science proves twin towers were demolished

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I would suspect, but I haven't looked into this at all, that the core of the building (or some part of its interior) collapsed first while the perimeter (or at least the part of the perimeter measured on the video) stayed pretty much in place. The core would have picked up some speed before it ripped down the perimeter around it. For a short time the perimeter would have collapsed not only from its own weight, but from the transferred momentum of the already-collapsing core.

This is basically my understanding of NIST's conclusions, although they add that the inner column is connected to the outer perimeter with floor beams, which would yank the outer columns over as the inner column collapsed, rendering the outer perimeter columns useless.

 

But NIST has explained this in great detail in their report, so I suggest we defer to them.

[ewmon]

As threads like this continue on and on, I like to point out a few things.

 

• Although I haven't read through all posts in detail, I seriously doubt that many, if any, posters here are explosives and/or structural engineers/experts. What both sides end up doing is quoting sources without really knowing what they're talking about. I don't advocate against any such threads or posts, but at least to realize their limitations, especially in a scientific sense, that we are mostly ill-prepared to discuss actual facts.
   
  
• Bear with me on this one. In life, we have two choices: to look/observe, or to live/exist. Basically, the world advances with partial knowledge, which is part of our failings as humans. So-called "cover-ups" exist, mostly unintentionally, because people can only look so much without having to move on with living. For example, amid all the structural wreckage, lay the remains of 3.000 adult humans. At say, 150 pounds each, that's a half a million pounds of decomposing human remains. Theoretically, experts could have spent eternity sifting through the wreckage, documenting all sorts of evidence in support of every possibility that came to mind. However, there comes a point, either in formulating the investigative plans or in their execution, where people make decisions to move on with life (ie, clearing up the debris, burying human remains, and rebuilding) instead of continuing to observe/record.
   
  
• As free as the world is about speaking out about everything, documenting/discussing it online, etc, a conspiracy here would require the tremendous muzzling of countless architectural and explosives experts around the world. I have seen very little evidence of these experts proposing alternative explanations of the collapse of the towers other than the planes crashing into them.
   
  
• Our mental faculties cannot easily grasp the significance of various facts regarding monumental unique events, such as 9-11, Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, etc. We have difficulties quantifying, categorizing and/or understanding the various facts involved in such events. We know the conspiracy theory about knowingly allowing the attack on Pearl Harbor to get us into WW2, but a nearly identical conspiracy theory existed a generation earlier about knowingly allowing the sinking of the RMS Lusitania to get us into WW1. Yet does anyone consider/remember the Black Tom Explosion and the Kingsland Explosion as helping move America into the war? Conspiracy theories fade over time and, most likely, end when their proponents themselves expire. Their only benefit goes to the authors whose books people buy.
   
  
• I myself have a theory about conspiracy theorists (Aha!). Like the drug addict who chases after drugs to try to experience that first phenomenal high they once experienced long ago, conspiracy theorists seem to want to expose a conspiracy because one once happened to them. Maybe they experienced the conspiracy to cover up a priest molesting them, etc, etc. Whatever the cause, conspiracy theorists seem too predisposed and eager to believe in conspiracies simply for the sake of acknowledging that conspiracies exist. They seem predisposed to believe in conspiracies, with emphasis on "predisposed", and the event itself doesn't seem to matter, but simply that there must be a conspiracy behind it.
  

[md65536]

I would suspect, but I haven't looked into this at all, that the core of the building (or some part of its interior) collapsed first while the perimeter (or at least the part of the perimeter measured on the video) stayed pretty much in place. The core would have picked up some speed before it ripped down the perimeter around it. For a short time the perimeter would have collapsed not only from its own weight, but from the transferred momentum of the already-collapsing core.

Yes, the video evidence is consistent with this idea.

1) The top central part is seen beginning to fall before the surrounding part.

2) The plot of rooftop height has a sharp initial change in velocity instead of the smooth curve of constant acceleration.

 

This means that the outer part of the building actually fell faster than free-fall at the start, as it was pulled down. Since the outer part's average speed was roughly that of free-fall, it would have accelerated at a lower rate than free-fall later on. The inner core could fall slower than free-fall, consistent with NIST's report.

 

 

This is consistent with controlled demolition. I think that it strengthens the case for controlled demolition. It means that the outer portion of the building was supported for longer than the inner core was supported. This would happen if only the inner main support was demolished, as is typically done with controlled demolition.

 

 

If someone can provide a reasonable explanation for the official case, where debris from outside the building must have severely damaged the inner core of the building, but left the outer part structurally sound, that would certainly increase my confidence in the official story. As it stands, I must conclude that the official story requires either that debris weakened the core while leaving the exterior structurally intact, or that neither were significantly weakened by debris and that fire alone (using only the building and its contents as fuel) caused a near simultaneous structural failure of all of the building's interior supports.

Edited November 17, 2011 by md65536

[Iggy]

If some can provide a reasonable explanation for the official case, where debris from outside the building must have severely damaged the inner core of the building, but left the outer part structurally sound, that would certainly increase my confidence in the official story.

The official report has debris causing the collapse?

[md65536]

There's your assertion that "nor was its structure compromised by debris" which is odd. It was clearly hit by a lot of debris- there is no evidence that the debris didn't do any damage?

The official report has debris causing the collapse?

I was going by information in the thread.

If the official story is that debris didn't contribute to the collapse, then it must be that fire alone (using only the building and its contents as fuel) caused a near simultaneous structural failure of all of the building's interior supports.

If the official story is that debris was significant in the destruction of the inner columns, it (and the fire) was still insufficient to completely compromise the structural integrity of the outer support (at least timely enough that the outer building could fall on its own -- it was pulled down by the inner supports as we've agreed).

 

 

[Iggy]

I was going by information in the thread.

Sorry, I'm playing catch up.

 

If the official story is that debris was significant in the destruction of the inner columns, it (and the fire) was still insufficient to completely compromise the structural integrity of the outer support (at least timely enough that the outer building could fall on its own -- it was pulled down by the inner supports as we've agreed).

I'm reading the wikipedia entry to get an idea...

 

In November 2008, NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.[8] This followed their August 21, 2008 draft report which included a period for public comments.[35] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[44] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near Column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, Column 79 soon buckled – pulling the East penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the entire building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#9.2F11_and_collapse

 

It sounds like the core went first. That would seem to support our deduction, but that's just going off a small wiki entry. I really know next to nothing about this topic.

 

If the official story is that debris didn't contribute to the collapse, then it must be that fire alone (using only the building and its contents as fuel) caused a near simultaneous structural failure of all of the building's interior supports.

Here are a couple images:

 

http://doujibar.ganriki.net/english/e-wtc7/wtc7-nist-diagram1.jpg

 

http://cinemaelectronica.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/wtc7_column-79-collapse.jpg

 

of column 79. If the collapse went east to west from that point I'm sure it would happen quite quickly.

 

Can we figure out which side of the building the acceleration is measured in the video?

Edited November 17, 2011 by Iggy

[md65536]

Can we figure out which side of the building the acceleration is measured in the video?

I believe it's viewed from midtown.

This video shows multiple angles:

Not a lot more to see, but the upper left video shows that the northwest and southwest corners of the building fell in unison.

 

 

I still have no confidence in the official report, but I can't prove (beyond the evidence I've already posted) that the very rapid domino-effect collapse described on wikipedia, is impossible.

 

If you think that the official explanation is reasonable, after considering the counter arguments, enough that you have no doubt in the validity of that explanation, then I don't think I can change your mind.

[John Cuthber]

Thanks for providing a link like this; t was very funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DonpXB6gjPA#t=8m16s

where by using thermate rather than thermite

Adding a hydraulic ram and some tungsten sheets.

Then enclosing it a welded steel box

and finally bolting it to the column you can indeed cut the column ( though it doesn't actually break- you have to work on it later.

That proves my point. You can't cut girders with thermite.

 

In some circumstances you might cut it with thermate (which burns a lot hotter and more fiercely)

Does anyone think that is important?

I mean- do you not think someone would have noticed someone drilling holes in all the girders (many of which won't have been accessible, and adding tons of thermate

(incidentally there wasn't evidence of thermate at all. The evidence for thermite was bad enough- but there really was no thermate there).

I thought I should add this.

 

 

 

3) The Bush administration destroyed evidence and fought against independent investigation. This is not evidence of anything in particular, but it is suspicious. I don't accept as fact any scientific conclusion where the evidence is kept secret, destroyed, or made unscrutinizable. The Bush administration very literally was hiding something, which while unknown, makes their official "scientific" findings unreliable.

 

 

5) Testimony of individuals having foreknowledge that the towers would be demolished.

 

 

In one case you say that you will not believe a group of scientist.

In the other case you say you will believe a group of self appointed experts.

 

Can I ask you if you are sure that is anything other than prejudice?

Edited November 17, 2011 by John Cuthber

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This is consistent with controlled demolition. I think that it strengthens the case for controlled demolition. It means that the outer portion of the building was supported for longer than the inner core was supported. This would happen if only the inner main support was demolished, as is typically done with controlled demolition.

As often happens when an airplane crashes into your central support columns, as well.

 

If someone can provide a reasonable explanation for the official case, where debris from outside the building must have severely damaged the inner core of the building, but left the outer part structurally sound, that would certainly increase my confidence in the official story. As it stands, I must conclude that the official story requires either that debris weakened the core while leaving the exterior structurally intact, or that neither were significantly weakened by debris and that fire alone (using only the building and its contents as fuel) caused a near simultaneous structural failure of all of the building's interior supports.

I'd suggest reading the NIST report if you want an explanation of the official case. We're not structural engineers.

 

It's really quite readable.

[md65536]

Also, re " I don't accept as fact any scientific conclusion where the evidence is kept secret, destroyed, or made unscrutinizable" Logically you don't believe in a lot of things then.

Yes, I don't believe in a lot of things. Is it not also that way for you? Are there only a few things you don't believe?

 

 

 

 

That proves my point. You can't cut girders with thermite.

I say the video proves that it's possible to cut girders with thermite (or thermate).

 

 

 

In one case you say that you will not believe a group of scientist.

In the other case you say you will believe a group of self appointed experts.

 

Can I ask you if you are sure that is anything other than prejudice?

I call it "science". Edit: Sorry, I misread that... I thought they were both "not believe". My evidence #5 didn't involve "experts" but people directly involved in conversations about plans to demolish the buildings. No, my confidence in their testimony is not 100%. I've already agreed that point #5 can be ignored.

 

Quote:

 

The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don't know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.

-- Richard Feynman

 

When you provide evidence that the official explanation is plausible, it increases my confidence in that.

When you show that a simpler possibility is comparably likely, it decreases my confidence that a conspiracy theory is the correct conclusion.

I should hope that the converse is true for all of us, but it appears not to be so.

 

 

If someone's claim (no matter how much of an expert/s they are) goes against my understanding of the world and against common sense, then the science has to be pretty damn convincing before I'll accept it. NIST's science is suspect.

Edited November 17, 2011 by md65536

[John Cuthber]

Yes, I don't believe in a lot of things. Is it not also that way for you? Are there only a few things you don't believe?

Both sets are infinite so a strict comparison is meaningless.

But you don't seem to have answered my direct question.

Do you believe that men landed on the moon?

[md65536]

As often happens when an airplane crashes into your central support columns, as well.

Not relevant to WTC 7.

[John Cuthber]

"I say the video proves that it's possible to cut girders with thermite (or thermate)."

That is an absurd position to take.

It's like saying

"Here is a video of someone cutting steel plate with an oxyacetylene torch. That proves it's possible to cut steel sheet with a candle (or an oxyacetylene torch)"

It's technically a true statement, but it's irrelevant.

There was no thermate.

[Iggy]

I believe it's viewed from midtown.

Right, that would have to make sense -- otherwise the camera would be over the water. It does seem to me then that the report is right about it progressing east to west.

 

I still have no confidence in the official report, but I can't prove (beyond the evidence I've already posted) that the very rapid domino-effect collapse described on wikipedia, is impossible.

It does make sense to me that if the core went first it could help yank the perimeter down, at least briefly, and especially on the west side. I wouldn't want to say for sure how possible it is without knowing more, but it does seem reasonable to me.

 

If you think that the official explanation is reasonable, after considering the counter arguments, enough that you have no doubt in the validity of that explanation, then I don't think I can change your mind.

The thing for me though -- if I had doubts as far as the validity of the official explanation it wouldn't make me think controlled demolition or conspiracy. On the contrary, it would seem weird if such unique circumstances were completely explained and understood.

[md65536]

Both sets are infinite so a strict comparison is meaningless.

But you don't seem to have answered my direct question.

Do you believe that men landed on the moon?

Really, this comment is rated up? I thought it was kind of off-topic.

 

Fine, I'll answer it.

 

Yes, I believe that men landed on the moon. I've seen evidence in favor of and opposed to the claim. All the evidence that I've seen against it can be simply and plausibly explained in ways that are consistent with humans having actually landed on the moon. It was certainly a situation outside normal human existence, so like 9/11 it evokes many conspiracy theories. But unlike 9/11, the official story regarding the details of space travel do not contradict basic high school-level physics etc.

 

 

Here's a direct question for you, in return:

Do you think that the US government has never lied to the country to justify either entering into armed conflicts or acquiring additional authoritative power?

 

 

[PhDwannabe]

Do you think that the US government has never lied to the country to justify either entering into armed conflicts or acquiring additional authoritative power?

I really do want you to answer this question, which can be covered, I think, with a simple yes or no.

 

Do you really believe that it is plausible that the US government orchestrated the demolition of the World Trade Center, by some means other than fuel-loaded jets, and has managed to keep this secret—which literally thousands of people would almost certainly have to be in on—for a decade without any credible source coming forward and outing this plot to the national media or populace, without any clear smoking-gun evidence widely accepted by not even just large government science agencies but the thousands of independent scientists in the country who owe no specific allegiance to the US government, without any documents widely accepted as valid, without any tape recordings or e-mails which unequivocally or even largely point towards a government plan to demolish one of the largest offices in the world in what seems like a vastly and unbelievably unnecessary—indeed, cartoon villainous, almost Michael Bay-esque—step towards the acquisition of "authoritative power," seemingly with well-placed explosives, in the middle of Manhattan on a Tuesday morning?

Edited November 18, 2011 by PhDwannabe

[md65536]

I really do want you to answer this question, which can be covered, I think, with a simple yes or no.

Sure, I'll answer it if you answer mine. Mine can also be answered yes or no, though an explanation of any answer would be acceptable because I know it's not really simple.

[PhDwannabe]

Here's a direct question for you, in return:<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">Do you think that the US government has never lied to the country to justify either entering into armed conflicts or acquiring additional authoritative power?

 

You weren't asking me. But my answer is "no."

[md65536]

Do you really believe that it is plausible that the US government orchestrated the demolition of the World Trade Center, by some means other than fuel-loaded jets, and has managed to keep this secret—which literally thousands of people would almost certainly have to be in on—for a decade without any credible source coming forward and outing this plot to the national media or populace, without any clear smoking-gun evidence widely accepted by not even just large government science agencies but the thousands of independent scientists in the country who owe no specific allegiance to the US government, without any documents widely accepted as valid, without any tape recordings or e-mails which unequivocally or even largely point towards a government plan to demolish one of the largest offices in the world in what seems like a vastly and unbelievably unnecessary—indeed, cartoon villainous, almost Michael Bay-esque—step towards the acquisition of "authoritative power," seemingly with well-placed explosives, in the middle of Manhattan on a Tuesday morning?

My answer to this is also, "no".

 

Right, that would have to make sense -- otherwise the camera would be over the water. It does seem to me then that the report is right about it progressing east to west.

 

 

It does make sense to me that if the core went first it could help yank the perimeter down, at least briefly, and especially on the west side. I wouldn't want to say for sure how possible it is without knowing more, but it does seem reasonable to me.

The NIST explanation is that a beam was knocked off its seat.

If you watch the video of the collapse, and consider that an east section of the building is unsupported and begins to fall, pulling the westward sections off their support, allowing them to fall, does this seem reasonable? The east section begins to fall only slightly before the west. Look at the very short distance that the east section falls before completely removing the support of the west sections.

 

Another possibility is that the westward supports were already removed before the east side began to collapse. For example, if an eastward beam was knocked off its seat and collapsed, pulling and breaking westward supports, and then the unsupported top/outer structure began to fall. This would mean that the support structure was completely compromised by fire without using any of the kinetic energy of the collapsing building to help demolish the supports. Does this seem reasonable?

 

There may be other reasonable possibilities. The NIST explanation does not seem plausible to me, but I can't prove at this point that none of these possibilities are at all possible.

 

 

 

The thing for me though -- if I had doubts as far as the validity of the official explanation it wouldn't make me think controlled demolition or conspiracy. On the contrary, it would seem weird if such unique circumstances were completely explained and understood.

 

Wouldn't that make you want it to be investigated more, before you accepted the explanation that you doubted?

 

Conspiracy theories often arise when the accepted explanation doesn't make sense to people, and they're forced to consider alternatives that do. The problem is that a lot of things that have good scientific explanations, don't make sense to a lot of people. Then others group all doubters of "the official explanation" as conspiracy nuts ("if you think the NIST findings are dubious then obviously you think the moon landing was faked too" etc).

 

The question of this thread involves whether an explanation of the 3 towers' collapse is scientifically valid without involving controlled demolition.

[John Cuthber]

 

Here's a direct question for you, in return:

Do you think that the US government has never lied to the country to justify either entering into armed conflicts or acquiring additional authoritative power?

 

I'm perfectly certain it did.

The Iraq war is the most blatantly obvious case in point.

They said it was the "War on terror"

 

 

They tried to lie about it, but the truth came out.

So now we know that:

You can't have a war on terror because nobody can sign the armistice.

They attacked the wrong country.

 

This proves that they are not good at keeping secrets.

Why do you think they managed to keep the 9/11 conspiracy secret, but failed miserably with the war?

[md65536]

Why do you think they managed to keep the 9/11 conspiracy secret, but failed miserably with the war?

I don't know. Failing to keep one secret does not prove that no secrets can be kept. The answer is related to the answer to "How did the truth come out about the Iraq war?" As OP said,

 

How can this remain ignorned by scientists throughout America? We need to speak up!

Many people are speaking up but they're still being ignored.

Perhaps a key difference is that much of the 9/11 evidence (for either side) is scientific and highly technical; perhaps the evidence related to Iraq was easier for average people to understand, or harder to hide behind intricate explanations.

 

Another aspect is that 9/11 is history, while the Iraq was ongoing, and perhaps there was the ultimately false sense that exposing the lie could prevent the continuation of the war. Many people seem to just not care, perhaps believing that nothing like 9/11 will ever happen again, as per the old saying in Tennessee, "Fool me — You can't get fooled again."

 

Personally I prefer, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," as authorities certainly learn from what they do and don't get away with.

 

 

 

But like I said, if NIST's science made more sense to me I'd be more confident in their version.

[Iggy]

The NIST explanation is that a beam was knocked off its seat.

If you watch the video of the collapse, and consider that an east section of the building is unsupported and begins to fall, pulling the westward sections off their support, allowing them to fall, does this seem reasonable? The east section begins to fall only slightly before the west.

I think the east penthouse collapses into the building about 5 seconds before the core goes... if that's what you mean.

[md65536]

I think the east penthouse collapses into the building about 5 seconds before the core goes... if that's what you mean.

I see now. On the first video I posted they've cut that part out, making it seem like the 6.6-second collapse of the outer part is the entirety of the collapse. That certainly damages the credibility of the claims made in the video.

[morgsboi]

You need to watch a program called: loose change. Heres a link on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3MN9382eGY

 

 

It's really good and contains tonnes of evidence. Sorry but your not the first to discover.

[md65536]

The Iraq war is the most blatantly obvious case in point.

The Loose Change link reminds me of something else.

 

The Iraq war lie was exposed but I don't remember anyone facing any consequences for the lie. Clinton was impeached for lying about sex.

A large percentage (I remember ~35% but the first link on Google says 84%! http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm) of people think that 9/11 was a lie, among them both experts and lay people.

 

That proves nothing about whether or not they're right, but it does show that exposing the lies doesn't necessarily mean that anything will be done about it. This wasn't kept secret for a decade. People know about it. People demand answers, and are ignored.

 

 

 

I'd also like to speculate on ways that the conspiracy could have been pulled off without a lot of people "in" on it, but it would require a lot of guesses and would be unlikely to be correct. I'm sure that whatever really happened makes a lot more sense than anything I could imagine, and NIST's version of things as well.

 

 

 

 

If anyone's still interested in discussing the science of it, the biggest mystery for me at the moment is the glowing molten metal that is seen dripping from one of the towers. I think that the official explanation has been debunked.