlled demolition likely to have been used would have been the type where all structural elements are removed simultaneously. Since that's not necessary, and nobody here is making that claim, especially as the building in question is larger in size and therefore a good candidate for the use of potential energy, can you please share with us why you chose to adopt that assumption?

So we are still left with the 2.25 seconds of free fall which I claim indicate the absence of all resistance which you claim could easily be the result of:

  • Fire which reduced the load bearing capabilities of supporting columns leading to
  • Buckling and progressive failure

To these I would simply note that out of all of the images we have available to us of WTC 7 none of them show anything more than a very limited series of fires in a couple of spots on a couple of floors.  

The mechanism you propose, then, would be something like this?

  • Some structural damage occurs on the face of WTC 7 that is towards the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers.
  • This same damage leads to fires that spread throughout critical areas
  • The beams in these critical areas suffer loss of structural integrity due to the effects of fire
  • At a critical point a major beam buckles and fails leading to the instantaneous buckling failure of all other beams over the entire building such that all the visible corners drop in concert and experience 2.25 seconds of free fall
  • No elements in the outer wall construction had enough structural integrity to offer any appreciable resistance which explains the lack of observations of exterior wall buckling, distortions, or less than free fall speeds.

Is that about right?

Again, this is an extraordinary claim simply because it has never happened before or since.

Rather less extraordinary would be to note that such collapses happen every time a building undergoes controlled demolition.  you know, Occam's razor and all that.

Finally:

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

Well, we might have some evidence but NIST refused to conduct any tests for traces of explosives.  You might think, well why should they have? to which I would reply because it was the largest crime scene investigation in anybody's lifetime and it should have been done for the sake of completeness alone.

Heck I got tested for explosives the last time I flew.  It's a swipe and a readout.  Very simple. Not hard to do.  Should have been done simply to have been thorough.  Also the structural steel that allegedly failed should have been made available to outside review and investigators but it was not.  It was destroyed before anyone else could see it and over great protests by professional groups.

So given the complete lack of any historical examples to go upon, I end here by submitting back to you that the burden of extraordinary claims and proofs rests with the official position and narrative that a class 1A building suffered a progressive collapse due to fire and that we can both have a progressive collapse and free fall at the same time.

So I'll sit here with the simpler and more logical explanation until a stronger and better proof comes along.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments