My September 11 Thoughts

[QuickSilver]

@o0oTOPCATo0o

I realize that no minds will be changed here and that’s OK.
I just want to know why the 2008 NIST report said building 7 fell at 40% free fall speed. When a high school teacher challenged their findings, the final NIST report admitted that it fell at free fall speed. Why would they lie in initial reports? You can’t tell me that they goofed up something like that on accident.

Stop saying ridiculous things that you pulled completely out of context or simply fail to understand.

This link on the fallacy of the free fall theory was provided earlier in the thread. Honestly now, how much time have you spent reading it and the related site content compared to the time you’ve spent reading conspiracy theory sites?

[XT]

@o0oTOPCATo0o

I realize that no minds will be changed here and that’s OK.
I just want to know why the 2008 NIST report said building 7 fell at 40% free fall speed. When a high school teacher challenged their findings, the final NIST report admitted that it fell at free fall speed. Why would they lie in initial reports? You can’t tell me that they goofed up something like that on accident.

So, you actually think that the NIST team composed of experts in their field changed their final report because they were challenged by a high school teacher? Seriously, this makes sense to you?

Do you have a cite to back this up?

BTW, I found this site when digging around earlier. It’s got a bunch of videos, including a video titled Why did Building 7 Fell (YouTube link) which touches on the NIST model of the building 7 collapse.

[Czarcasm]

@o0oTOPCATo0o

I realize that no minds will be changed here and that’s OK.
I just want to know why the 2008 NIST report said building 7 fell at 40% free fall speed. When a high school teacher challenged their findings, the final NIST report admitted that it fell at free fall speed. Why would they lie in initial reports? You can’t tell me that they goofed up something like that on accident.

Can you please explain why we should treat you any different than a child that says “Why? Why? Why?” with no intention of actually listening to the answers? Every single one of the questions you have asked in this thread have already been asked and answered.

[XT]

Ok, so did a bit more digging (since I’m fairly sure o0oTOPCATo0o is either not going to reply to the request for cite or will handwave, dance and change the goal posts), and I found this:

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at World Trade Center Investigation), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at World Trade Center Investigation) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at World Trade Center Investigation).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

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.
Does this mean there are hundreds or thousands of unsafe tall buildings with long span supports that must be retrofitted in some way? How would you retrofit a building to prevent this problem?

While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, NIST strongly urges building owners, operators, and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of structural systems. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following characteristics: long-span floor systems, connections that cannot accommodate thermal effects, floor framing that induces asymmetric forces on girders, and composite floor systems, whose shear studs could fail due to differential thermal expansion (i.e., heat-induced expansion of material at different rates). Engineers should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.

My WAG is that o0oTOPCATo0o or his/her source was looking at the above, didn’t understand what was being said, and took this to mean that NIST was acknowledging the whole ‘free fall’ story about the collapse…or, felt that 40% was close enough to ‘free fall’ that it proved them right anyway. Or…something.

I’ll post the link to this YouTube video again here, which shows some of the NIST model going into the collapse progression. It’s a pretty short video, so I encourage anyone who has access to YouTube to check it out, as they briefly go into the collapse and seeing the visual of how the collapse progression happened is pretty intuitive and meaningful for future discussions about this stuff.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Latro

Well, how many people do you think would actually be in the know?

At least those that set the charges themselves. Those that acually affixed a device to a beam. I don’t think it would just be some innoccuos order like ‘put case M24 at that spot in elevator shaft x’. In order to cut a beam it must have been precisely placed.

Getting the stuff inside the buildings and near the designated spots would be quite easy, with nobody in the know, but one or two people giving orders to pack stuff and move it from A to B.
No one doing the packing, driving the stuff or getting it to the right floor needs to have any clue of what they are doing.

So how many people would be needed to place the carges, set detonators and actually pull the trigger?

5? 6?

Are you kidding me?

Do you know what is involved with placing charges for building demolition?
Do you have any freaking idea? Do you think they just slap the charge onto the column and run away like a movie?

First of all, I’ll ignore the massive logistical issues you are glossing over - namely 'where does the explosive come from?" Never mind that for now - here is a probably incomplete list of what is done to place charges:

First of all you cut the column as far as you can - usually at least 50% of the column is cut away in demolition projects because this not a case where you can just slap on more explosives easily.

Next you place the charge properly. Not a simple enough task as it involves the charge being supported in plcae while you do the following:

1. Wrap the charge in linen or other fabric
2. Wrap that bundle in thick copper bands
3. War that in carpeting (yes, carpeting)
4. Build a wood box around that bundle.

Then you have to attach the detonator and run the detcord to wherever you are initiating the explosives.

Now you may have noticed that this single charge comes with a lot of debris - cloth, copper bands, carpeting, wood. In addition the charge makes a very distinct mark on the columns that are cut. They end up with a very distinct cut with a purple sheen from the plasma.

Do I need to point out that none of these characteristics were found in the rubble?

[JohnT]

But… thermite! And orbs!

[42fish]

@Latro

Getting the stuff inside the buildings and near the designated spots would be quite easy, with nobody in the know, but one or two people giving orders to pack stuff and move it from A to B.
No one doing the packing, driving the stuff or getting it to the right floor needs to have any clue of what they are doing.

Because obviously none of these people are ever going to wonder “What was in those boxes without any identifying labels that I delivered to the WTC shortly before it collapsed?”

[running_coach]

@Mr.Miskatonic

Are you kidding me?

Do you know what is involved with placing charges for building demolition?
Do you have any freaking idea? Do you think they just slap the charge onto the column and run away like a movie?

Found this. Just to bring down a 452 ft high cooling tower.

Approximately 3,900 holes were drilled in the cooling tower to place explosive charges. Over 50% of the holes were located 120 feet above grade or higher.
Over 1,300 pounds of nitroglycerin-based explosive,13,000 feet of detonating cord ,900 non-electric detonators,and 2,000 feet of non-electric signal tubing were used.
The project was also deemed a success due to
completing the project one month ahead of schedule as well as
performing more than **18,500 man hours **of safe work

[Darth_Panda]

I still think George Bush pulled it off single handedly.

Yes, that’s right. He did it with one hand.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@o0oTOPCATo0o

I realize that no minds will be changed here and that’s OK.

That’s because it is very hard to convince anyone with crap you just invented and has no evidence whatsoever

I just want to know why the 2008 NIST report said building 7 fell at 40% free fall speed. When a high school teacher challenged their findings, the final NIST report admitted that it fell at free fall speed. Why would they lie in initial reports? You can’t tell me that they goofed up something like that on accident.

Q.E.D.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@42fish

Because obviously none of these people are ever going to wonder “What was in those boxes without any identifying labels that I delivered to the WTC shortly before it collapsed?”

…and that I was told to keep away from the bomb sniffing dogs that have been there since the '93 bombing.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@JohnT

But… thermite! And orbs!

And Wizards! Don’t forget the Wizards!
What? Wizards make more sense than anything truthers ever came up with.

[o0oTOPCATo0o]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6qwijRSdfo
Here is the video of the teacher asking NIST questions about the fall speed.

[XT]

@o0oTOPCATo0o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6qwijRSdfo
Here is the video of the teacher asking NIST questions about the fall speed.

Read post 204. Your guys question was asked and answered there. Look at the YouTube video I linked too in that same post to show the model.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@o0oTOPCATo0o

I realize that no minds will be changed here and that’s OK.

We are a fairly open-minded bunch, you know. If what you’re saying is true, it’s not that hard to get people to support you. Nobody here has any sort of religious conviction. The problem is just that none of what you’re saying even begins to hold water. Which is disappointing - you’d think if you had some big important thing to say, you’d do a better job of trying to convince people than, well, this:

I just want to know why the 2008 NIST report said building 7 fell at 40% free fall speed. When a high school teacher challenged their findings, the final NIST report admitted that it fell at free fall speed. Why would they lie in initial reports? You can’t tell me that they goofed up something like that on accident.

This would be pretty interesting evidence - maybe not of the conspiracy as a whole, but indeed that NIST isn’t quite as reliable as thought. But you know what’s missing? A citation. But okay, let me take your word for it, and check the NIST website…

Oh wait.

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.

…Huh. Maybe that’s why you didn’t provide a citation?

@Latro

Well, how many people do you think would actually be in the know?

At least those that set the charges themselves. Those that acually affixed a device to a beam. I don’t think it would just be some innoccuos order like ‘put case M24 at that spot in elevator shaft x’. In order to cut a beam it must have been precisely placed.

Getting the stuff inside the buildings and near the designated spots would be quite easy, with nobody in the know, but one or two people giving orders to pack stuff and move it from A to B.
No one doing the packing, driving the stuff or getting it to the right floor needs to have any clue of what they are doing.

So how many people would be needed to place the carges, set detonators and actually pull the trigger?

5? 6?

Maybe if they did it over the course of several years… The amount of work that goes into prepping a building for controlled demolition is really quite impressive. Not that CTers would know this, though…

[Czarcasm]

@o0oTOPCATo0o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6qwijRSdfo
Here is the video of the teacher asking NIST questions about the fall speed.

Less spewing, more listening.

[Latro]

@JohnT

But… thermite! And orbs!

Well, yes.
You don’t need all the wrapping and boxing. Some ducttape would be enough.
The drilling is for packing explosives inside concrete.
What is done for steel is, you cut the steel with torches and at the moment suprème you blow out the pre-cut piece with explosives.

For thermite you would’nt need to pre-cut the steel, just place a charge along a 45 degree angle and that’s it.
Everything could be done without extensive cabling, if you have the finances for remote ignition.

and that I was told to keep away from the bomb sniffing dogs that have been there since the '93 bombing.

Thermite is iron and alluminium, not explosives.

Because obviously none of these people are ever going to wonder “What was in those boxes without any identifying labels that I delivered to the WTC shortly before it collapsed?”

No, why would they look suspicious?

You do realize that while at the lobby there were checks for people coming in, but down below tons and tons of shit was driven in and out by lorry every single day.
Some 50.000 people ‘lived’ there that had to be supplied, every day.

Furthermore there was always some construction or maintenance going on.
As said it would be easy to get the stuff in and no-one would notice a guy with a tool belt going around

[XT]

From my earlier NIST link, this time on thermite:

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

NatGeo YouTube video on thermite.

[Czarcasm]

@Latro

Furthermore there was always some construction or maintenance going on. As said it would be easy to get the stuff in and no-one would notice a guy with a tool belt going around

This is absolute bullshit. Building security would know exactly what construction was going on where, which companies were allowed in to do the construction, and who authorized the construction in the first place. There would both paper and computer records of all this readily available.

[Latro]

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

I agree, apart from how much (nano?)thermite would be needed, keeping it in contact with the beam (at an angle?) would be something to overcome.
Plus that it would have to cut the steel, not just drip down.

But if those pictures from flowing steel 1 minute before the collapse and the weeks long continuous heat-reactions still taking place under ground are correct, we might assume that they actually overdid the quantity needed. Just to be sure.