(September 13, 2016 at 12:24 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: That smoke is still emanating from floors much lower than you'd claimed earlier, sorry.

Silly. Even from your street-level shots, it's clear that that fire is very low in the building. Are you even looking at what you're posting? Or is this copypasta?

(September 13, 2016 at 12:03 am)Arkilogue Wrote: And this is the official NIST report: https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laborat...estigation

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

Yeah, your source is verifying what I was telling you. Steel fails after prolonged heat exposure. Your own source says that it happened on the lower floors, just as I'd mentioned.

It may come as a surprise to you, but when supporting beams in a high-rise fail, the building cannot resist gravity so well. Collapse sometimes happens.

What do you think happened to cause that building to drop?

Be specific.

According to the official report the building failed at floor 13 due to fire, doesn't matter if it was from the heavens above or the devils asshole.

Forensic Structural Engineer Dr. Leroy Hulsey proves it could not have and points out the many omissions of necessary data in the NIST model.

WATCH. THE. VIDEO. Especially the end, start @ 15:26..... last time I post this...for science!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxG4lYyi...e=youtu.be

Why did the floor fail at 13? You realize stresses can be shared in a structure and that the weakest point will fail first, no?

Also, I notice you didn't answer my question. What do you think happened? Be specific.

I live out in the country and don't often watch videos, because my data plan is very limited. You'll have to put it into words. And please, no copypasta. I want your own opinion, the better if supported with links at salient points.

(September 13, 2016 at 12:50 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Why did the floor fail at 13?

You realize stresses can be shared in a structure and that the weakest point will fail first, no?

The NIST report says column 79 was pushed off it's girder due to thermal expansion of 5.5 inches.

The issue the Dr. found was found in their modeling having left out many connectors/bolts that would otherwise hold it back from expansion explained thoroughly @07:45 in the video. They left out A LOT.

Their conclusion was false based on incomplete data in there collapse model.

Where did that expansion happen?

(September 13, 2016 at 12:58 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Also, I notice you didn't answer my question. What do you think happened? Be specific.

I live out in the country and don't often watch videos, because my data plan is very limited. You'll have to put it into words. And please, no copypasta. I want your own opinion, the better if supported with links at salient points.

Oh what the hell, I think it was a controlled demo false flag and flight 93 was intended for building 7.

This this will explain the hypothesis: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread840964/pg1

So think about this, we have a timeline where flight 93 is hijacked and then the hijackers wait over 45 minutes to take over the plane, you have an airforce that can respond to a hijacked plane in 7 minutes, yet they waited 45 minutes to hijack flight 93- both towers had already been hit, surely hijackers would have hijacked the plane as early as possible and heading south straight away if they were heading to Washington DC.

As the article explains, the theory is that the 'hijacker's' plan was in fact to wait for both towers to have collapsed, thus leaving space to hit WTC7.

With the towers standing, a plane could not hit WTC7, but after both had collapsed, if flight 93 was in fact heading for New York, there would have been about twenty minutes after the second tower collapsing and then WTC7 being struck. They would have destroyed all the evidence with WTC7.

Flight 93 was speculated to have been heading to Washington DC, but that was the conclusion of the 9/11 comission, the diagram of the flight path shows it heading east, and arguably more in line with heading to New York than Washington DC.



Why would they risk all that time in the air, coming back from Ohio? They must have known they would be shot down… if they were terrorists with box cutters that is.

However, if “the terrorists” knew that multiple national security drills would be taking place that day and that NORAD rules had been changed in June of 2001 that kept NORAD commanders from giving the “intercept and engage” order, perhaps they would have known they had more time.

Perhaps, in that case, they would have known they had just enough time to circle around on a long exposed “hijacked” flight just long enough for both towers to “collapse” just as they made it back to downtown Manhattan.

And that is exactly why they waited so long. They were waiting for a clear path to Building 7.

---

(September 13, 2016 at 1:08 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Where did that expansion happen?

I'm sure you can thumb through the NIST report yourself. I'm not your google....bud.

---

From: http://911blogger.com/news/2013-07-09/so...e-analysis

Gregory Szuladzinski, Anthony Szamboti and Richard Johns
"Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis"
International Journal of Protective Structures.
http://multi-science.metapress.com/conte...h25254748/

Errors in Progressive Column Failure (PCF) Collapse Hypothesis
Following (perhaps substantially oversimplified) is my take on the key errors identified in the PCF hypothesis by the authors of this paper:

1. Adherents to the PCF hypothesis (Bazant's theory) underestimated the energy absorption capacity of the buildings' columns as they begin to deform. PCF doesn't take into account the stoutness of the World Trade Center columns.
2. PCF's underestimate of the strength of the deformed columns leads to an assumed free fall for most of the crushing of the first story. Measurements of the actual collapse of that floor demonstrate a constant speed consistent with significant resistance from deformed columns. The building did not approach free fall acceleration in that first story as assumed by the PCF model.
3. Evidence in the model and from statements within the papers of the PCF adherents demonstrate that the PCF hypothesis ignored the fact that the collapse began as a static event.

Other errors identified in the PCF theory of World Trade Center (WTC) towers collapses:

1. The mass of the upper portion of the building above the crash site was significantly overstated as used in the PCF model.
2. Other papers have demonstrated that even when making the PCF erroneous assumption that columns quickly lose strength after they begin to deform, the total collapse time couldn't be less than 15.3 seconds. Since the collapse was much faster and since the starting assumption of columns giving way to free fall (giving the upper part of the building more speed as it comes to the end of the collapse of the first story) are demonstrably wrong (based on measurement of the buildings collapse speed), the PCF theory is not a viable hypothesis of the collapse.

Summary:

In order for PCF to work one must substantially over estimate the weight of the upper collapsing portion of the building, substantially underestimate the strength of deforming columns, and model the collapse as a continuous (non-static) event in a set of black box differential equations rather than a floor-by-floor explanation of the event. These errors in the PCF approach mean that the smooth and fast collapse of the WTC towers have not been shown to be a "natural gravitational collapse."

http://911speakout.org/wp-content/upload...alysis.pdf

---

Page 26 http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/...6-47-4.pdf

The case of WTC 7
The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown
in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature
features of an implosion: The building dropped
in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent
over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its
transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring
in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically
straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered
and deposited mostly inside the building’s
footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into
tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring
in less than seven seconds.

Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation
adhering to the scientific method should have seriously
considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not
started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a
preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began
with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was
caused by fires.

Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was
apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded
by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how
they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at
this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises
contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, meanwhile,
had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report
from mid-2005 to November 2008. As late as March 2006,
NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as
saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble
getting a handle on building No. 7.”

So basically you're saying that the government managed to sneak thousands of pounds of explosives into the towers, with none of the tens of thousands of people working there ever noticing anything? Not to mention the number of people necessary to do such a task--none of whom breathed a word to anyone.

And of course you also have two basic assumptions made afterthefact:

Either:

A. The victims of the twin towers and the pentagon were never really killed, and all of them were in on it and sent somewhere else (and none of whom ever came back to reveal they were alive to their surely grieving children and widows (or they too were in on it, which is ridiculous because that just adds even MORE people who could have talked at any point)

or

B. The government used a needlessly complicated approach to commit a false flag attack on the twin towers and the pentagon, and killed 3000 people. Instead of just... you know, planning the attacks themselves as they happened as know it.

(September 13, 2016 at 1:15 am)Arkilogue Wrote: Oh what the hell, I think it was a controlled demo false flag and flight 93 was intended for building 7.

This this will explain the hypothesis: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread840964/pg1

So think about this, we have a timeline where flight 93 is hijacked and then the hijackers wait over 45 minutes to take over the plane, you have an airforce that can respond to a hijacked plane in 7 minutes, yet they waited 45 minutes to hijack flight 93- both towers had already been hit, surely hijackers would have hijacked the plane as early as possible and heading south straight away if they were heading to Washington DC.

We've got a lot of experience with terrorists who delay a second attack until the first responders are already committed. Is it not possible that they had that in mind?

Your point here is built on a large and unsupported assumption.

(September 13, 2016 at 1:15 am)Arkilogue Wrote: As the article explains, the theory is that the 'hijacker's' plan was in fact to wait for both towers to have collapsed, thus leaving space to hit WTC7.

Well, Allah must have been with them, for even as Flight 93 fell hundreds of miles short, WTC7 still fell hundreds of feet to the ground.

(September 13, 2016 at 1:15 am)Arkilogue Wrote: With the towers standing, a plane could not hit WTC7, but after both had collapsed, if flight 93 was in fact heading for New York, there would have been about twenty minutes after the second tower collapsing and then WTC7 being struck. They would have destroyed all the evidence with WTC7.

Flight 93 wasn't headed for New York. Here's its flight path. The ESE heading before resistance was carrying it at least 200 miles south of NYC.

(September 13, 2016 at 1:15 am)Arkilogue Wrote: Flight 93 was speculated to have been heading to Washington DC, but that was the conclusion of the 9/11 comission, the diagram of the flight path shows it heading east, and arguably more in line with heading to New York than Washington DC.

Not so -- look at the above diagram.

As for speculation, it's funny you should bring that up as a criticism, considering the first paragraph of your post here.

(September 13, 2016 at 1:15 am)Arkilogue Wrote: Why would they risk all that time in the air, coming back from Ohio? They must have known they would be shot down… if they were terrorists with box cutters that is.

However, if “the terrorists” knew that multiple national security drills would be taking place that day and that NORAD rules had been changed in June of 2001 that kept NORAD commanders from giving the “intercept and engage” order, perhaps they would have known they had more time.

Perhaps, in that case, they would have known they had just enough time to circle around on a long exposed “hijacked” flight just long enough for both towers to “collapse” just as they made it back to downtown Manhattan.

And that is exactly why they waited so long. They were waiting for a clear path to Building 7.

What's this? More speculation? Forgive my chuckling, but you're using the same methodology you're criticizing.

(September 13, 2016 at 1:15 am)Arkilogue Wrote: I'm sure you can thumb through the NIST report yourself.  I'm not your google....bud.

I've got better things to do that jump down rabbit-holes.

If you want to change minds, you'll need to present your data, evidence, and support your arguments yourself.

If you don't want to change minds, then why are you posting this crap at all?

Same page

When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed
it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that
has no structural components below it.” But in the case
of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance
that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high
school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics
professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article),
who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowledge
a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report. Yet
NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall,
nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have
had “no structural components below it” for eight stories.

Instead, NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario
involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the
thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoining
girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder
then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor
failures, which, combined with the failure of two other
girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left
a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to
buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated
the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the
exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns
then allegedly buckled over a two-second period
and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3].

NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting
or misrepresenting critical structural features in its
computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these
errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably
impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to
its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model
(see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead
showing large deformations to the exterior that are not
observed in the videos and showing no period of free
fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation,
less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse.
Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be
independently verified because NIST has refused to release
a large portion of its modelling data on the basis
that doing so “might jeopardize public safety."

(September 12, 2016 at 11:34 pm)Cecelia Wrote:

(September 12, 2016 at 10:43 pm)Sterben Wrote: It's not that I don't care, for me to show a concern for an issue I always ask myself one question. Is the situation relevant to me? I then exam the info I do know at the time and figure out my answer. For the 9-11 I used the exact same method of thinking, I paused my conversation with my friends for brief moment; I came to conclusion that it was not for the moment and went back to what I was doing. Did that action make me a bad American? I don't think so, it just makes me self-centered.

It means you lack empathy.

For the most part your right, I don't remember a national tredgey that really made me feel any different from my average personality. I have empathy for those few in my direct socal circle, but that's about it. I know I have personality disorders, which does not bother me at all. It's just the way I was raised, ever since I was child I always pursed my own interests.